We never shot rockets in the T-45 although I believe you could carry them.
We did bomb with MK-76s which are the standard “blue death” that everyone carries.
IIRC, they’re just a shotgun shell type cartridge in the nose that shoots out the marking charge.
VR might be more helpful in this. In VR I’m not that great at it but it seems I can WAG it pretty consistently, FWIW. And that kind of stuff [manual bombing] is just so satisfying. There’s a YT of a Dude (former Skyhawk driver) that explains it so even I can understand. Can’t find it right now. Sounds sorta like what you guys are talking about. Thanks for the input.
I think I figured out the arc thing. I was totally omitting a step between the arc and the RIP 
Also, I agree on it feeling too draggy and underpowered. I can’t hit any of the required speeds in the oblique pop pattern from the P-1209. The energy bleed when rolling in on the target puts the AOP too near the target, and I release some 500ft lower and nearly 100kts slower than I should be able to.
Nice YT vid BTW.
That doesn’t surprise me as such.
I kind of agree that DCS planes seem to spool slower and require more power than the actual jet…in the few planes I’ve flown.
I was flying the AV-8B awhile ago in the 45 degree pattern and it definitely required more power than I expected to get to release speed.
@Deacon211 I’ve read it theorized that the jets in DCS seem so draggy while maneuvering because we underestimate the G-loads and alpha we’re throwing at them (as we obviously can’t feel the forces and feedback).
My acrobatic time in real aircraft is pitifully little and I have no jet time, but the concept seems sound. Do you have any feedback?
I can’t play without this gizmo anymore. More feedback than [real physical] forces. You kinda get habituated to it - train ur backside if you will. Think it’s likely more immersive using it in VR, but never tried in 2D.
The lack of physical feedback is definitely a thing when you’re flying visually and not staring at the HUD. But when you do stare at the HUD and pull prescribed G at prescribed speed, things bleed off faster than they should.
I remember reading about the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen, when it was fairly new. The calculations on drag was off by about 10%. The real aircraft had less drag than calculated. Ok, this was in the late 80’s or maybe early 90’s, but still.
Drag is inherently hard to calculate as different parts of the aircraft contribute differently depending on several factors.
But then again, in DCS, this seems to affect all jets, so maybe a slight coefficient change wouldn’t be a bad idea. I don’t think we can expect perfect by the numbers behaviour of all aircraft in all situations, but when there is an over all discrepancy, like this seems to be, it could use some tweaking.
Generally you had to compensate via a lot of practise by getting used to the stick movement required with other noises they put in the sims…and some sims have blackout effect. Some jets have Helmet mounted displays that help out a lot.
Surely, all those factors affect how we perceive aircraft performance in the sim. And of course it affects how we fight.
I was watching some very fun YT videos on different 1v1 matchups. And, as I watched this F-16 go 2 circle against an F-35 for about 30 turns, all I could think was that there was no way either pilot would survive 10 straight minutes of Anti G Straining Maneuver. 
But I agree with Clutch. The issue is when you take a known performance point and can’t duplicate it in the sim.
Which is really kinda hard to do I think. The T-45 not being able to sustain 4G on the deck when 4G turns are pretty much the norm, is just an obvious example. But I’m sure that it isn’t alone. The others are just more nebulous.
But it must be difficult to tune these things in an artificial world. Do you add thrust or decrease drag? Do you alter the wing lift? I’m not nearly smart enough to do that kind of math!
That’s another interesting issue. Again, I’m not a
huge DCSer. But it’s interesting in some modules to hear the engine sounds. Especially when pulling the throttle back to idle, I swear it sounds like you are shutting the engine off not pulling it to inflight idle.
It’s a bit creepy at times.
I don’t. I mean, it’d be really nice if these software representations were perfect. Guess it would really boil down to getting it all to the point where a human can’t discern the imperfections? Would need a bigger computer me thinks.
To me, mostly, if it: Looks like a Duck, quacks like a duck…I’m willing to believe it’s a duck-like simulation? I just don’t have to feed it. Or clean up after it (they’re messy).
Or something like that.
Buffeting and wind noise in some sims helps - you need the gameisms to make up for it being just a game.
At the end of the day you need to play the game and work out how best to manage energy with what you get stuck with…which often changes with random patches.
Even with the Goshawk mod being a bit draggy/underpowered, I’m still having a lot of fun doing the oblique pop pattern. I have to adjust things like a 3G turn instead of the standard 4G turns Deacon mentioned (I think the manual said 15~17 unit pull but that basically kills your energy), and pulling up to 25 degrees instead of 30 degrees in the pop seems to give me nearly valid shots going by the validation criteria in the P-1209. My release speeds tend to be 21KTAS slower than planned, which is invalid by 1 knot 
It would be nice if the professional simulators that I get checked in twice a year, flew like the real aircraft too… 
But they are close enough, erring on the side caution in that they must absolutely not be easier to fly than the real deal.
I think most people are happy not knowing if their home PC simulator is ‘by the numbers’ or not. But there are some of us who want it as good as we can get it, and a vocal few who demand perfection
I haven’t got a clue as to how close to reality it is possible to get. And I don’t really care either. As you say, quacks and walks and all that. Close enough for the believability barrier. But when all aircraft show similar traits, there might be something that can be done about it…?
Problem is often how to present the issue.
A developer, who obviously know a thing or two about simulating flight, has got algorithms and won’t be easily persuaded by anecdotal evidence. Maybe from a SME, but certainly not from someone who read a book once.
True. I’ve never been in a sim that didn’t fly like a sim.
Hope that you folks don’t mind reviving this topic. It hasn’t received much love in the last couple of years, but I was wondering if anyone has heard anything concerning 2.9 compatibility, or any other future updates for that matter? It’s a fantastic and much needed mod otherwise.