airbrake button please

[cinder stratus]

I want to be able to deploy the air break while my engine isn't completely idled out
I know this has been posted before but I feel like this for a plane is as essential as other basic controls

[ionic junco]

they don't even need to add a new keybind, just tie it to the already existing brake keybind, same goes with flaps, tie it in to whats already there

[cinder stratus]

true

[ionic junco]

There are many a things one can do with already existing elements in the game and its a shame mitch mostly sleeps on them

[rain thicket]

when playing on controller using the jammer or flaring would deploy the airbrake

[ionic junco]

incorrect, when NO left the playtest and into early access they added a new keybind specifically for braking, if a controller has the extra spots to apply that keybind they can, if not it should be something enablable and disablable in the settings

[cinder stratus]

Braking and flaps should be a no brainer
Maybe flaps can be taken over by the systems but brakes nah

[sage obsidian]

Absolutely, I think they could leave it as automatic when theres zero throttle AND landing gear is down, but when landing gear is up its manual

[languid cargo]

I suggested before that make afterburner require a separate "throttle up" press, and make airbrake a separate "throttle down" press.
Perhaps that'll be the easiest solution.

[ionic junco]

ah yes i've had of that but only in the use of afterburner because that game had an airbrake button.

so pretty much a case of throttle goes to and stops at 100%, release and then press the throttle button again, afterburner is now activated, lowering throttle is not interupted. vise versa for airbrake. you could probably add a smart system(double tapping throttle) for emergencies to skip the stopper.

[cinder stratus]

Idk much about irl jets but can't you active the afterburner like whenever you want

[ionic junco]

you more or less can, the main problems with real life afterburners are

• they are a mechanical part, they can be broken, that could be the fuel injection or the system that lights the fuel.
• afterburner tied with maximum engine output will reduce the life span of the engine, although that's more to do with maximum power than the afterburner.
• referencing the prior point, afterburner injection systems themselves have a limited life span, most aircraft are not designed to use afterburners for prolonged periods of time but they can be designed to be used nearly indefinitely(ex SR-71).
• you are lighting a literal fire storm in your tailpipe, you must ensure the tailpipe is up to spec.
• they chug fuel like mother frickers, depending on the stages of the afterburner (these are essentially separate fuel injection manifolds before the ignition portion, they allow for increased output and "throttling" of the afterburner through the use of activation and deactivation of these stages, ex old aircraft tend to have 1 stage and thus the AB is either on or off, new aircraft tend to have many more usually 6 or more.) which i will assume is all stages activated means max fuel injection. typically for aircraft of the revokers size will burn through all nat fuel with an afterburner in 9-12 minutes.

on a side note although i can't confirm but i don't actually believe this is a critical part of the engine itself, definitely critical to the AB and TVC but not specifically to the engine

but all things considered this does not look like the full size of a turbine. the two orange/yellow markers are front most blades to rear most blades of the engine.

[languid cargo]

it doesn't mean much to "skip the stopper" as the engine reacts slower than your throttle lever

[languid cargo]

no. Real life A/Bs are only activated at maximum engine power.
IRL the throttle lever is a single lever, from lowest to highest would be
reverse (if equipped), cutoff, idle....100% (military thrust), AB1, AB2.
it's not like you have a lever for throttle and a separate switch for afterburner.

[ionic junco]

its more of a "oh shit oh f*ck i need to move now" thing, its just a thing to better ensure those who want power from the engine don't have to worry about the chances of smashing the throttle but forgetting to or being late to bypass the stopper.

https://tenor.com/view/honest-word-its-honest-work-it-aint-much-it-aint-much-but-its-honest-work-gif-13763573

[languid cargo]

it doesn't make the throttle move faster. As for the "forgetting / late" argument, IRL the throttle needs a separate movement anyway (usually pulling up a bit instead of just pushing forward), so the requirement to remember and the inevitable delay is legit.

[ionic junco]

its the meaing that counts

[languid cargo]

what meaning?

[winter hazel]

Yes this woudl be very nice

[low wolf]

Airbrakes, combat flaps, and a Full burn/Cut thrust set of buttons would be AWESOME

[wheat solstice]

+1, make airbrake tied to brake (KSP style) and perhaps toggled, as an option.
For gamepad current layout is still better, but for literally every other device (k&m, hotas) direct airbrake access would add a lot of possibilities.
Also what the dude above said, for K&M users cut throttle/full throttle buttons, KSP style, would be a godsend.

[rigid robin]

Not bad. But maybe better make existing button controls for that?
Or really need special button?

[languid cargo]

I have suggested this long ago and I'd say so again:
just require one more button push would do.
So once you reached 100% throttle, you need to release the button and press again to go into afterburner
and once you reached 0% throttle you need to release the button and press again to trigger airbrake.

[undone oxide]

Forgive my ignorance, but what gameplay changes/improvements would it bring?

[safe raven]

orrrr have small deadzones in the throttle curve
Pushing up on the throttle makes it move to 100 smoothly. Throttle up must be held for slightly longer to activate burners, and while deactivating is instant, it takes slightly longer to move off of 100%. Same for airbrakes.

[languid cargo]

currently it's hard to set yourself precisely on 100% but no A/B, or 0% but not airbrake. These can be problematic when trying to conserve fuel or defeat IR missiles

[wheat solstice]

This is a good idea but I still think the airbrake should be possible to actuate with the wheel brakes button.
The reason is that airbrake and engine are two unrelated devices, and in real aircraft they have completely separate controls for a reason: there are plenty of situations where you might want to use the airbrake without setting throttle to idle.
The most obvious is for landing approach: keeping the airbrake open gives you finer control over your airspeed with your throttle.
Additionally opening and closing the airbrake is faster than waiting for the engine to spool up and down, giving you further fine control.
There are even valid reasons to go full afterburner with airbrake open e.g. in a dogfight, in order to control your speed while still making use of the vertical component of thrust.

[undone oxide]

To avoid AB it set the Throttle to 98, 99%.
To avoid IR I set it to 0% und use flares.

[wheat solstice]

Setting throttle to 0 opens the airbrake.
99% is not full dry thrust

[undone oxide]

Okay?

[languid cargo]

which is A. still difficult and B. shouldn't have to come to that

[wheat solstice]

Like, being able to go idle without opening the airbrake is probably the biggest potential advantage, I've died countless of times because I had to go idle to avoid flares and airbrakes stalled me out.
It's not even about that extra 1% here or there, you don't really have time to mess with this and fine tune it while dodging missiles, being able to just hold ctrl and focus on avoiding the missile without worying the airbrake would open without your intent would help a lot.

[languid cargo]

wheel brakes button is flare/jammer in flight. Doesn't make a hell lot of sense to use it as airbrake button.

[undone oxide]

Okay, I get the point. Maybe I'm to unexperienced with Jets..

[wheat solstice]

Ah, forgot about it, I mostly fly with k&m

[undone oxide]

I thinks it's Hard with M&K to find the sweet spots of the Throttle quickly. I struggled with it a lot.

[wheat solstice]

How about pressing left bumper while holding the right? And having the airbrake available on brake button with gear down?

[undone oxide]

Yes, combinated key shortcuts would also be a good addition to the game. This would make it easier to realise multiple configurations on controllers and joysticks.

[wheat solstice]

Tbh this is exclusively a gamepad issue - keyboards and hotas both typically have enough inputs to map everything separately.
I personally think that gamepad control scheme and k&m/hotas scheme should be a separate thing, keep everything separated for the latter and combine things in ways that make sense for the former.

[undone oxide]

Well, if you think that only controller users have a need for it, that's your point of view. I don't see where that changes the fact that the button mapping settings can continue to mature. For everyone.

[wheat solstice]

Yes you're right, there isn't really any reason to limit which binding options are available on which device.

[sage obsidian]

so, we have a brake button
what if we had an airbrake button on that exact same button

[rare beacon]

Problem: Thats the countermeasure button

[shell flower]

Just get a hotas /s

[rare beacon]

I'm poor

[wheat solstice]

literally scroll up

[sage obsidian]

bind it to something

[ionic junco]

I'm guessing its safe to assume that practically all controller players assign their yaw to either their left and right bumper or their left and right triggers. I suspect that a good position for a airbrake toggle keybind would be from pressing both the triggers or both bumpers at the same time.

[coral storm]

not sure how that would be picked up on the triggers, they collectively control one axis

[ionic junco]

well if you'd be able to assign them to the toggle keybind as a "left trigger + right trigger" (similar to the default eject keybind), otherwise the bumpers should still work fine so long as its throttle, yaw, or some other form of passive input that you don't mind slight sacrifice.

wacky

[winged mesa]

Get that one 35 dollar logitech

[rare beacon]

Ew I'm not gonna use s Logitech

[winged mesa]

Its just a §ųğğë§ţīøñ

[vernal basin]

logitech isn't even that bad i don't know what your issue with it is

[winged mesa]

And even tho its a plastic logitech its what mitch uses, so it'll last you until you make some money

[rare beacon]

Logitech is the least reliable stuff in existence

[winged mesa]

Im getting new controls hopefully soon since half my yoke is faulty, the NEEDED binds arent working like targeting, eject, countermeasures, etc.

[ionic junco]

they are fine until the errors start. can make life a pain if you don't know how to fix them quickly.

[wheat solstice]

Yeah, I don't think anyone has come up with a better gamepad control scheme for jets than the Ace Combat scheme. It's what NO uses by default for a reason

[languid cargo]

again, that brake button is flare button when you're airborne...

[sage obsidian]

Ok but you can bind it to other stuff

Eeh thats a fair point though, controllers get... what? 14 buttons and 8-16 axis?

[covert oracle]

Normal controller has 6 axis

Left analog XY
Right analog XY
Left Right Trigger Analog

And many actually use digital triggers instead. Its not fun to do stuff with analog triggers anyway.

[languid cargo]

isn't for controllers brake and flare button are hard bind together?

[sage obsidian]

You can bind anything to any button im pretty sure

[languid cargo]

yeah they probably changed that sometimes ago. I do remember long ago it was "brake/countermeasures" as ONE keybind

and yes in any case there's no vacant buttons for controller users anyway, so really, really ,please, stop suggesting adding a "air brake button"
A separate input for airbrake/afterburner is desired but it would only work if it's an extension of throttle input.

[ionic junco]

this was changed in the update from the playtest to early access.

[keen hamlet]

what if you want to use the throttle and air breaks

[languid cargo]

you're not supposed to.

[keen hamlet]

what if you want to use the thrust vectoring on the fighters, but not have crazy Acceleration, and to have the extra drag, like in a close in dogfight
where you want the power but not the speed

[languid cargo]

you do NOT "want the power but not the speed". the vectoring itself works at all throttle setting. Also if you are in a tight turn you will be in high AoA which already gives great drag, in this case using an air brake will hinder you from having high AoA and thus hinder your turn

[ionic junco]

have you ever heard of the term the "the customer is always right in terms of taste". that should be the attitude towards this specific item. Now, if you're wondering about any combat advantages that come with this, I can tell you first hand they don't exist outside of very minor nuances. when an aircraft manoeuvres it becomes a much more effective airbrake than the airbrake ever could, I had to get this through the head of some of the beta testers when working on the early ifrit. The actual useful application of an airbrake button is through a toggle. And it really just allows pilots to better fine tune their aircrafts speed with their throttle at the lower end and achieve an improved level of response if need be. (ie, carrier landings, landing approaches in general, slow visual fly-bys, formation flying, etc all with reduced engine lag).

[languid cargo]

real life aircraft, be it fighters or airliners, generally do not allow or encourage having high throttle and spoiler at the same time. Some even have automation to disable speed brakes when you set high throttle

[languid cargo]

as a person who actually did service industry and then freelance contractor, my experience is closer to "customer is always wrong". There is a reason why they come to you. It's because you are the professional, not them.

[keen hamlet]

yes

[languid cargo]

and let's not forget we have a myriad of reasons not to have a separate airbrake button. Controller running out of buttons is one of them, but not all of them.

[keen hamlet]

how about landing a fighter on a carrier, when you may need to decelerate, but cannont wait for the engines to spool down, then back up so you dont loose too much speed

[keen hamlet]

one way around it is just have it bound to the wheel breaks by default, but you can change it if you want to

[languid cargo]

carrier landings are done at full throttle. This is because the plane has to prepare for a bolter. Your speed is carefully controlled during the past five minutes, so if you need to use air brakes on a carrier landing, you have already fkd up real hard.

Also mate, wheel brake button is the same as countermeasure button for controllers default. They avoid conflict because one is only when plane is landed, other is only when you're airborne

[ionic junco]

you quite literally forgot the entire quote. the often used quote is "the customer is always right" which is wrong, the full quote is "the customer is always right in terms of taste", refering to the fact the customer will always be correct in what they want, not you. In this application I'm referring to the fact that if people want to use a button to deploy an airbrake, doesn't matter what you think, the customer can only want what they want. you can Swade them anyway you want but its their final decision. anyways, after seeing that, i don't think you read anything past "customer".

[languid cargo]

since my job as freelance also involves taste, yes, I am including "taste" in my claim "customer is always wrong".

it's a complicated linguistics issue that I have written a friggin 200k word book (in a different language too) about it, so don't force me to elaborate...

[ionic junco]

i frankly cannot take this seriously after your last statement, go have fun yelling at other random internet strangers. I'm going to go back to doing something productive.

[languid cargo]

yeah so you admit you're not being productive here. I have stated multiple times why it cannot be a separate button, and all you did is denying it. Also allow me to remind you're blacklisted for good reason.

controller players are already missing the manual VTOL axis, and we have already been forced to make the "gunner fire at will" button to be integrated to the weapon select button. At this point it's not our problem if you still fail to see how hard we need to work on reducing number of buttons needed.

[keen hamlet]

then dont use a controller for everything lmao
use your keyboard
i do, my controller has like 6 useable buttons, but i just use my keyboard for the rest

[languid cargo]

for a lot of us that's all we have. we are already forced to use keyboard/mouse for stuff like map interaction, and good luck trying to persuade people buying a stick for 10x the price of NO just to play NO, which allow me to remind isn't a full-realism flight sim anyway

oh and let's not forget there are Steam Deck players.

[keen hamlet]

i did, never even acknowledged its the steam decks existence
and i use a elcheapo joy stick, soly for the joystick, and its shit, but it works fine for what i need it for

[languid cargo]

there are UI fixes specifically for steam deck, so yeah, definitely do acknowledge their existance.

[keen hamlet]

i even still use the mouse to look around because the hat is shit
honestly nuclear option has the best support for using keyboard and mouse and a stick than ive never seen before

[languid cargo]

anyway that's all there's to it. You're not supposed to use airbrake at non-idle throttle (especially considering the not-so-sim nature of NO), and some players absolutely need to NOT increase the number of buttons

[keen hamlet]

if you dont want to use it, just unbind it then lmao

[languid cargo]

this discussion has existed for months and I'm a bit tired every time there's a different kind of aviation illiterate that I have to educate...

@keen hamlet we want to use it without a new button. that's why our suggestion has been to integrate it into the throttle controls. just like it has always been

the suggestion has been finalized months before you existed. Press and hold throttle down to 0%, get stopped there, press again to extend airbrake; press throttle up once to retract airbrake, press and hold again to increase throttle. Easy as that.

and then we had to endure the first batch of aviation illiterates who argue "what if I want to increase throttle faster" as if it takes you one full second to double-tap your throttle control buttons, and as if input speed is the same as engine react speed.
And now this batch...which is arguably worse.

[keen hamlet]

"what if I want to increase throttle faster" thats not what i want, i want indepent control of the air break and throttle

[languid cargo]

yeah that's why you are batch 2 not batch 1 of aviation illiterates.

Air brake and throttle don't have "real" independent controls IRL, they are mechanically independent only because of earlier control system tech issues. You are NOT supposed to use non-idle throttle with air brakes at the same time.

[ionic junco]

im curious as to what you mean by "blacklisted" lemme guess, you blocked me because of some one sided heated argument?

[languid cargo]

for example you talked about when landing. I can tell you that on a 737 you need to keep the speed brake lever at "armed" position before going into landing configuration. Translated to NO logic it means your airbrake is supposed to be locked from manual inputs when you lower the gear.

let's also not forget we don't even have independent flap controls

[ionic junco]

ok so

[keen hamlet]

those are spoilers, not air breaks, if you use them in filght you will fall out of the sky

[languid cargo]

wrong. like I said, aviation illiterate.

"speed brake" is the official term used by Boeing. and yes you can use it in flight. It has a "flight detent" which is essentially the maximum "spoiler" you can extend while in flight. (which, isn't much)

it is indeed discouraged to overuse the speed brake however, because most airliners use spoilerons, so when you extend speed brakes it affects your roll authority.

[ionic junco]

oh boy, yeah no this is truly one of the least productive conversations I've seen.

[languid cargo]

by the way, when you land, the armed speed brakes will automatically extend to the "up" position (beyond flight detent). However, once you push the throttle beyond N1 40% it will retract, in case you want to go around.
it's also handy as a way to retract your speed brakes after landing, because 40% N1 happens to be standard taxi output.

[keen hamlet]

yea, they do function as speed breaks, by disrupting the airflow over the wing making more drag and less lift, but there main function is to kill most of the lift the wing makes when the wheels hit the ground so it cant put all the plane weight on the wheels

[languid cargo]

yeah you only know about 30% of it. Flight detent speed brake are so mildly extended that it does not stall the wing section behind it. You even have to look very closely to see a difference.
But that's already enough to control the speed in an open descent (which is a descent with idle throttle).

in clean configuration a full loaded 737-800 (62.7 ton ZFW) would descend at about maximum 1800 fpm without overspeeding. With flight detent speed brake that can be increased to about 2500

which already exceeds the 450 fpm "normal" cabin altitude descend rate (happens at circa 2200 fpm) but I think this is beyond what you would comprehend anyway...

[keen hamlet]

nah fpm is incompatible software

[languid cargo]

you are never having enough in exposing your ignorance aren't you?

fpm is feet per minute.

anyway that's the thing for airbrake controls.

1. it makes no sense for simlite like NO to have independent airbrake control, as those are better reserved for proper sims where "we allow you to do it because we expect you to know good enough to not do it". Ace Combat, Project Wingman, War Thunder AB, all of them have air brakes inhibited unless you're in idle throttle.
2. for the sake of controller and steam deck players, any airbrake control improvement would have to be integrated into throttle controls. If you have a spare axis, sure, you can ask for an option to have separate throttle axis and air brake axis, but the rest of us would need to have it integrated to the throttle buttons.

[ionic junco]

vcharng, I'm gonna keep it real with you. You're not painting yourself in a good light. And frankly, you're not getting anywhere with this, But as you seem so passionate in this action of continuous defamation, I'm not gonna stop you (not like I could anyway lol).

[languid cargo]

you don't "keep it real" with me. You're troll, that's why you're blacklisted. You also have violated your own claim that you're leaving this discussion, so how about you adhere to it

it's pretty obvious that neither of you have near same level of aviation knowledge with me, so how about watch and learn instead of tossing unreasonable and unfounded opinions?

tbh having a "airbrake button" as one of the options to use your airbrakes could work, although you will be using the airbrakes wrong. It's never, in any system, a button that you press and hold to keep it extended. Given how NO walks a delicate balance between reducing complexity (then why independent control for airbrake?) and realism (then why allowing airbrake extension at non-idle throttle?), it will be an option that "could work as long as you don't deprive other people of their better options" but also "then why bother at all".

[keen hamlet]

is that the same as using the tail hook wrong because it deploys automatically when landing on land?

[languid cargo]

well in one sense yes. Landing on land should not deploy the arresting hook. But at least this case is more comprehensible due to the "simplicity" rule.
In fact in ideal conditions the Ifrit should even have different approach speed indication between a carrier landing and a dry-land landing, but that's really a bit much to ask...

BTW that's why I remove the hook when operating Ifrit from land.

[keen hamlet]

wow you fucken nerd

[languid cargo]

you should've reached that conclusion when I told you all the stuff about 737 speed brakes...

[keen hamlet]

i don't use the nerd insult lightly, only when its valid on ones unnecessarily nerdy behaver

[languid cargo]

so you admit you're insulting. Good.

Let's just leave the topic at that. I've already outlined all the technical details you need to know. Any more bickering is just the typical troll behaviour of "must get the last words".

[keen hamlet]

im still laughing at that you remove the tail hook because it deploys automatically, not because it adds weight, but because it deploys automatically when landing on land

[zenith garnet]

I think it’s about time for this thread to die.

[rare beacon]

Wouldn't being at high thrust with airbrakes on just damage airbrakes or the aircraft in general due to high stress??

[languid cargo]

it's actually because both. Why should I have the tail hook installed when it gives me realism penalty plus added weight?

[wheat solstice]

The only jet where airbrakes had a speed limit that I can think of was Viggen

It kinda defeats the point of having them

[keen hamlet]

the comment on war thunder is false, you can deploy air breaks when ever you want

[languid cargo]

everything on a plane have a deployment speed limit, it's just that some of them have a limit so high that it's meaningless.
For example, 737 doesn't have a gear down speed limit because the other parts of the plane would suffer structure damage before the landing gear does.

[covert oracle]

No plane in warthunder has airbrake limits. You can check in the decompiles. Its not a stat

[languid cargo]

I mean IIRC you can't deploy air brake unless you're at 0% throttle, except perhaps in Simulator controls? the few airbrake applications I know in WT basically are having "airbrakes" as extending the throttle input beyond idle.

[covert oracle]

Thats wrong. Airbrake button works at any throttle and any speed, no matter sim air rb or air ab

[keen bolt]

just having to click throttle down again when at 0% to engage it could work

[covert oracle]

Same in DCS. Only thing: in the fulcrums and flankers extending airbrake or throttles disables your AFB. How about you stop trying to bend reality. Its cool that you are an aeronautics guy but you are projecting a Boeing 737 onto an air superiority fighter

[covert oracle]

Doesnt work for people with an actual axis. Not everyone has a magnetic/physical detent throttle. Any solution that relies on a button for throttle wont work.

[keen bolt]

multiple control options

[covert oracle]

We do not have that amount of customizability in controls. This would need a switch away from ReWired which Mitch said they are not considering.

[keen bolt]

dang

[covert oracle]

Overall the RPM difference whether you are on idle or 2% doesn't make a difference for flaring missiles at all. Why is everyone so obsessed with 0% throttle

[covert oracle]

F14 doesnt have a limit on flap speed. at some point aerodynamic forces just force them back in until the forces cancel out, its basically an automatic variable flap. I agree with you that airbrakes above 0% throttle are useless but you are also going about it in the worst way possible.

You are passenger aircraft brained, how about you come back to throw around your weight after you have worked on airframes that are applicable to nuclear option instead of trying to project your passengerpilled ideas onto an air superiority fighter. If you just stopped being a Piece about you being aeronautically awesome and everyone else being stupid there might be actual conversation, but all I read is you speaking about how Boeing does it IN A PASSENGER AIRPLANE. On God, get a mirror and uninstall discord for at least two months, this is not healthy for you.

[safe raven]

hi everyone, this is a slightly different implementation, but one that is both configurable to suit personal reference and does not introduce any more keybinds or buttons. Applies to both discrete and continuous inputs.

[languid cargo]

How about no? I have 3000 hours in 737-800 not F-14.
Like I said, everything has a speed limit, except sometimes that speed limit to deploy something is above the limit of the rest of the plane, just like the 737's landing gear.
and the reason why I came up with 737-800 is because two reasons:

1. that troll who is now blacklisted tried to make a point with "what if I want to land with high throttle and speed brake?
2. I know from 737-800 landing checklist that this should never happen. The landing checklist specifically claimd speed brakes should be "down and armed". It also features automatic speed brake retraction if you touch down, speed brake deployed AND THEN go above N1 40%, because system would think you want to go around. AND in the case of carrier landing on a fighter you are to keep everything prepared for a go around in the case of a bolter so deploying speed brakes is also wrong.
   That's why I came up with the argument "only sim that expects you to know good enough to not use throttle and speed brake together would give you independent options"

And if "this is not healthy space for me" then it's the people here (such as that troll) who should be removed permanently, not me removing discord.

[covert oracle]

you are only tlaking about the 737, look at what this tornado is doing lol

[wheat solstice]

Yes and airbrake is gonna be one of those things that is gonna be a meaninglessly high speed limit normally, because its purpose is to slow you down, and overspeed situations are gonna be where you need it the most

[languid cargo]

uh, you mean like you need to hold down throttle button in 100% or 0% for a while to enter A/B or Air Brake?
Sure, I can agree with that, tho I'd say requiring a separate click on the button would allow for faster reaction

[wheat solstice]

And yeah, 737 is a poor model for fighter jet design lol

[languid cargo]

Like I said, I have 3000 hours on 737, not any other plane. It's only natural I base on something I'm more knowledgeable and familiar, and only feature aircraft models I'm not when I have other sources. That's why I only included carrier fighter on the bolter preparation argument

[covert oracle]

Ok, I have 3000 hours in intellij IDEA doing coding, yet im not shoehorning it into this conversation. Fun fact: you are about as competent as me when it comes to using an actual fighter aircraft. namely 0 flighthours and only doing sims

[safe raven]

well in the diagram, the example shown would be what maximum deadzone looks like. in reality, most players would play with somewhere inbetween the two examples, with a smaller deadzone to allow for an even faster reaction to a seperate click

[covert oracle]

Note: aircraft landing on a carrier with speedbrakes fully open, yet its obviously gonna go to full throttle incase of bolter. Your 737 landing checklist means NOTHING here

[languid cargo]

and I mention "quick response" because during the "first wave of aviation illiterates" there were people arguing they want "faster response from airbrake to X% throttle.

@safe raven sorry let me clarify, in your suggestion is it at all possible going into airbrake from say 30% throttle with the same button press?

@covert oracle your photo's plane doesn't even have tail hook down (I don't see its speed brakes open either). And since we have not-fighter, not-carrier aircraft, namely DR, 737 argument actually does work here. At least for the DR no you are not supposed to use airbrake with non-idle throttle.

yeah searched for the photo, it's touch and go and yes the airbrakes are open but need to click to really see it

[covert oracle]

I absolutely accept that nothing in NO should be using SB outside of 0%. Thats not my issue. Its just that you claim it is this way in other games and try to bend reality to show other games do it that way which is just not true.

IRL a fighter aircraft has a dedicated lever for the speedbrake. Simple as. It is something the pilot can choose to do. It is not a passenger airplane where choices are taken away from the pilot to mitigate risks

[languid cargo]

and I'm fine with admitting I'm not the most knowledgeable about War Thunder. I have yet to fly anything there that has an air brake anyway.
Still, other games still backs my point which is "only sims that expect you to know better would allow you to have independent airbrake input"
The entire point has always been "the control scheme which allows for airbrake in non-idle throttle, which some player wants, is BS".

[covert oracle]

DCS absolutely doesnt expect people to know better. A single celled organism could take off the su27 in DCS. your argument of this game being for "aviation iliterates" and thats why the choice should be taken away is just your superiority complex showing.

[languid cargo]

uh I'm pretty sure DCS definitely counts as a proper sim, which "expects you to know better than using air brakes with throttle".
DCS, just like X-Plane, most definitely belongs to the "you need 30 minute lecture on the ground before you can even cold start a plane and start taxiing" category.

[covert oracle]

There are many good reasons to have airbrake at 0% in this game, but you call people aviation iliterate every second sentence, go play Call of Duty public lobby if you are that intent on insulting everyone but dont do it here.

[languid cargo]

I double checked your role groups and you are not a mod. If I am being defensive in a "CoD lobby-like" environment (which sadly NO has always been), you'll need to be a mod to be authorized to order me to stop. Before that happens, how I'm dealing with trolls and people asking for wrong stuff to be added is none of your business.

[covert oracle]

And I do fly a lot of DCS, and I do absolutely use speedbrake on non-IDLE sometimes. Is it suitable for this game? Not really. Is your main argument "everyone except me is aviation iliterate"? It sure as hell is.

[languid cargo]

never said everyone except me. Only said people who thought they should be entitled to have "speed brake at high throttle", as well as suggesting for "press and hold for speed brake" are.

Yeah I have speed brake at non-idle as well, but still it's low throttle and usually under A/T.

[keen bolt]

I think it would be nice to be able to be at 0% without the airbrake deploying because throttle controls are a bit sensitive and bleeding energy on accident when countering ir missiles doesnt feel good.
But it also doesnt matter that much, adding more buttons is always annoying for those not on keyboard controls.
I like the deadzone idea.

[languid cargo]

yeah this. Deadzone idea is solid as well tho personally I prefer the "extra click" version

[covert oracle]

I do like the deadzone idea as well. Easy to hit IR flaring throttle without bleeding speed.

Extra click is cool and tactile on xbox, Only sad thing is extra click doesnt work for people using a physical throttle.

I use my TWCS for NO and everything else, it sadly doesnt even have detents alltough im fine with hitting virtual detents.

[languid cargo]

yes, this. Everyone who has been forced into a stall by the 5th IR missile would probably agree with you.

Extra click can only be applied to button inputs. Throttle input as an axis should definitely not have that.
For people with axis throttle input I think they should seek a separate a/b or airbrake input axis, or having them as part of the throttle axis

[covert oracle]

the deazone percentage actually works really well for that since you could set it to magnetic detents your throttle may have. I could for example add a magnet strip to my TWCS to have a detent at 5% and 95% for idle and AFB

[languid cargo]

I mean, isn't button input and axis input for the same outcome already known as separate inputs in key binding settings?
So we can use my idea for button throttle input and your idea for axis throttle input

[covert oracle]

Yes im fine with that

[languid cargo]

yeah, these two ideas don't really conflict. we can even have the option for separate airbrake axis (and set the airbrake deadzone on throttle input to 0) for people who actually have a throttle quadrant.

IIRC a throttle quadrant can easily have up to 8 axis inputs from left to right: speedbrake, throttle L/R, propeller pitch (or speed for constant-speed prop) L/R, mixture L/R and finally stabilizer trim

[wheat solstice]

1. Airbrake is clearly open.
2. Hook is up because they are training touch and goes
3. 737 argument does NOT work here, maybe if DR was a B-52 analogue it would - it's not, it's a B-2 analogue

[languid cargo]

I don't want to go over that again, especially not after finally settling a late-to-the-party argument. can you just read my responses above?
737 was only used to support "no airbrake on high throttle", so unless you are not knowledgeable in aviation enough to agree with that...

[wheat solstice]

I'm knowledgeable enough in aviation to NOT agree

[languid cargo]

that's just for demonstration flight purpose innit

[proud walrus]

OK guys keep it civil or I will have to lock the thread

[wheat solstice]

Is it known that AB closes in B-2 at full throttle? Or is it speculation?

[languid cargo]

and can you not reignite a dead argument after being repeatedly told not to do so? I just worked this hard to come to a conclusion with Pizza and you just have to keep coming back and ping me

[languid cargo]

when it comes to the B-2 I believe the safest answer is always "it's classified"...

[wheat solstice]

I can think of several reasons to use both at the same time in combat. Either way there is no mechanism to automatically close airbrakes at AB in F-16.
AFAIK AB closing at high throttle is specific to Navy jets, and it's there to reduce pilot workload during bolters