zerO_crash

I have mentioned this a good couple of years ago, albeit not sure if it got picked up. With pilot body visible, even in VR with full range of motion, there are many panels (switches, buttons, etc...) that are neither visible, nor accessible. In essence, that means that one has to keep turning the body "on"/"off" all the time, to reach everything in the cockpit (some functions are more used than others). Would it be possible to create an option in the "game settings" or so, to have the mouse cursor have a circle around (15-20cm diameter) which, when hovering over any panels masked by pilot body, would simply make the pilot "see through"? I would really appreciate a function like this, or similar, especially for VR. Thanks!

Как понять? Английский (350 км/ч) неверный, или используются разные единицы измерения? Треки иногда работает, иногда нет. Добавлен новый, также видео на этот раз. ИШ1-15 = 0* IAS ∼ 315 км/ч (Замечено, если угол наклона машины больше (x < 90* углов тангажа), винт разрушается при более низкой индицируемой скорости воздушного судна IAS. В одном тесте: при угле тангажа около 70 градусов, винт вышел из строя при индицируемой скорости около 265.) Я превышаю пределы намеренно, да. Но винты не должны пересекаться в этом режиме. Ка-50 Баг новый.mp4 ТЕСТ.miz Ка-50 Баг новый.trk

Well, actually, at 05:45, he mentions that one of the points was off. He doesn't show any map scale, but it looks 20-30km ish by eye measure (it can be measured on the map though). One site didn't even get picked up (SA-11). My experience, is that in a dense area with multiple theatre-level (division) SAM sites, the coordinates can sometimes be between, or completely outside of the area. I've had results ranging from approx. 18-22km away from actual SAM-site, to as much as 70-80 km and more, away. That's why I ask whether this is a actual bug, or simply very advanced modelling of radar waves (electromagnetic)/lack of accuracy of the system. Not sure why Heatblur won't come with a comment on this... There are tracks above, if they need that.

Same problem. The targets are completely off position after having done a ELINT mission. Question is whether this is intentional (what the technology of the day allowed), or whether this is indeed a bug. Confirmed with taking a navigation fix on beforehand, so as to rule out drifting of NAV.

Attaching a short track showing that pedals/pilot legs are not moving when using rudder pedals. AJS-37 BUG.trk

There is a reason Deka doesn't want to touch on the topic. There simply is not enough information on the matter. While I generally don't have too much Chinese documentation, they are even more restrictive with their policy on declassifying documentation, than Russia is. Personally, I have never comes across any credible Chinese source (I have looked for the specifics of Chinese Flankers) which would even mention the subject. The only reason we really know so much about JF-17, is because it is a purely export product. Flankers are domestically used, and that's the problem. Possibly someone with Chinese bakground can comment any more on the topic at hand.

It is clear that you are not patient. It is even more evident, that you are not reading what you are writing. "Nobody said anything about Air to Ground combat." - You absolutely did: You are not paying attention to what you are writing. "... any other role than Air-Air", is definitely A-G accounted for! I did, as a reply to your statement that JF-17 will outdo the J-11A in anything else than A-A. You are not specific enough in your communication, and you make gross estimates which simply are not true. If you don't have the patience to write with some level of specificity, then you ought to consider whether to write at all. I am fully aware of what the discussion is about, you do not need to inform me about that. I read the thread carefully. The point is, you went far outside the boundaries of that specific point - discussing matters of aircraft design, swapping out engines, what if's, and generally much more. Further examples: This statement is purely wrong. A volumetrically "larger" object, in no way increases it's ability to "fall down" (potential kinetic energy - KE) better than a "smaller" object. What matters in this case, is weight. The greater the weight of the object, the greater the KE, meaning the more kinetic energy it will have upon losing its potential. In layman's terms - the heavier an object, the higher the force it will fall down with. That is what you mean, but it is not what you write. Granted, you state - "Im not a physicist, nor a mathematician, so correct me if im wrong.". That is something one notices right away, but regardless, that's why I correct you. Still, that is only a small part of equation. As a quick example: A AMRAAM AIM-120 A/B/C weighs approximately 157kg1 A Vympel R-77 (first iteration) weighs approximately 175kg2 If you dropped both missiles (no propulsion) from a high altitude, the R-77 will out-accelerate the AIM-120 in the start, until the drag of the grid tail fins start to produce a serious amount of drag, afterwhich the AIM-120 will not only accelerate faster (at higher speed), it will actually attain higher speed (due to less drag). That shows you how wrong your statement is. Furthermore, just because one body is physically bigger than another (i.e. more drag), there is another concept that is essential to the total drag-factor of an object. That is the objects slenderness (known as "slenderness ratio"). A body can physically be bigger than any other, but if its slenderness ratio is relatively high (quotient between the height and the width of an object is high), then that bigger object will actually pose less drag than a smaller object, albeit with worse ratio. The best is, there are more factors to consider, when making the statement as to what falls quicker or generally has better KE. I could pick you apart in hundreads of ways, but that's not my point. That's why I stated in the beginning: Feel free to discuss as you wish, but know that you will be corrected in the open forums where mistakes are made. You make gross assumptions, and the fact that you touch on the deeper level of physics, without prior knowledge of even basic concepts, doesn't make it good either. Therefore, my dear, instead of using the energy on "okay sorry to be rude...", use it instead to at least attempt to verify what you write, before you actually write it. And if you get input on your writing, then take it with a smile and appreciation that someone bothered. Normally, in the capitalist world, knowledge costs. I give it for free. You're welcome! As to this: China and Pakistan signed a memorandum of understanding for a joint design and development of a new fighter (what became JF-17) in 1995. (Later that year, Mikoyan joined to support the design phase.). That means, the first thought of a plane, which wasn't yet JF-17, came up in 1995 earliest. China, bought the Su-27SK (first export of a Su-27 to any country, by the way) from Russia with orders being made in '90s. The deliveries started in '92, with some 36 Su-27SKs and 42 Su-27UBK (two-seater, training variant). Both those fighters had the AL-31F engines. Consider your statement above: Does it make sense that Russians would lie about anything on a project where a mutual agreement barely was made in 1995 (we aren't even talking about designs), when China had recieved planes which had these very same engines three years earlier in 1992?! Do you think that China didn't know what it got three years before even agreeing on a cooperation with Pakistan? Glad we got this settled! Let's leave it at that! 1AIM-120 AMRAAM - Air to Air Missiles - Missiles - European Defence Equipment - Armed Forces Europe - edmis2a5 2Vympel R-77 | Weaponsystems.net

@MYSE1234 Can I ask of a update on this? This is one of the most unique features to the AJS-37 Viggen. Is it essentially left to die a slow death, or are there plans to mitigate the issue of inaccuracy with the ELINT gathering? I would really appreciate a response on this.

Read clearly again!: Viggen is not a carrier aircraft, therefore it is not designed to land on one! You might as well try to land on water, just because physics, and complain that the landing gear breaks. If you land on ground (airfield/road - it is designed to be landed on road) and the landing gear breaks, then you can report this as a bug! Albeit then with a track. There are too many variables to consider, chief amongst your flying vs. an actual defect with the module.

Obviously, I'm talking about onboard systems. All the mission planning and aircraft preparation that can be done in the FF-modules, is completely absent on FC3. Off-board systems are naturally equal for all aircraft (mission planner). FC3 stays as it is because ED has stated that it won't develop it anymore, other than keep it relevant to the current DCS version and fixing bugs. They also cannot remove it, because they have an obligation to fullfill according to customer rights. The split is obviously required, and that is why MAC is coming in the first place. This is pure speculation, but I imagine that FC3 will be continued in MAC as a mainstream for that product line. Regardless, I explained in my previous comment precisely why FC3 is somewhat detrimental to the vision of DCS and why MAC is therefore the split that is coming (I repeat, the split is in the consumer base, as paid FC3 will stay in DCS anyways).

Fair enough. Well, the JF-17 is the most modern aircraft variant in DCS (2017). It has an edge in terms of guided A-G weaponry, which the much older J-11 doesn't have. Still, it won't "beat" J-11 based on that alone. J-11 can carry much more weaponry, even if unguided. It really depends in both cases on the proficiency of the pilot in question (with J-11 demanding a more capable pilot - unguided weaponry). If the targets are frontline ones, without too advanced AAA/SAM/Manpad systems, then J-11 brings more weaponry, and heavier, to the front. If the targets are protected and require stand-off, JF-17 will likely perform equal-better. It all depends. Thus, it's not one-sided in any case. There are, however, missions that JF-17 can do, which the J-11 cannot. For example, ELINT (anything with RWR can do triangulation, but JF-17 has specialized equipment for it), SEAD, FAC (with the option to distribute coordinates to the wing for specific targets), Anti-ship (strictly speaking, both can do it, but JF-17 has specialized weapons for the role, as well as stand-off), deep territory strike (cruise missiles), and a few more.

Bingo

The product line has to be split, which is also why ED is not making any more FC3. In essence, the low fidelity (systems) of FC3 is working against the DCS full fidelity simulation trademark. Vice versa, to customers seeking a less advanced product, searching up on DCS assures a headache. Then there are the neverending requests for aircraft/systems, which simply can not be made to DCS-standard (legal inhibit/lack of information), which MAC will be able to. The split is logical in every sense. This also points to really major differences between exactly FC3 and FF. Limitations (aircraft/component/systems/sensors/+++), operaring procedures, knowledge of what integrates with what and how it functions, complexity in setting up a mission profile and planning on what and how to deploy, and much more. Honestly, there is no comparison - these are worlds apart. The fact that we are finally getting a MiG-29 FF... It was a dream back in LOMAC-times. It took some time, but we got there. Just like with all the others modules. It'll be fantastic, there is absolutely no doubt there.

You are oversimplifying a very complex topic. By that, absolutely most of it, becomes wrong. Both RD-93 (RD-33, with gearbox placed on the bottom to fit JF-17) as well as AL-31F are great engines, there is no doubt there. They both perform incredibly well, even at very high altitudes. A comparison is, however, pointless. They are of different sizes (RD-93/33 is significantly smaller). JF-17 simply has no space whatsoever for an AL-31F, let alone the fuel for its realtively higher fuel consumption. The JF-17 doesn't need it either. Actually, it is completely wrong to claim that the aircraft "barely" reaches M 1.6. Is reaches it incredibly fast, and you have to hold the throttle back in order not to exceed design limitations and cause damage. It has a good trust-to-weight ratio, counter to what most claim. It has 1.07 in T/W empty. At combat load, it has approximately 0.85 in T/W. Compare that, to SR-71 which had 0.395 in T/W! The ability to climb high and fly fast, as can be seen above, has essentially less to do with just engines. The airfoil - the aerodynamic properties of a bulk, are far more important. JF-17 is built for M 1.6, and a certain max in altitude. That's really it. In order to completely change its valors, you need to redesign the aircraft. A pure numeric approach, doesn't get you there either (that's why any new aircraft is tested in wind tunels, and good CFD software). That is, because of different phenomenon in aerodynamics/general physics for which pure numbers don't account for. In case of JF-17, here is the extract from the guide: "Max IAS in low altitude is 1300 km/h (702 kts), but you may exceed this speed in the game. In the real world, plane will have aeroelastic problem over this speed. In the game, your acceleration will be very slow when above this speed. In high altitude, plane’s max Mach number is M1.6, but you also may exceed this speed in the game. In the real world, the limitation is come from plane’s stability and aerodynamic heating. Of course, we won’t let you go much faster than this." In either case (low/high), aeroelastic problem or aerodynamic heating, are complete inhibitors. Basically, this is not the tuning of a car, it's a complete redesign. Ultimately, the JF-17 is what it is, and it is a great aircraft for its purpose. You, however, are trying to change into something it isn't designed for. That will never work. The building of an aircraft, starts with a mission/concept, then taken through design phase with testing, and finally refinement, with testing. Not the ther way around. You don't understand why the plane is like it is, because you haven't read its history. I suggest you do that. The main reason why this aircraft exists (instead of picking available fighters internationally), was the notion of low cost, affordable. AL-series of engines, are anything but. A bigger airframe is anything but. A higher performing one, is even more anything but. This is supposed to be a small, nimble, multipurpose aircraft that is affordable to a poorer nation, and can perform a whole range of missions. The idea is further that with advanced weaponry, one will alleviate, what one might consider, limitations of the platform. The fact is, for any of the missions that it is built, it performs it incredibly well, and that affordably. I will leave this for you to chunk on: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/in-1985-an-sh-37-viggen-in-reconnaissance-mission-performed-aerobatic-manoeuvres-at-low-altitude-to-shake-off-two-soviet-su-15s-one-of-the-flagons-crashed/amp/ If you're claiming a aircraft/mission is bad, because you are not in a dominant platform, then you are doing it wrong.