Gareth Barry

Thanks to all, thanks again MAXsenna, mine is working perfectly again after the reinstall, having first made sure that the whole DCS World folder was on the exclusion for defender before running the reinstalled version. Back to the flying now

Thank you so so much MAXsenna, I so do appreciate your help! I have uninstalled DCS and it is currently reinstalling - would this fix the issue or would I still have to check the integrity of the installed files on Steam? You are correct that I selected the whole DCS World folder, and no folders under it - was I supposed to? (select folders under it I mean?) Once again, I am so so grateful for the help!

Thanks for the help MAXsenna - please excuse my frustration that may come across as venting - it's just that I started getting rather frustrated with DCS a which is what lead to me uninstalling it in the first place, and this certainly doesnt help when coming back to it. Anyways, I have just uninstalled and am reinstalling DCS via Steam. Here is a screenshot of my exclusion; null

I tried that, but it still wasn't working. In any case, I ran cleanup from the launcher - I have excluded te whole DCS world folder from windows antivirus, but still no joy. This is very, very frustrating and disappointing, to be honest.

So...I took a break form DCS, uninstalled it so that I could have space for other games, decided to reinstall and fly the F14....then this... Anyways, I have added DCS as an exclusion for the windows antivirus, but now I can't seem to run the DCS repair. I find the relevant folder as below; C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\DCSWorld\bin I then left shift+right click mouse, which takes me to Powershell. I then type in cmd, which I would think should bring up the command prompt, but doesnt. Nevertheless, I try running the command, copy and pasted DCS_updater.exe cleanup And get nothing but this message; 'DCS_updater.exe' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file. So, what I am doing wrong? Why is the command prompt not coming up? Really, I just want to fly, not deal with this sort of thing to be honest...

Good luck - and I reread my previous post and I apologise if it came across as lecturing - judging by the standard of your simpit, you clearly have experience and know what you are doing. Please let us know if you have success and find the source of the problem - I looked at ESP 32s (S2 or S3)and was seriously considering using some as HID devices (I sometimes prefer HID devices to DCS BIOS) but will probably now if they cause problems. Going to try to power at least the leonardo and the uno with seperate 9v supplies into the barrel jack, let's hope i don't blow the motherboard! This solution won't work with pro-minis, pro-micros etc as they don't have a barrel jack input.

Firstly, congrats on your setup- I'm jealous!! Following on from what Biggus above has said, I really, really think you need to adopt the engineer's debugging approach of divide and conquer. I've had these sorts of issues in many home-built things, eg when building high-gain vacuum tube amplifiers. Not knowing the source of the problem is what is discouraging you and not helping the situation. Develop a plan to isolate the problem. Start by disconnecting all arduinos and peripherals, use only your 'name-branded' inputs such as stick, rudder and throttle. Test that this doesn't give any problems. Then test each arduino and peripheral seperately and individually to see that they aren't giving you any problems. After that, THEN start testing them in different combinations. At the moment we don't know whether the problem is an individual microntroller, or having them in combination. My serious suggestion is to eliminate the possibility of a faulty panel first.

Have you tried going into device manager and disabling power saving for usb ports? Not sure that it will help but its worth a try? Ultimately, i reckon its either insufficient current to the arduinos- which seems unlikely given you are using powered hubs, or a short from power to ground. Have you tried running just a single arduino with a basic code outputting something to serial monitor in the IDE? A basic 'hello world' program. I would do that for each arduino individually and check that it works continuously for a few minutes, to make sure that there arent any issues with that particular. Essentially try to isolate what the problem by divide and conquer.

Shucks JohnnyChicago, that's exactly what i was afraid of! Have you tried progressively disconnecting 1 arduino and then another, in order to possibly isolate the problem? My understanding is that you can also have issues of it disconnecting if one of them shorts to ground? Please keep me posted, id like to know if you manage to solve this! Ok so just to be sure, if i have a 9v supply from for example a basic wal-wart, into the jack port of the uno, and then plug in the usb to the PC, then the uno will draw power from the wal-wart and not the PC, which should cure the problem? Does the arduino uno have decent filtering to get a stable 5v from a basic switch-mode power supply?

So I am beggining to run into issues with what I think is an inability for the PC usb ports to supply sufficient power for all my arduinos as well as the usual stick, throttle and pedals. I've got a Leonardo, a pro Micro and a pro-mini also connected. I'm running them as a mixture of HID devices as well as DCS BIOS. Some of the inputs and arduinos are running through a cheaper, non-powered multi port USB hub. When all are connected, I sometimes get random disconnections, which seems to go away when I reduce the number of arduinos connected. I have tried jumbling the connections between the mutli-port hub and the extra USB connections in the back of the PC, which seems to help some (if fewer are in the hub and more directly into the PC) but doesn't seem to cure the problem completely. I'm pretty sure it's a power supply problem, as I've checked all the connections and I don't think anything is shorting. So, I guess the simple solution is to buy a more expensive, powered USB hub, or, alternatively, power each arduino with an external 5v supply. Which of these is the better solution? I'm guessing if i went with powering each arduino with it's own +5v source, seperate to the usb, I would have to disconnect the power rail coming from the USB on each arduino? How do people who build huge exact replicas of cockpits, with multiple arduinos, get around this issue? thanks in advance Gareth

Ultimately, what i think would satisfy everyone, would be multiple actual live firings under different conditions, with telemetry data for speed and altitude. I dont know if any such thing exists- if it did then Nasa wouldnt have needed to run computer simulations? Maybe Grumman and the navy did get telemetry from live firings? Would seem amazing for 1960s tech. It does seem that for most people, guidance is far more of an issue than kinematics. Maybe we can all plan an espionage trip to a certain country in the middle east, do a maverick and steal an f14 with a phoenix, and bring it back? How hard could it be? I reckon i have the skills for the font seat, who's willing to be my Rooster?

Hi there I'm having issues with the rotary encoders that I am wanting to use for Tacan and radio channel select. They are the simple type that don't have a +5v connection. The problem that I am having is I think insufficient debounce. I don't think it's the 4-steps per detent problem, as i can sometimes get it to go up by one, but usually not. Any ideas for this, other than to use better encoders? Regards Gareth

Yeah but that doesnt really contradict what Karon was saying- the budget allowed for either aim 120 or lantirn, not both. Going lantirn gave the tomcat at least another 10 years of life- going the other way round would have led to an even earlier retirement.

Thanks so much guys that's very useful information

I feel like a complete idiot asking this, but how do you guys with simpits operate the keyboard and mouse when in the full simpit? I am in the process of building a simpit for the F14, and have just attached the front panel, both side panels are also attached. I was all excited to try it last night, and suddenly, I realised how impractical my current setup is, and I felt like such an idiot! The thing is, no matter how full fidelity my simpit is (and I hope to make it very high fidelity) I still need to access the keyboard for gameplay reasons. My thinking is that I may have to replace the master warning panel on the right side panel with a keyboard and mouse. I plan to go VR eventually anyway. Another question is USB cables to the PC. Currently, I am using a 10 into 1 USB hub. However, I can't put my joystick, headtracker and all the arduinos into the hub, as the connection seems to be somewhat unstable. Is this because the current draw is too much? My solution at the moment is to have the joystick and headtracker directly into the PC USB ports, and then the arduinos into the USB hub, then into the PC. This means a whole bunch of wires going all over the place that seems unnecessary! Ideally, all of the USB cables would go into the hub, which would then have a wireless/bluetooth connection to the PC. The whole simpit will be on caster wheels so to move it when needed. Thanks in advance for any help and advice!

As per the title, i request to Heatblur, and i hope this isnt too big of an ask Would it be at all possible to make the spider detent an optional axis? This could then be hopefully outputted via DCS Bios. That way, those of us who are trying to build cockpits would have more options of how to engineer somthing that mimics the correct behaviour? What i am imagining is, the spider detent position is used to drive a servo via dcs bios. A magnet on both the wing sweep handle and spider detent will force them to move together when connected, but can be shoved apart like in the real thing. A reed switch (normally closed) will break the connection between position sensor of the handle and the arduino when the handle and detent are connected, so that dcs doesnt get confused by a physically moving wong sweep handle. I hope that makes sense? i know its a big ask! thanks again for all you do!

Just to clarify, i am not questioning Nasa at all- others might be, im not sure, but i am not in any position to do so, in fact the thought of someone like me questioning Nasa i find somewhat funny, considering how surface level my knowledge is at best. My last message post was simply reiterating that the nasa model shows that it really isnt mach 4.5+ missile in any practical sense. Beyond that, i am not in any position to have an opinion one way or the other, as both sides to my mind make good arguments and both sides are far smarter than me. Perhaps, Katsu and Tavarish, maybe for the purposes of moving the discussion forward, what do you see as the limitations, perhaps in terms of context, of the nasa test? With that, i bow out, and will go back to spending my time trying to fly the f14 better, because i still suck at it in so many ways. Still, ive certainly learnt something regarding rocket motor thrust and performance from this thread, so i thank everyone for that.

So, the Nasa calculations/simulations achieved only mach 4.7 ish from a mach 2,0 launch at 48 000ft....shucks, don't know if that's even achievable in the game. At first glance, mach 4.7 seems like a lot, but on second thoughts, fromm a mach 2.0 launch, at that altitude... dunno if the tomcat even has the performance to get there. If one was going to try to replicate this, with 1 singe phoenix and nothing else, maybe no gun ammo, only enough fuel to reach mach 2 at 48 000 ft, then run out of fuel, deadstick landing....which weapon pylon would have the least drag for the tomcat? One of the side pylons?

The last time my love of 70s rock music caused such a problem, i was still teenager living with my parents

If anything i have said has come across as arrogant then i sincerely apologise, that wasnt my intention. Draconus, you are right that one we cannot just go off feelings to say that the model is wrong. What made me question slightly was the nozzle exit area issue, and people modifying to be in line with tavarish's calculations getting higher performance result at high altitude. HOWEVER Rustbelt makes an excellent point - without the source code i guess there is no way of knowing what the nozzle exit area is actually doing in the game. For all we know, they may have needed to set it to that value as a work -around, fudge fix for some other issue, but if the final result ends up being accurate then that is a successful work around.

I guess let me be a bit more frank- I wonder what range of conditions and altitudes the nasa model was calculated for? And if it is a wide range of altitudes, what are we missing, as in, why does the nasa model not gel? How is it that a current model without nozzle exit area and and pressure that changes with altitude, 'correct'? What are we missing? Or has the time come to humbly ask Heatblur to reconsider their model? I know that this is has been covered in this thread, but the thread is looooong and i'm lazy.... I only play single player and get plenty of kills with the missile- i know it isnt really a 'mach 5' missile, but the high speed missile at altitude that i thought the thing was famous for is currently a bit more like a long, slow train a comin'.

Hmmm, have to chew on this a bit. Thanks Tavarish for all your input. It does make me wonder what nasa actually modelled, how the Heatblur one matches it etc. From an engineering point of view, considering the history and time period in which the aim54 was developed and what it was designed to kill, this 'tuning' to long range and high altitudes makes sense, as well as the compromises that were needed and considered acceptable to achieve this goal.

So for us non-rocket scientists, let me see if i am at least in right ball-park; The nozzle exit area of the aim54 is relatively large. This, combined with relatively low exhaust pressure, means that at low altitude, the thrust from mass flow of the rocket is being degraded significantly by (Pe-Pa)*A where Pe-Pa is the difference in pressure between ambient and exhaust, and A is the nozzle exit area. This adds to the large and draggy cross section to hurt it badly down here. At high altitudes, where Pa is very much lower, Pe-Pa becomes a much larger positive term, which when mulitplied by A gives a large increase in thrust. In short, this means that the aim54 is very much tuned to high altitudes. I am not one to question NASA, ED or even for that matter Heatblur- that would be insane and laughably arrogant. It does however seem strange to me that nozzle exit area is and its affect on rocket performance at different altitudes isnt taken into account? Or perhaps i am wrong and it is in fact accounted for? Is the current aim54 in game a sort of 'average' across likely operational altitudes? I ask this not for any changes to be made, but rather to educate myself.

Any help re mission 3? I can't seem to find the helicopter again after chasing the mig away. Turned back to heading 243, couldn't find a thing. Wasn't sure the mig 29 had actually shot the chopper down?

Kaba (the creator of this campaign) confirmed to me that it was bugged.