Tiger-II

Not to rip off what remains of this guys wings, but I was flying the MiG-15 yesterday, and did what every MiG-15 pilot will tell you not to do: put it in a dive. Well...Mach number increased to 0.95 and I was toast. Those flight controls weren't doing anything, just like they warn about. It is modelled...you just have to fly it wrong to find out.

I thought the F-5 was easy, LOL! Fixed pipper FTW.

It's like they lost the model files or something. How hard is it to select an object, delete, and re-compile?

Is this fixed yet? I tried it last night and was able to takeoff, complete with stall roll, but she still flew.

Hi, Got the trial of this aircraft as I've always been a fan of the Italian aerobatic display team, and like light jets in general. I loaded up the -339A with round tip-tanks and two external wing tanks and took it for a flight. The aircraft seems very slow? Scary slow? I flew out of Nellis AFB, and used what seemed like half the runway just accelerating to 150 kts. It was so slow, I had to check the engine was developing full power (it was). In level flight it won't accelerate faster than 300 kts at 3000 ft. Does this sound right for this configuration? Maybe I've flown fast jets for too long. Even a 747 accelerates faster and flies faster at max gross. Air temperature is +15 deg. C., and there is no wind in the mission at any altitude. If it's correct, then great, but the manual states time-to-climb to 40000 ft takes 7.5 minutes. Hmm. Is that from brakes release or starting in flight from sea level?!

Jeff could do SEAD. In fact, it was pretty good at it. You must keep the emitter emitting, otherwise it WILL miss. Glide bombs were always a problem in DCS AFAIR. They either flew too far or got destroyed by enemy ground units while still in flight. I haven't tried the BRM-1 lately, but the last time I flew they worked. Missiles are very much a WIP on ED's side, and that affects ALL aircraft, not just the Jeff. For those new to DCS/JF-17, when the Jeff got released everyone** thought the SD-10 was over-modelled. The arguments became so severe that ED took over all weapons. They then released the F-16C and the -16 went up against the -17, and all the F-16 pilots were complaining the AIM-120 wasn't good enough/the SD-10 was too OP. Well...here we are. None of the missiles are accurate, for anything. About the only things that are correct are the range and maximum speed. ** everyone = pilots flying against the Jeff who thought they should automatically win. It influenced my forum signature.

Inertial lock doesn't require imaging. It just computes where it is looking based upon aircraft inertial reference, azimuth and elevation at the time it was locked. It can still range using laser. It will drift though (if it is implemented properly/realistically). Area or target track require imaging, so this is more limited.

Aircraft bugs are Deka. Weapon and sim bugs are ED.

Is the crosswind limit "max demonstrated" like it is for most aircraft? If so, it doesn't make it an absolute or maximum limit. All "max demonstrated" means is that during certification, this was the strongest measured crosswind component the aircraft was knowingly tested in. It doesn't mean the aircraft can't handle even stronger crosswinds; it just wasn't tested. The comments from real pilots stating asymmetric braking is required though, is interesting. I can see that being neccessary at the start of the takeoff roll, until around 50 kts or so.

You can't swap seats, but AFAIK both of you should be able to fly the aircraft, if it is set to "equally responsible".

I saw some very minor stutters over Caucusus last night, but it didn't seem very often or regular, and I didn't notice it the majority of the time. I'll try Vegas and see what it does.

What was the outcome? F-5 and F-16 are both noticeably degraded by having AIM-9 on the wingtips, and AFAIK, the F-16 is degraded regardless of which station it is on. There is too much drag from the missile. The drag problem also affects other weapons, and pylons. The JF-17 has a particularly bad time with dual pylons and missiles, as the combined excess drag is huge.

I think it is an attempt to model tire flex against the thrust. You are, after all, pulling the aircraft against the brakes. I used to see glitches in RPM, but not so much recently (I think it was fixed some time ago). When you saw the glitch in your video, I did notice #2 RPM changed very slightly and fell behind #1.

Our F-5E is a bit weird. I found the only reliable way to get burner light-off is to pull off *enough* power that the RPM decreases slightly below MIL, then push the throttles up again. If you pull it out of burner, but not enough to drop RPM, pushing the throttles up doesn't cause burner light-off. When this behavior occurs, there is a strange bump in fuel flow, but not remotely close to what it should be for max AB. This module could be the best if these issues would be resolved. These issues have existed since release. I'm very pleased they addressed the drag issue that plagued this module for so long, but there are still some "rough edges" that need to be sorted out. Slats still produce too much drag, and max clean speed in level flight is still too low (though it is greatly improved). I struggle to break Mach 1.0 at sea level, clean. There is a wider problem with too much drag with all modules when carrying stores, but at least everything is affected by that. Even the F-16 has noticable degradation in performance carrying two wing-tip AIM-9s.

F-104 is a mis-understood aircraft for the simple reason it isn't a turn fighter. F-104 and F-4...what a time to be alive!

If that's the case, fair enough.

No...I'm not happy at web browser tech being jammed into the sim. Web browser tech was never designed for game use, but the use of it in games is a trend that needs reversing, and rapidly. If you need to display PDFs in the sim, develop a specific display process for PDFs in the sim! No web browser required. The other problem with importing wholesale a complete web browser, are the aforementioned privacy issues. People really have no clue just what these mega corps are doing. Google is a massive data-collection agency. I don't trust any of the others, either. So yes... it is a major negative point against the F-4 (and anything else that uses similar tech). I already pre-ordered and won't cancel, but unless people speak out against this nonsense, how will they ever know that people are against it? I am also somewhat bemused that they ever found it neccessary. OK... so the current Jester UI is limited...but they created it in the first place, so why are the limits suddenly a problem? They said it "only supports 8 slots". OK...so make it support more? I see nothing here that required a web browser. It's a "nice idea" to have a framework that you just drop in, set a few parameters, and suddenly it works with something else, but the reality of software development is it rarely works out that way, and you often end up with 60% or more specific-use programming. It's unavoidable if you want to create a product that is even slightly different from the last one. There really is no cookie-cutter way to develop different products using the same templates. It can't be done. The best you can do is copy a block of code and modify it (or in the case of Jester, strip out the Jester code and try and modularize it). You can't avoid the modification part though, no matter how you do it.

Chromium crap in DCS? Wow. I'm totally fine with running tools outside of the sim. I hope you stripped out all the Google phone-home junk that is buried in everything Chrome. Yes...and it is TOTAL GARBAGE. Web-anything needs to stay 50 light years away from the simulator. Don't turn DCS into another bloated piece of junk.

I have the Mk. IV. The only change I see is the foot rest. The Mk. IV is Bell-helicopter style (which is great as I fly the helos in DCS). Not sure why the sensor would need changing? It seems fine on the Mk. IV. Very smooth and precise +/- 32k on the sensor for 64k res.

I have the GF III Ultimate, and it is amazing! I think I'm using the 40 size springs, but no extension. It also is the closest feel to what I experience in real-world flying for stick forces without the stick slopping around. Sure, the software is a little complicated at first, but if you understand the parameters, it is not too difficult to figure out. The other thing is you aren't really supposed to use it regularly. I set the stick up so everything works as DX buttons/axis (with shift) and not relying on per-game key maps, and since setting it up I have not had any reason to touch the software again (remebering it does re-flash the device every time you write, and the EEPROM only has approx. 100k write cycles). While the stick is a little generic, it has enough hats and buttons to cover just about every config of stick out there, which is great for aircraft such as the Jeff where the WH is lacking hats and buttons. My only criticism is the palm rest is too small, and cuts into the side of my hand. It needs to be much wider/deeper, both to the front and the back, but back particularly. I have this and their rudder pedals (version IV). Worth every cent!

Do you have the pedal trimmer enabled? Did you try resetting the trim?

I confirm this issue.

LD-10 notes do warn that if an emitter of interest stops, it can select another emitter if nearby. There is no way to tell the missile to "kill only this target type". You need to fire it only whern the target of interest is active and hope for the best.

They are green for NVG compatibility. Why do you want to change them?

It's both. At high altitude/Mach number, CAS is lower, relatively, so the Mach limit applies. The limit is built into the jettison function. It's not an aerodynamic limit but a technical one built into the system.