Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About bkthunder

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @NineLine do you think this will be fixed in a timely fashion or is it going to take years like for the wind bug? I can't wait to go back to the F-5...
  2. Do you know that you can place any number of animated crew in Mission Editor and create a life on the carrier yourself? Yes, however I don't consider a few stationary figures hand-placed here and there to be a "life"
  3. Thanks to the free week (which is GREAT!) I had a chance to try the SC module, as I have been eyeing it for a while now. I just want to share some thoughts and this isn't, by all means, intended as bashing. What I enjoyed: - the correct size carrier. Although we shouldn't have to pay extra to have a correct size carrier at all, and the free Stennis should be fixed!! - the catapult crew that helps lining up - The carrier 3d model and details - The catapult views, even though I wish they were stabilized on the deck, so you don't see the pitching.
  4. How can I avoid it? It just starts to spin around and literally f**** up every shot
  5. Might seems like a small thing, but if you are flying realistically while your opponent pulls the paddle and turns at 9G, you have no chance whatever you try. So agree on the rules, if he/she uses the paddle, then you will have to use it too or find someone less arcadey. Also, due to the unrealistically slow engine response in the Hornet, if you don't use the paddle you have a big risk of going too fast: e.g. you are turning at 370 kts in full A/B, as soon as you drop the nose a bit it'll start to speed up, and by the time you pull back on the throttles and the engines react
  6. I reported this "8. Up aileron travel is incorrectly reduced when the flaps are set to HALF or FULL. The ailerons retain their full range of motion even when the flaps are extended and the ailerons droop to match. »" long, long ago. First the thread was locked, then i provided pictures, then I wasn't believed anyway, and finally it was deemed low priority. Lol.
  7. I have a **very** strong suspect that ED misread the chart at page I-2-2 of the NATOPS and forgot to subtract FLT-IDLE and MIL to obtain the result.
  8. Long standing bug, (already reported with track, but missing link due to new forum). I thought it was going to get fixed with the wind bug, but it's still here. Very easy to reproduce and check. Going from IDLE to e.g. 90% RPM, the values for fuel flow, EGT and nozzle position are completely different than if you go MIL and then back to 90%. In other words, if you throttle BACK from MIL to xxRPM, you get higher thrust (and higher EGT, Fuel flow etc), than if you were IDLE and throttle UP to xxRPM This is consistent at any altitude/speed/tempera
  9. No snarkyness intended. I'm just very puzzled by how you look at the problem. "Why should you"? Well, for instance because you're coming off the target and you have a bandit on your ass, full throttle and, oh look, M 1.6! It doesn't take some "special skills" or a crazy maneuver to do this. But the real question you should be asking is, why does the FM allow you to reach M 1.6? And besides, apart from this specific bomb-drop related bug, the FM regularly allows you to reach M 1.06 in level flight, which is also unrealistic as far as the available references suggest.
  10. Why would a Harrier accelerate to mach 1.6? I'm also confused. A clean F-18 in full afterburner takes several minutes to reach mach 1.6, at high altitude, not at 12k feet! And yet you seem to think it's normal that a Harrier gets to mach 1.6 at full throttle, and somehow this is user / pilot error. The massively draggy air intakes of the Harrier won't make it past mach 1 because they have no way to slow down the incoming air. The engine would seize. Good that you passed it to the devs, 'cause it's definitely a bug
  11. Nobody mentioned it but the FLCS rules are still based on the NASA test paper which IS NOT how the FLCS works in the operational F-16. The g-onset rate is too low and can't even reach 9g at the correct speed. The negative g is also limited, the real a/c has a limit of -3.5g. But they said this is all WIP. The engine is also pretty weird, RPM values are specially off. Not sure if this translates into reduced thrust in game.
  12. Sorry but, are you an F-16CM block 50 (circa 2007) pilot? ED have SMEs and DCS, while not perfect, is by far the best and most accurate flight simulator on the market. The bug section exists for users to report bugs, but as you see this bug has been labelled as "Need Reference", which means it's definitely not enough for anyone to just come here and say "logic says that rubber chocks that are 4 inches high will not stop a 131Kn engine from pushing the aircraft past them". It also doesn't help to post articles related to different aircraft such as the block 40, in different condtions etc.
  13. Thanks.. pretty disappointed about the IFLOLS and ICLS, I'll pass for now
  • Create New...