ARM505

I always thought it was odd to have to push the stick button when engaging the A/P - that's not like any autopilot I've ever heard of or used.....we'd need the original French manual to see if it's a 'lost in translation' thing. Pilots would definitely remember whether they had to push the stick button in, it's odd. I'd remember that.

If the controls were designed to be immediately accessible, and fall readily to hand (like the examples quoted above), and didn't require multiple movements to actuate, then there is absolutely no reason not to bind them to your HOTAS from a realism point of view, as the same speed of response and functionality is then reached. Having a real cockpit around you is a MASSIVE advantage, even with non-HOTAS cockpits. People forget how small fighter cockpits are, almost every single control is nearly immediately reachable, often only by feel, or at worst with the briefest glance. I've sat in a Mirage F1, it's a small space. Every button is almost immediately to hand. Sure, you may have to glance down, but it's a millisecond. And the controls around the throttle are basically a few cm from your fingers. Compare that to glancing down (with no peripheral vision, unlike reality), waggling your mouse around to find the cursor, getting onto the hotspot while holding your TrackIR still.....there is IMHO zero realism lost when binding controls to your HOTAS that weren't there in reality (even things like gear or flaps). This is a similar conversation to the Mosquito gear lever retraction (applies to the MiG21 as well for example) - in reality, moving the safety gate out the way is very easy with one hand, and one action, in the sim it's much more difficult. You could argue that some controls wouldn't be reachable under high G load, etc etc, but in the vast majority of situations the real cockpit, even in non-HOTAS setups are still easier to use. IMHO. Having sat in quite a few cockpits, wishing I was flying them! FW190, Spitfire, Mustang, Yak 3, Me262, Mirage F1, MB339, Me109 (tiny!) AT6 (Harvard to us) and countless civilian aircraft.....the same with airliners in sims (which I've spent thousands of hours in in reality). I know it's totally unrealistic to have MCP controls on your HOTAS in MSFS, but in reality reaching up and twiddling the heading bug is incredibly easy compared to mousing over it in a sim. There are known combat situations where pilots end up heads down when they shouldn't have to be - for example, quoting from the interview with the wingman of the South African Mirage F1 pilot, on the merge with MiG21s, they were so close that they could see the opposing pilots had their heads down for some reason, quite odd given that they were at the merge - apparently, the MiG pilots were finding their external tank release control to drop their tanks. All the Mirage pilots saw were objects separating from the MiGs, and that their heads were down. After the war, it became apparent exactly what they were doing (they conversed via intermediaries), and why their heads were down (they had to hunt for the jettison controls in the MiG). So, perhaps leave out more complicated controls like emergency jettison, sure, absolutely. It would be realistic to have to hunt for *those* type of multi-function, rarely used controls. tl;dr - IMHO, you are hampering yourself unrealistically by not binding almost anything you need to your HOTAS.

I'm not sure how we can fault the game in general, and certainly the F1 specifically, for problems with VR resolution (a known shortcoming of current VR). Asking for small details in the kneeboard would be a hole with no bottom in that case. The Tomcat ASI, the Apache TSD, a lot of stuff in the Hind, or any number of small, harder to read displays for anything in VR really. I can only suggest binding the two VR zoom functions to your stick (they are different to the normal zoom keys), and zoom in to see the details.

I was actually surprised how well this radar works. OP, are you trying to detect targets with a near zero relative velocity? Because its (obviously) bad at that...

Er.....why is everybody calling the spoilers slats? Or am I misunderstanding something? Sure, it has slats - but since they're not aerodynamically deployed (like, say, an Me109), they deploy symmetrically, so this isn't a 'roll' issue - you're surely talking about the spoilers, and their assymetric deployment for roll control (a la Tomcat)? Slats - leading edge devices designed to practically increase the camber of the wing, increase lift, increases drag associated with production of lift. Spoliers - on the upper surface of the wing, deployed to 'spoil' the airflow, reducing produced lift, as well as increasing drag. Unless I'm confused...

...and the leading edge devices will in all cases deploy automatically. Combat flaps armed (with the button) just allows automatic extension and retraction of the trailing edge flaps. Exceeding the speed for automatic use has no penalties that I'm aware of, they will retract automatically, but the upper left warning light begin to blink, and the HYPER caution will illuminate.

I had the same thing (engine audio much quieter than before, still the same noises, but quieter) after the last update. No mods, absolutley vanilla install. I assumed it was intentional. No mentions in the patch notes, but something definitely changed.

In 2D, with Track IR, the sun cover is a pain. In 3D, in VR, you can see the RWR below easily, and see how it actually worked IRL (you can even lean in close, and put your face onto it, exactly as one might have done in reality) - theres a slot for your fingers to go through I think? When you lean in, the buttons are clearly visible and clickable. Either way, I turn it off, just because I find the thing janky looking in reality, but I can completely see the need, as well as that it's not nearly as obtrusive as one thinks when you see it in 2D - in VR you can see how it made sense.

I'm amazed the SAAF version isn't in Afrikaans.....we could have thrown yet another language into the mix! For some historical perspective, the old SADF (South African Defence Force, now called the SANDF or 'South African *National* Defence Force because reasons) looooooooved to translate literally everything into Afrikaans. I know, I was in it. I wish I could find the translation list we had for every technical aviation related term into Afrikaans. Same in the Navy. And of course the army, which normally didn't need anything translated into Afrikaans because in the army everything was already in Afrikaans.

Again, grain of salt here, because I've got very limited exposure to actually dealing with test numbers, and my experience is more along the lines of 'push thrust levers, engines go whooooosh', but everything gets worse, practically speaking, with the engine actually mounted (not necessarily by much, but it gets worse; so, economy will get worse). The only real data that would be useful is the actual performance charts from an F1. (Thrust/speed/mach/temp etc)

Are those figures from an engine on a test bench, or in the actual jet? There's no way I have the knowledge or sources to debate this, but just from practical experience, engines 'on the wing' (or in this case, 'in the fuselage') almost never achieve the ideal results of engines on the test bench (ducting losses etc).

Yes, I started out thinking that 'M' was for 'manual' and 'A' for 'automatic', but quickly learned it's functionally opposite in the jet. So if 'M' is 'marche' (on) then 'A' is 'arrêt' for 'off' I guess? One of the manuals failings, the translation of *everything* including the labels in the actual jet, yes.

I will just mention that real aircraft manuals can often be like this. The Boeing 737 FCOMs (Flight Crew Operating Manual) for example, often just describe things along the lines of 'this is the button, this is what it does, this is the logic that governs it'. Not often 'this is how you use this system, this is the recommended way, this is industry best practice' etc - sometimes yes, sometimes no. For that, you often refer to the FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual) AND (and this is the important bit) your actual training given by a qualified instructor. Which we lack. The Airbus A340 manual was described to me by a friend who flies them as 'written by an angry French lawyer that they keep locked in a basement and permanently drunk'. So it's a tough ask for the developer, as they have to patch together a technical manual, and throw in some expanded explanations, which can be very challenging. But I agree, gleaning ways to actually use the systems is hard using the manual. Think of it as a challenge!

I had to bind a button, I can't even see this thing! Is it under the seat? The manual makes it seem so... Anyone with a screenshot?

I must say, I was just glad to see the SAAF skin - but I confess, I did miss the bokkie in the national insignia! Glad to see you okes are working on this, great stuff. I might be biased, but the SAAF scheme is just such a great painscheme.

No track (sorry) but same happened to me - in VR and in 2D, the left mirror stopped updating and just held the same image.

What's your pixel density set at schmiefel? I have a Rift S as well, and I feel like mine is slightly more readable than yours, but I might be imagining it - mine is at 1.5

I also wanted to throw in a thank you, this seems like an amazing module, very worthwhile. I haven't had as much fun learning a cockpit and aircraft for quite a while. Brilliant job guys, a VERY worthwhile addition to DCS. The team should be very proud.

I actually hadn't watched that, good source on the 2nd fight.

Randomly off topic, but I've met the shooter (of the two MiG21s - the same guy, albeit in two separate incidents. It's a bit unclear what exactly happened, and he didn't talk about it. The first instance is quite clear, the second has a lot of difficult to piece together info). Wish I could get my hands on the gun camera footage (which is out there, I won't go into that any more!) and put it on yt. No kill like a guns kill. I also met the guy who was paralysed when his F1 went off the runway (he was indeed hit by a missile from a MiG23, a head on shot). The aircraft was salvaged apparently, amazingly enough. Because of my work, I've worked with or met a lot of the guys who flew SAAF F1's. Interesting stories. https://saafmuseum.org.za/arthur-d-piercy-27th-september-1987/

The greater surface area of the -120's would act like slightly bigger winglets (whose purpose is to reduce tip vortice drag), but now we're probably talking %'s on %'s

Carrier ops is a massive thing in and of itself. Since a young age, I've wanted to have a sim that does this in a realistic way, this is the earliest that my expectations have been met. To sit in VR, on that carrier deck, with the canopy open, the wind rushing across the deck, the sun glinting off the sea.......it's incredible what they've done. The Apache is great, it should definitely be on your list, but operating a high performance aircraft off a boat stirs the soul. Side note: I still kind of suck at operating a high performance aircraft off a boat. The challenge is never ending.

I really wanted to do one, collected all the tools, examples, etc.....then discovered I frankly suck at using picture editing software, and wasn't about to learn. So.....er, plus one from my side, I think it would be a cool skin (like the Rooivalk).

The AI Ch47 can tank the entire weapon payload of the Mi24. Sometimes it does go down, but surprisingly often it doesn't. It just ends up flying in a kind of up and down porpise fashion, with smoke and flames trailing off it as it disappears into the sunset.