Leaderboard

Do you mean like this? They will destroy any ship they get close to!

Hey, Kronenberg from vCarrier Air Wing 17 here. In this post I want to rant a little about the state of Supercarrier, about the changes that are coming, and give concrete suggestions on how to improve that module for us. To start off, here is a little bit about us as Carrier Air Wing 17. We have been around DCS since 2021 and nowadays we are an airwing with roughly 30 active members equally split between VF-103 flying the Tomcat and VFA-34 flying the Hornet. We try to simulate US Naval Aviation as realistically as possible in DCS and we strive to find a good balance between "milsim" while doing things that actually make sense in DCS. This means we're not super big on roleplaying and we will omit real life procedures if they do not make much sense. We often fly strike packages with 16 Aircraft and over 20 players. This means we will all load up into the mission, spawn aircraft on the carrier deck based upon our LSP (Launch Sequence Plan) and then, on event time, launch those aircraft. We simulate Cyclic Ops, meaning all event aircraft will recover together on the carrier deck after the Cycle has been completed. Another point before I start with my ranting: We understand we fill a niche in DCS, and that we are not the entire community (although there are other groups like us). I will talk about a lot of things that make sense for us and balance that with things that the rest of the community does. There are two things I'll talk about: 1. Ongoing bugs/Issues 2. Future features. So with 16 Aircraft that want to launch one after another will cause a huge amount of issues. First, we cannot even spawn 16 aircraft on the carrier at the same time reliably. While there might be enough spawn slots on the carrier, as soon as there are more than 4 aircraft spawned into the carrier we cannot reliably spawn in anymore. That means we need to re-spot the aircraft that are already spawned in. One of the bugs that we encounter a lot is when the catapults break in launch operations, or will no longer accept an aircraft. Also the JBDs can get stuck while extended. While recovering, the crew will return to the LA or catapults while other aircraft are in the system and on approach. This means if I taxi to CAT 2 to park I have to avoid the CAT1 or 2 JBD because the SC module will trigger the JBD. However, I will say: the catapults are better and have not been breaking as much since the last time I ranted (see this video). When it works we also love the catapult crew. It's a nice feature to have and it's really cool for immersion. Which is why it would be nice to be able to control all this as an option or menu item. Here you might say: "Okay guys, just spawn in start up and take off immediately - where is the big deal?" Well, that's not how carrier ops work IRL. We want to simulate proper launches and recoveries within a set amount of time (a cycle). It is our identity and seeing as it is literally how carriers have always operated IRL, we should be able to do it. We obviously realize that not all communities operate like that. But a good part of it wants to be able to simulate real life procedures. On to future features, and here is something that actually really scares us: The plane directors, specifically the new feature. They are obviously a really cool feature, but it is highly likely that they will not work for 16 planes. A lot of people bought SC thinking we can simulate realistic carrier operations. Instead we are getting “Super Carrier - The Animation”. If the Plane Directors are a feature we cannot turn off in the mission editor, or cannot control, we will not be able to use the Supercarrier module anymore. We want to be on CVN-73 not the Stennis and benefit from what works. Otherwise, our choices are to uninstall the Supercarrier in the wing or use the Forrestal and that would be awful. Here are the features we actually want in the Supercarrier. First, please give us custom spawn slots/positions (like takeoff from ground on an Airfield). This would solve a lot of issues we have with spawning in. We could put all our Tomcats at the stern of the boat, all the hornets in the Sixpack, no respotting needed. We just spawn and launch on time. Then you might say: "hey our AI routing would not work with that" - and sure that’s true, but the solution is make it an option in the Mission editor so that we can choose. We do not use any AI at all for our missions. Please give us the option to have custom spawn slots, and the people that do not want to have that, just do not tick the option in the ME. The next thing goes hand in hand with the spawn slots: give us an overall "Manual Mode" for the carrier. We have human controllers and LSOs every time we fly and we do not need the AI comms at all. It is beyond frustrating not being able to turn on the deck lights on without calling into the aircraft carrier with the AI comms. Or when the AI starts to talk after people bolter and then anyone else just gets talked over. In general the AI comms are just not useful to us, because the AI just talks on top of us. Basically, a manual mode for the SC features would be best. Custom spawn slots/positions (like takeoff from ground on an Airfield) and give us the ability to turn off the plane directors. This way groups like us can choose to work the Supercarrier on our own and without too much interference. Don’t get me wrong, we love the module, but I just want to put into perspective what is actually important. Primarily, we are just requesting features to be handled by ourselves so that we can choose to use the module in a way that makes sense for realism-focused groups. Overall we are just frustrated with some of the features that we have and that have been promised. And looking forward it does not seem like any of these issues are going to be addressed. Thanks for your work ED! TLDR - Here is what we need: Reliable Aircraft Spawn Slots: The ability to reliably spawn 16 aircraft on the carrier at the same time for realistic launches and recoveries. Custom Spawn Slots/Positions: Provide custom spawn slots/positions on the carrier deck, similar to airfield ground starts, to facilitate smoother operations without the need for respotting. Manual Mode for the Carrier: Introduce a manual mode for the Supercarrier, allowing human controllers and Landing Signal Officers (LSOs) to manage carrier operations without AI interference. Option to Turn Off Plane Directors: Allow the option to turn off the Plane Directors feature, which might not be practical for use with larger groups of aircraft, such as 16-plane operations. Fix Catapult and JBD Issues: Address bugs related to catapults breaking during launch operations and issues with the Jet Blast Deflectors (JBDs) getting stuck while extended.

Working on the next update of the US Infantry assets. Here is a clip of the rifleman with a suppressed M4 assaulting an airfield.

I think Mavericks and boresighting is fairly simple and easy to use. If you hate it, its fine, you can use the Mavs without boresighting or use different weapons

Thanks! Yep, it's all coming together nicely. Thank you! It's fun to simulate different x vs y engagements. Thank you very much! Easiest to use 'Ground attack' - 'Bombing' - and put the marker on the target. Make sure you are within launch parameters in altitude and range. Haha, I was actually thinking about this. But I don't have a M2KM readily available. Another possibility is use of the container based Club-K system.

Baltic Dragon "The Gamblers" F-16C Campaign incoming.

Right now the only fire command that seems to work is fire at point. The first change is to fix the attack group and add forward observers. Whenever we select the attack group command if their is a friendly unit within visual range capable of acting as a forward observer the artillery should fire until the target is destroyed or the battery is out of ammo. If there is no forward observer we should get a warning like no forward observer or line of site. The second change would be an "on call" flag. This would add a unit to a fire support pool. Whenever a unit capable of acting as a forward observer is in line of sight of the enemy DCS will automatically start assigning fire missions to units in the fire support pool.

I took a bunch of measurements the old fashioned way and posted a thread about it. It’s from a D model, but I believe the cockpit dimensions are the same as an E. Hope this helps!

There's no such thing as bad weather. Only bad clothes... Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Baltic Approaches would tick those boxes, and be more in line with the typical map sizes. Perfect hunting ground for ASuW Viggens and Tornados.

What you describe can occur when you first switch to BPZ and then enter TEL mode afterwards. Until we see a radar overhaul and/or AERGES implements BPZ mode correctly I think it is probably the best to just unbind BPZ mode in order to not run into the above problem. Thanks.

Don't fly it as a fighter then, at least not in traditional sense. Remember the plane was designed as a fast bomber at first, as an answer to Air Ministry specification for a fast bomber indeed. Granted, after the prototypes flew, in 1940 the Ministry opted for putting a radar on it and convertng it into a more multirole plane, but the airframe with its bomber-like structural design limits was already there. Sources posted by robi-Wan on page 1 and 2 of this thread... https://forum.dcs.world/topic/279674-expected-mossie-performance-vs-current-plane-set/ ... seem to indicate a 6 G limit, also with counterweight added in pitch control system to keep pilots from going above 3-3.5 G too eagerly. So that't about it. Moreover, keep in mind how accumulated structural damage works in DCS in general - you can go a little beyond limit a couple of times, but each time lowers the limit by a few of tenths of G so that eventually, the last pull can take the wings off noticeably below "fresh" limit of a new airplane you had at the beginning on the mission. All and all, much smoother maneuvering is required, although I agree it's quite difficult to figure out if you're smooth enough with such sensitive elevators and lack of G-meter in this bird.

Hear hear. This has been a painful PAY module to love. It hurts me more than my highschool girlfriend did.

Thanks @Bremspropeller and @Loukuins for your work, much appreciated. Here is some small stuff I shouldn't care about (but do). This is a screenshot of the canopy emergency handle near the cockpit of the F1: And this is more or less the same handle in the Mirage 2000 by RAZBAM: The RAZBAM one is a full 3D object with glass on top of it. Also, I really cannot unsee this texture: If you don't know what I mean, the grey texture just below the spoilers, it is really low res and ugly. Please add some 3D stuff here. The Mirage F1 is a 79,99$ module, which puts it into the same category as the Heatblur F-14, RAZBAM F-15E etc., this is the high fidelity category. I think we all know that the 3D model of the F1 is not on the same level (yet), so some constructive criticism is warranted here. I love this module and would buy it a second time if I could - just to support you guys. I also really appreciate that you guys listen and communicate. Kind Regards, Booka42

Hi I could not find, in any manuals, a G load limitation for this Mosquito model But is says Fighter-bomber Here is a track, where I did a few 5-6G pulls with 50% fuel and no bombs or rockets. One manual from 1950 specifies that at weights below 19000 pounds there are no limitations on aerobatics Most of my pulls were about 5.5G, maximum and one of about 6.3G according to LCTRL+Y Stripe Eventually, at about 4.9G the wing came off. Mosquito has no accelerometer, and even at 320MPH IAS its easy to reach 5G It doesn't make sense to me. How are you supposed to use this plane as a fighter, if even a 5G maneuvering is enough to , eventually, reach structural failure. Any time you engage in any kind of prolonged air combat, you almost guarantied to lose a wing... Even if you do a overhead attack on an enemy bomber, or dive bomb... Its so easy to exceed 5G on Mosquito in DCS, that any combat manuevering will, eventually, lead to a structural failure... And its almost impossible to control your G factor due to no instruments available. And if 4-4.5G is the max, then the maneuvering safety speed would be below 300MPH IAS, which questions the fighter designation for this Mosquito model... I tried different fuel management tactics For example emptied the outer wing tanks and the fuselage ones. But is seems to make no difference I tried 10% fuel - same results. I tried maneuvering at below 5G, and even then, after some time, the wing came off Is this normal or a bug? Here is a track: Mosquito over G test.trk

The Static Hornet's wings are folded on the airfield, but they shouldn't be. I remember when they were only folded when you linked them to a carrier. When the Static Hornet is on the airfield, it's wings should but unfolded. Can we get an option to have them folded or unfolded? It looks weird, a line of Hornets with their wings folded on an airfield. Not saying they can't be folded on the airfield, but 9/10 they're unfolded on the airfield.

You are not alone, I actually enjoy early access releases … even the F-16 was enjoyable to me Edit: Sorry, didnt notice the date of the post I was quoting

Ah, sorry. You were talking about VR. I missed that. Different animal. Can't really offer much expertise with that.

I knew a "Me-109" Pilot from WWII when I was a young kid, he helped me built my first sail plane and often took me for a walk through the woods telling me many things about airplanes, like Center of Gravity, Pitch & Roll and Yaw, the BASICS of how a plane flies. He never used Bf, for him it was the Me or Messerschmitt or often just "hunnerdneun" in slang. Correct, in Wikipedia and manuals and other legal papers you will likely read Bayerische Flugwerke AG but that is not how the people here in Germany remember it. It's actually one of the few WWII Birds I don't have a "Walk Around" book about....just checked eBay and Amazon....damn...it's 114,83€ for the Booklet nowadays. Got them for way less 30 years ago in the States. The Book titel reads: "Messerschmitt Bf-109g Walk Around". https://www.amazon.de/Messerschmitt-109g-Walk-Around-Hans-Heiri/dp/B00SB24NGG/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1695064036&sr=8-1

Обычно после таких видео до релиза проходит пять-семь лет.

I really wished that both the IFF and HAVE QUICK pages would be implemented. Even though DCS itself doesn't support actual IFF or HAVE QUICK operations yet, SimpleRadio (SRS) does and the only hindrance to using SRS to it's fullest extent in the DCS F-16 is that we simply don't have the IFF or HAVE QUICK pages in our aircraft. All we'd need is the ability to change the frequencies and turn options on and off on those two pages so SRS could extract those values to use with it's own radio and IFF functionality. Maybe even get the "turn IFF mode on/off N/W/E/S of steerpoint x" functionality in there...

Haha ^^ We can actually "fix" static model on a ship without "no mods" (with "link unit" option), but it doesn't work with "units" ^^ For one Mission, I have make a drill ship (no mods) by fixing a derrick on the "helipad" of an Handy Wind, and it work pretty well! But sadly, it does'nt work with units. It's a shame because if it work, we can put Manpads, troopers, zu-23, or even an SA-15 on the ships, without mods ^^ (Or ZU-23 on wagon train, for example) I must try to fix static model of an SA-15 on a Vasily Bykov ship (relative to the ship) and try to "activate" it with trigger (but I don't think it will work!)

There's a lot of submarine classes that were or still are stationed around the area (in the process of making my .kmz I've come across a lot of them). Though less related to the map itself, going with a ballistic missile submarine is probably a poor choice given the total lack of ASW and the fact DCS is staying away from nuclear weapons. A better candidate would probably be SSGs and SSGNs - Juliet, Echo I/II, Charlie I/II and Oscar I/II (all of which were/are stationed in the region) as they will be more relevant to the kind of warfare DCS can currently simulate (even if there's still massive limitations there). Personally though, I'd prefer more Soviet/Russian surface combatants, such as the Sovremenny guided missile destroyer.

@Pyrocumulous This is really a weird find. It is my belief the next updates may bring a fix to this weird bug. Please report back if after the updates you still have the issue. Thanks for your patience and support.

As we're updating the pilot body and animations, some of these issues will be resolved. Stay tuned.

Thank you for taking the time to shed some light in one of DCS most important part of mission editing, which also is currently in dire need of more illumination. So let me do my part: These things are called 'flags' for historical reasons, and if you use that 'picture' you may better remember what flags are: Historically, if you wanted to signal something over large distances, people would use some pre-arranged signals, for example lighting a fire (smoke) or old-school beacon. The 'pre-arranged' portion here is key: all parties that are involved need to know what the signal is, and what it is used to communicate. In the past centuries, as passing information reliably and quickly over large distances became a pressing need, many groups have evolved a system using colorful pieces of cloth: flags. This was especially true for nautical application, but was also used to transmit messages over land (using "semaphores). When the computer age began, this concept was also adopted, and was used to signal a status of certain states. Older computers that used relays to store a bit, also added small (paper) flags (later lights) to indicate if a status bit was set or not so operators could easily discern the core state from the flags - hence flags hat made the jump to computer speak. In DCS mission scripting, flags are often used for similar purposes: first, it is agreed what a flag's setting implies, and then you set triggers that react to a flag's setting: is it 'raised' (the old-school flags that can only be raised or lowered: be 0 (lowered) or anything else (raised). Now, in DCS flags can have more values than 0 or 1, or when we take the nautical analogy, flags can be lowered (set to zero), or raised with different pre-agreed values ("colors" or "patterns" in the real-world past when real flags where used) . So flags are not really switches, but indicators. Important: switches can use flags to determine if they themselves should react: "switch on or off" (be triggered in mission parlance). A subtle differentiation, to be sure, but one that can help you when we talk about triggers and conditions: a trigger with a condition would be the switch, and they can, amongst other things, react to the value of a flag and then perform actions. Flags can be set to "off" (lowered, value zero by convention and in missions) or raised (to different non-zero values) whenever the user wants. This can be done through 'actions' in DCS missions (or Lua scripts). AND one important use of flags is that we can make the mission to perform an action only if certain conditions are met like certain flags raised whilst others are lowered (this is the "condition" part of a trigger) So it's not the switch that carries the information. The switch reacts to the information carried with a flag, and one result of that is that the switch can then set this or other flags (or spawn aircraft, or do many other things...) Correct. And that is why we should view a switch as distinct from a flag. We can use flags as parts of switches to both determine a condition, and as part of an action to change something. In missions, instead of 'switches' we use the word "trigger" (a really unfortunate name for what it does - since as you already noted, there are unconditional, i.e. always executing, triggers. But I digress). In DCS missions, Triggers are used to initiate certain actions - and they have three parts: when should we check (regularly, or on certain events like a crash or airfield capture) and how often (once, multiple times) the situation that we are looking for: the 'condition' (this can, among other things, look for flags that may be raised or lowered. If you omit the condition, it is assumed that the situation that we are looking for is "anything", we always meet that condition). If the entire situation we find is as described in the condition, we proceed to the... action - what is to be done. This can be sending messages, activating units, or raising and lowering flags. In other words, when we use Flags in missions, they can appear in multiple places of our triggers: to help make decisions (the condition part) and to make changes (the action part). Or: flags are used to pass information and to act on, no more. And IMHO terribly explained [Addendum: One peculiar quirk in DCS is that flags can remember the mission time when they were last changed. This non-standard bit of additional information mission creators can use inside conditions and require a 'Time since flag' component. Obviously, mission designers cannot directly modify that information other than by setting a flag, and the entire mechanics of "Time Since" are underdocumented. But this feature can allow mission designers to implement some primitive, if unreliable timers].

Mosquito wings come off pretty easily. Maybe too easily, but the exact value is not the root of the issue. The real issue is that the Mosquito modeling does not convey any feel or feedback to G load or any airframe stress for that matter. The purpose of the elevator counter weight was to add force-feedback to G load (plus some oscillations damping) to the pilot’s hand - we can’t feel that. There are little to no sound cues, no noticeable increasing vibrations - unless you look behind at your wingtip vortices trail you have no clue that you are pulling G at all. These feedbacks need to be enhanced - even slightly exaggerated, to compensate for the fact that our actual stick is connected to a simple spring, and our ass is seated in a stable chair at exactly 1G no matter how hard we pull on the stick. Only then it will matter if the wings come off at 4.9 or 5.5 G.

link to get it? thanks

Can we put SA-15 Tor fixed on the helipad ?

Are you sure about that? From what I surmise (no deeper knowledge on my part either) is that the following happens: When an AI unit's health is reduced to zero and it is determined that the unit is to enter the 'cook-off' phase rather than exploding outright, the AI unit is removed from the game (not necessarily nilled, but it is entirely possible that the memory structure in the C backend is freed). The reference (pointer) to the table that represents the AI unit in the Lua glue will now return nil when you try the Unit.getByName() accessor. However, if you are using a stale pointer to the unit that you had allocated before the unit went into cooking-off, you'll likely receive an error, as that reference points to a no-longer existing table/structure. This is one of the issues that pre-existing scripts can run into. No "death" event is invoked by the game (which leads us into this threat's main point) Instead of the (AI) Unit, for cooking-off purposes, DCS inserts a static object with the same name and type as the Unit that it just removed. Since unit names in DCS must be unique, this static object effectively replaces the Unit. After a while a "death" event is invoked, with the Static Object as initiator, not not the Unit that originally caused it. This can result in havoc in your scripts if you name-check and match with a cached former AI Unit because that unit's reference is stale. As it is now, it has resulted in may unexpected behaviors in many scripts that assume that - after name-matching - the initiator is a Unit, not Static Object. Once the static death event was sent, the static is replaced by yet another model, a wreckage, that can't be accessed through DCS means, and that can only be removed with removeJunk(). After a while, the game removes the wreckage as well <-- this is where I suspect the root cause for removeJunk()'s crashes Although there might be a connection, I don't see this as a stringent one, because... Not that I have any proof, I'm merely guessing here, but I think that there's a probability that when DCS removes wreckage after some time (last bullet point in my enumeration above), it sometimes forgets to clear that table entry, and eventually a removeJunk() call into the C backend will crash while trying to access a stale link from the wreckage table. And the reason that this seemingly only happens on servers is simply because server missions tend to run for much, much longer, increasing the likelihood of it to happen. So I theorize (no proof) that removeJunk() sometimes fails because internally, DCS occasionally screws up some wreckage table when it removes the wreckage after a long wait and forgets to remove a reference in a related table. This would have happened even if we had access to removeJunk() before ED changed the death notification order of events. I guess we'll never know, except that I hope that eventually this is remedied.

Shouldn't they have both? I've definitely seen pics of chocks being used on carriers.

I would certainly ignore anyone that suggests hot jet starts as a workaround. Also, when are chocks going to be replaced with chains?

Running 5800x3d. Upgrade from 3090 to 4090 took fps up 75 to 200 percent on my triple 1440p setup, depending on map and situation; and DCS frametime counter still reports GPU as limiting factor in multithreaded DCS. You're in for a treat.

I believe they could add a new role to the SC, with Pushbacks (trucks that can carry aircraft through the deck). This would give better organization of the aircraft on the deck, IMO

maybe you have a conflict with another Mod? .. the fuel tanks look fine on my DCS:

I prefer to call it 'Hans.'

Another update, guys - please check this teaser: Thanks to Blinxis for creating this video!

Project 22160 Patrol Ship (Russia) version 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version

Small update for September, but a few new missions that I think are nice additions. Any issues you have with the missions working properly, please let me know! v.2.8 - Semptember 16th, 2023 Missions Added: - Fun - Marianas Tanker Shoot - Bored with aerial refueling? Frustrated with it? Take out some stress on no less than 22 defenseless KC-135 Tankers over the island of Guam. Unlimited missiles, fuel and cannon ammo. - Advanced - Fight the Phoenix - Square off against an F14B Tomcat armed with the longest range air to air missile in DCS: The AIM-54 Phoenix. Practice how to evade, fight and win against this unique weapon system. - Expert - Dusk & Night Wild Weasel - Fly into a randomly generated short range SAM system (SA11, 6, 3 or 8 ) and practice low-light and full dark Weasel Tactics. No labels. No F10. - Admin/Quality of Life updates: - All Basic & Advanced formation flight missions now terminate with the AI flight lead landing at the final steerpoint, allowing you to attempt formation landings to culminate the mission. - All AIM-120 missions now have 2 client aircraft, allowing you to choose between AIM-120B or C model missiles. - Grammatical and contextual updates to multiple mission briefings.

Новости в последнее время ни о чем. Когда 2.9?

F-15E Strike Eagle JDAM test from Razabm Discord

thats kind of the entire point of Early Access, no? If im buying an early access module I'm expecting bugs and missing functions in return for having the module early.

Markindel's USS Iowa, Late War Vietnam/Korea This mod is a re-make of Mario's original Iowa. It came about due to the Inspiration, help, and texture work of crazyeddie! He has left a few surprises inside for you to discover! We added flight decks. They are spawn able! Fully armed! And great FUN! As a added bonus, I included The Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH! This is a remote controlled helo platform, used in Korea/Vietnam! ai only. We hope you find use for, and enjoy using them! https://www.dropbox.com/s/kro8oghfkidvecf/USS Iowa Class Late War - Korea V 2.7.3.rar?dl=0 Up-date 31/8/2021 This version comes to you from near_blind. who has taken the initiative to edit the weapons lua to more closely match real life on a 1980 Iowa class Battleship. All guns have been adjusted. He also added Harpoons and Tomahawks to round out the package! As this model did not come with missile launchers, they currently fire from the side guns. I do plan on adding the correct launcher models in a future up-date. For now, we wanted to get her in your hands, and on your drives! She is perfect for the modern maps we have in sim. His comments, "This should have all the tweaks I made to the Iowas if you're satisfied with them, they slice, they dice, they kill tanks from 20 miles away, and I actually watched one shoot down a harrier that got a little too frisky with the target area using the main battery. I split it into five ships and removed some of the models that didn't seem to be doing much Iowa 1950: Basically the WWII Iowa using the model with the catapults removed and the WW2 skins New Jersey 1967: Uses the modern model with the early helipad skin, has all the 20 and 40mm guns removed but can go a blistering 2.2 knots faster to compensate Iowa 82: Modern skin with Phalanx, TASM, TLAM and Harpoon." So there you have it! We hope you enjoy them! Cheers! https://www.dropbox.com/s/dn2bk5nr8vrjipj/USS Iowa Class Korea - 1980 V 2.7.5.zip?dl=0 Cheers!

I had some requests from some sim pit builders who've commented on my Youtube channel, asking for dimensions and measurements on the F-4 Phantom that I get to help maintain. I have yet to find any dimensional drawings in our Tech Manual library, and I've not been able to source any documentation or drawings online. So this past Saturday I got out a tape measure and a notepad and just started measuring. The ejection seats have been taken out, giving me a better opportunity to get good measurements. Below are measurements from the front cockpit, plus photos for those who want to extrapolate other measurements. The first post will be for the cockpit only. The second post will be measurements from a real Martin Baker Mk 7 ejection seat, U.S. Air Force version. If there is interest in the rear cockpit I will get those measurements too. If there are other measurements or photos that I could get, please ask below. All measurements are in inches. Canopy: Canopy Bow width (inside arch) - 26 1/2" Canopy Bow height - 18" Canopy Rail length - 40" Canopy Rail height to floor (forward edge) - 29 1/2" Canopy Rail height to floor (aft edge) - 35" Instrument Panel Floor to bottom edge of instrument panel - 18" Floor to top edge of glare shield - 39" Aft wall to instrument panel - 43 1/2" (this varies as the aft wall is canted vertically to the rear) Bottom edge of instrument panel to highest upper corner - 15 1/2" Altimeter gauge width - 3 1/2" VSI gauge width - 2 3/8" Round engine gauge diameter - 2" Consoles: Center console width (top edge) - 10 3/4" Master caution and warning panel height (tallest edge) - 7 1/2" Side console width, forward end - 11" Side console width, aft end - 14 1/2" Side console height, forward inboard - 16" Side console height, forward outboard - 18" Side console height, aft inboard - 11 1/4" Side console height, aft outboard - 14" (approximate, was hard to get a good read with this one) Width between left and right console - 22 3/4" Controls: Stick height (floor to top of stick) - 25 1/2" Throttle handle height (in full aft position) - 5 3/4" Throttle handle width, combined (left and right, excluding switches) - 4 3/4" Throttle handle width, single (excludes switches) 2 1/8" Emergency brake pull handle, L x W - 3" x 1/2" Drag Chute handle length - 8 1/2"

First off, I want to be very clear that I understand this plane is in early access, early early access at that, and if I thought for a second this was a matter of waiting for things to be finished I wouldn't make this post. But, these exact issues still haunt the harrier module years after leaving early access, and the nature and consistency of issues point to a failure of management process, design choices, and/or priority rather than a specific technical issue or bug that needs to be squashed. The handling of discreet controls is sub-standard for a module released in 2023. Why are we missing discreet binds? Why are what there are for discreet binds not in their relevant control sections, but instead all thrown haphazardly in a "abstract for joystick" section? Why are rotary axis inverted and only use half their throw as if they were the user-made custom binds instead of properly coded? Why are some many of them broken? Why does it require arcane knowledge to get the idle/stop detent to function properly with a joystick that has them when this has been a standard feature of any module that has them since at least the hornet, and technically even the OG A10 did it if you were rocking the TM Warthog throttle? The entire approach, including even how the control binds menu is organized, just screams management that doesn't realize expectations have changed in this regard since the Huey and original A10 were the marquee DCS modules. This was arguably a failing of the AV8 in 2017; six years later after so many modules have done this so well it just looks sloppy. It feels like the core binds were made to not include physical rotary axis, most multi-position switches made to be toggles bound to push buttons, and then some intern was given the task of cobbling together enough extra discreet and axis binds using clickabledata.lua to make the people with fancy joysticks happy. Contrast this with any Heatblur or mainline ED module released from the F18 onward (2018). With seemingly few exceptions controls binds seems to be made 1:1 with aircraft controls and switch states first, and then abstractions such as cycling toggles or if/else binds added to add accessibility. This is not an issue that will be fixed by collecting bug reports and patching things to minimally workable. This is a structural issue that won't be corrected until RAZBAM realizes that the interface between their simulated systems and the user's physical controls is tantamount to the user experience, and decides to devote some resources to it like it's a proper priority instead of using the same approach that was arguably already outdated in 2017. It doesn't matter how much your pour into in-depth authentic simulation of systems if the people who care about that most are stuck on the other side of an archaic control layer that feels like we're back trying to hack HOTAS controls into Tie Fighter. It's not about bugs or technical issues, those are expected with EA and the positive examples I mentioned all had them--god knows the hornet had nagging controls bugs for years--this is about repeating poor, outdated design choices that are out of place in a full-price marquee module in 2023. Honestly, it feels like RAZBAM still thinks the size of the userbase with switchboxes/panels is still so niche that it's not worth spending more than the absolute minimum amount of resources on us.

@DmitriKozlowsky As has been stated many times, everything you are confused about is in the manual. Many of these basic concepts are easily explained in it. The AGM-114L does not require the FCR for employment. George does not have access to the FCR, he is using the TADS. The FCR is not implemented yet. As for night vision goggles, AH-64 crews have been using NVGs for decades, in addition to their FLIR systems in the PNVS and TADS, Including in the era that is being simulated by DCS AH-64D. Getty images You are mistaken with all of your assertions and assumptions.

Now they only need to create Javier AI for the backseater

here are few more photos I took of aircraft of the era

More failures are planned.