mkiii

I have to say that I haven't bought this module yet, so any comments are from RL manuals, or from "That other well known F-16 simulator" that we must not name here. Just been on it to check some things regarding fuel flow and nozzle position / AB. Figures are approximate and can vary depening on temp, alt & other factors. The Throttle is only asking the fuel system to do what you want, but it can in some cases alter the actual end result. A clean F-16 flying at full Mil power, 20k Alt, around 450 Knots (Calibrated - CAS) These figures come from and older 2 seat A Model, Block 15, with a PW Engine rather than a GE, so they are for a slightly lower performance engine. Throttle at Mil, has a nozzle pos of about 5%, Fuel flow of 9600pph, speed around Mach 0.95. RPM of 98% and FTIT of 900. The last 2 figures should not change greatly during full AB use. Full AB has a nozzle position of about 95%, Fuel Flow of 53 to 60 pph (it takes a long time to settle). Speed around Mach 1.35. Just for good measure, I tried a Block50, with 2x370Gallon tanks. Max Mach with tanks about 1.2, Fuel flow at Max AB more like 75000pph, Nozzles never went higher than 65% with tanks. Mach 1.4 without tanks (pylons remaining). Interestingly the unnamable other sim, lists things like drag factor in the loadout panel. A completely clean Block 50 F-16 scores 1.0 fror drag factor. Adding 2 Aim120B puts it at 9.0, and a further addition of the 2x 370 gallon tanks raises it to 77.0, add a couple of Aim-9s and up it goes to 89.0 Trying to get much above Mach 1 with any loadout, before you run out of fuel seems to be a bit pointless.

At the risk of being branded of "Zero Intelligence", I'm sure they all appreciate the thanks for their help ;/ :- The Digital Electronic Engine Controller (with switch set to PRI) should be able to limit the number of AB segments used if conditions dictate that it should do so. Things that might influence this is Hi-Alt, Low speed use of AB, or excessive engine temp, or overspeed. I assume that you have no obvious Gaugues indicating issues or warning panel lights? AFAIK, you cannot get 100% Nozzle - I thought it only opened to 90% Max? How are you determining that you are not achieving 100% AB? Fuel flow for Mil and AB is lais down somewhere in F-16 docs - but I don't have time to search for them right now. What have you done to make sure that it is not your throttle set-up? The easiest test for that, being to use the keyboard to control throttle. Have you sed the AB Reset Switch to record Eng data? I assume the module has that operative... since the manual says it does. All being said, this is not a final product, and such things may just be the normal bugs and glitches we should expect. Regardless: This is a good read:- http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/HAF-F16.pdf As are ALL the docs from here:- http://www.ravico.com/ST/Download/Checklists/BMS/Checklists/1107_02_main.pdf

Since the way they are set up is via a config file that afaik is only loaded at launch time, I can't see how this would be possible without some third party app. BTW. You have the TV display exported? I must have missed that somewhere along the line. I didn't think is was exportable.

Regardless of the mode we all should be in. I can confirm that the bug as reported is present when I set Game Mode. It is not just a low speed issue. Full throttle or idle, the nose just wants to climb and pull to the left. Some people might not want to fly in Sim mode - otherwise why is that option present? Also - something I have not looked at yet is the separate AutoTrim mode. Did the OP have that selected?

I does appear as if it is a scripted event - view your aircraft from an F2 view while pushing the nose hard, and you can see control movement halt, and pilot figure twitch at the moment of blackout. The aircraft carries on in the direction set before blackout. I'm no expert, but that seems a bit odd. All that being said, pushing the stick hard forwards fully is probably a bad idea in general, even if you have fuel injection. BTW: interesting site with lots of aircraft performance data & reports on spits and other WWII types. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html

I don't think I am completely missing the point. A modern glider and other very slender wings that you mention are not designed to carry 2000+lb bombs and counter significant G loads. It really is not the same design rationale. Have you ever jumped up and down on a modern glider wing - why not? It would crumple. Have I done so on a (maybe not quite so modern) naval strike fighter wing? Yes. Did it Break - No. Why not? It was designed to be as rigid as possible to counter the stresses involved in dropping bombs at high speed & possible high G, not cruising around sedately at altitude. Whatever. the case, I don't think the structure of an F-18 wing inner section looks remotely flexible - it is after all part of the fuselage, not something pinned on like your glider example, and until someone who actually flies the things, or designed them says otherwise, I'm inclined to think what we have looks reasonable, if not exactly correct.

Exactly. Watch the video I provided earlier - it has a section showing the composition of the F-18 wing. It is not a simple straight girder profile for a spar, it is a series of tapering box sections enclosed by the skin, that are far more rigid on the inner section. Glider wing it is not.

Not to say that the op is wrong entirely, but back to basics - those original images do not show any major differences, especially considering that the comparison angles are not exactly the same. Only a degree or two difference in viewpoint or perspective is going to make the geometry look different, as will any extension of flaps, slats & ailerons. Then there is the flex to consider. Comparing the F-18 or any other fighter/strike aircraft wing that has to carry very substatial loads at least on the inner section (which is the strongets an most rigid part) to a composie or fibreglass glider wing is a bit of a stretch. I can certainly vouch for the fact that wing roots and inner wing sections on these military types are not particularly flexible. Often the root and inner wing section forms a rigid box that forms a bulkhead in the fuselage, and the inner wing has multile ribs. I'm fairly sure that the F18 uses that system. For your delight:

There are a good many dead soldiers that will attest to the stopping power of a 7.62 rifle round. They do depend somewhat on the case /charge dimensions, but even a short round like that used in an AK cannot be compared to a 5.56mm round. I don't think that anyone has survived being hit by 50 rounds of 5.56mm. Where is this coming from?

Don't they have Brake chutes? I never saw an F-5 land and use anything other than it's chute - no aerobraking at all that I can recall. These were NF-5s in the 80s admittedly, but the runway was not short (RAF Bruggen), so I assume they could have managed without chutes, but every one that landed needed a chute pack to be fitted.

Search is your friend. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=80431&highlight=disable+mfd

Or just load the original and your modded file into Notepad++ and do a simple compare now and again.

I currently have something like that, same resolutions but physically smaller, with the addition of an extra monitor on the end for instrument export. TBH I didn't find a way to use the left and right monitors with the centre at that resolution, so I forced the centre monitor to use 2160x1200 and set up my side monitors so they are level at the top & use a 1 monitor setup. I now have pretty much the same pixel ratio on side and centre monitors, so a window spread between the two lines up top & bottom. If you want to use a 3 camera setup at the original res, then something like this. If your screens are not aligned at the top, then you need to add an offset to the left and right Y values. This setup will not match pixel density. I would recomment a 1 screen setup as described above (1920x1080+2160x1200+1920x1080) :- _ = function(p) return p; end; name = _('Wide3'); Description = '3 screens as 1 viewport' Viewports = { Left = { x = 0; y = 0; width = 1920; height = 1080; viewDx = -0.7; viewDy = 0; aspect = aspect = 1.777778; useAbsoluteFOV = true; useAbsoluteAnglesShift = true; FOV = 0.748042; }, Center = { x =1920; y = 0; width = 2560; -- note: width of main 3 screens = 6400. height = 1440; -- 3d world will only display in this area initial splashscreen however doesn't know about this setting. viewDx = 0; -- Options.lua via the gui option settings uses 6400 as the screen width. viewDy = 0; aspect = 4.444444444; }, Right = { x = 4480; y = 120; width = 1920; height = 1080; viewDx = 0.7; viewDy = 0; aspect = 1.777778 --screen.aspect; } } GUI = { x = 1920; y = 0; width = 2560; height = 1440; } UIMainView = GUI

Certainly, the SU-25A isn't really suited for night ops, but this is the T version. The Su-25T should be pretty good for night ops with its 2 different types of EO sensors availableR, plus illumination flares, so why wouldn't you use it at night if everything worked as it should? The Night vision in the Lightning Pod display is perfectly good until the sensor can only see sky - at which point it all becomes 100% white, spoiling the night vision somewhat and making the already dim instruments even harder to read. As pointed out earlier, the HSI is particularly hard to read. In addition to that, the ambient lighting even on a clear starlit night is zero. The stars and moon if out, don't seem to cast any light, so you have to rely somewhat on instrumentation to avoid becoming a crater.

I too have spent many an unhappy hour behind a much lower power engine, getting blatted by the prop wash while fettling engine timing etc. (Chipmunk), but powerful as it will be on a Spit, I'm guessing that it is still less significant than the airflow over the controls caused by airspeed. Bear in mind that only a proportion of the propwash is hitting the tailplane at any given angle, but just about all the airflow does. Think about how rudder authority is minimal until airspeed rises to near takeoff speed - isn't the prowash already high at that point?

I guess that means it is too inconvenient to fix - and who cares if this an accurate simulation, we have your money so go suck on it..... Sorry. I'm hot and bothered righrt now. Maybe it will be fixed in the next update :music_whistling:

Thirded. Still not working.

I just checked in my backup copy of 1.5, and it works there in steady and Morse modes. This is one of a number of things in the Spit that have broken in recent updates such as the Undercarriage lamp Night flying shroud & cockpit reflections. Have you logged it as a bug?

Not true. It was modelled, and it is supposed to work. It was translucent in DCS 1.5. You could make out the UP light even during daylight.

You have Fullscreen=true set in Options.lua. Set this to false for Instrument export & it should go back to being aligned.

Not any time soon. It still happens - I just relented and bought th thing and it still pops up at the bottom right of all monitors, which is a bit of a pain if your right hand monitor is smaller than the others, and all your instrument exports are sent to it, making moving it on the setup just to get the gps to show is a non trivial affair. At least we can drag the thing if we can at least see the title bar, unlike Control Indicators and Kneepads.

As of the latest Beta update 2.5.5.33184, it seems the answer is not yet. Another thing that will help enourmously, is when they get around to adding the radium glow to ALL the instrument dials and needles that were painted with it. I get the feeling that some references used might be museum relics (70 year old luminous paint is no longer luminous), and 70 Year old compasses might be non functional - who knows - I do know that this doesn't really represent the compass that I remember from the Chipmunk (P11 AFAIK) that was much the same, and also used in Spitfires of this Period, and I suspect going by the colour alone, that this is what is modelled. Note also that the 1 is missing from the 10 degree mark ;) This is seen on some old examples on google where the paint has flaked off.

Maybe if it creaked and groaned more like a real aircraft does to tell you it is unhappy, then you might be prompted to ease off before this happens. How many wings fell off undamaged Spits during the war - does anyone have records? A story showing the strength of those wings (compared to the pilot onboard) is illustrated here:-( a 600mph dive and a somewhat bent looking spit after recovery) http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160505-the-spitfires-that-nearly-broke-the-sound-barrier

Some older liveries do not work if just placed in the Saved games folder. It seems to depend on what is actually altered & the aircraft involved. In these cases, as you found, it works if you just manually place them in the game folder. This is where you should be using JGSME or better still OvGME to place your MOD - and manually disable it before any updates.

What exactly do you mean? The armour plate is shifting? Are you using a headtracker, VR, or view keys? I don't see any problems (headtracker), other than it obscures the view a little - but it IS a small cockpit, and has little room for a pilot to look back. I find that the most comfortable view over the shoulder is when I lean forward first - which is more realistic anyway. If you mean something different, then perhaps a screenshot showing your problem might be a better idea.