Ben Sones

Okay, this is a bit of a thread resurrection, and maybe this has been discussed elsewhere already, but I've been trying to learn the F-14 module (and get back into sims in general after a ~10 year hiatus), and have been running into a bit of a brick wall when it comes to this particular topic, and there's a lot of conflicting information on this forum, reddit, etc., and also no real information in the game manual (which I know is a work in progress) and Chuck's guide. Both references tell you that these HUD elements exist, but do not describe how they work. And I'd really like to understand how stuff on my HUD works. "Just turn it off, LOL" is not a very satisfying solution. So, how do the pitch ladder, horizon line, and various HUD symbology (aircraft reticle, ADL cross) actually work? Do they work? Why does the pitch ladder's horizon almost never line up with the actual horizon? Which symbol actually indicates the direction the aircraft is pointing--the reticle, or the ADL cross? I jumped into a free flight mission to do some experimentation, and it turns out that the answer to that question is: they both do. I'll explain. I put the aircraft into level flight, let it cruise along for ten seconds or so to let all the gauges settle down, and then I tried putting the reticle right on the horizon. Not the pitch ladder horizon--the actual horizon. Then I paused the game and snapped two screenshots: one of the HUD, and one exterior shot from the side, to see how the aircraft is pitched relative to the horizon. With the reticle on the actual horizon, the aircraft is pretty clearly pitched up. Or rather, part of it is. Because the F-14 is not actually straight when viewed from the side--the nose and cockpit are "bent down" relative to the rest of the aircraft. So while the wings are clearly pitched back with the reticle on the horizon, the nose lines up with the horizon perfectly. Just look at the AoA sensor on the tip of the nose. It is perfectly parallel to the horizon. So, the reticle depicts where the nose of the aircraft is pointing. Next, I tried putting the ADL cross on the (real) horizon. And yes, that does indeed put the wings parallel to the horizon. Which makes sense, since the weapons are mounted parallel to the wings, and the ADL cross depicts the direction in which their sensor heads are pointing. And you'll notice one more interesting thing in the first shot, below: putting the ADL cross on the real horizon aligns the reticle perfectly with the pitch ladder horizon. So that's why the pitch ladder horizon line is always below the real horizon in level flight: because it's calibrated to the nose of the aircraft, and the nose points down. Putting the aircraft reticle on the pitch ladder horizon means that the longitudinal axis of your wings is aligned with the actual horizon. And it makes a certain amount of sense to do it that way, because the ADL cross is not depicted in all HUD modes, but the reticle is. But wow, it's super confusing to anyone that has ever used, I dunno, any other HUD. It's easy to parse once you understand what you are looking at, but I can't imagine that anyone would figure this out intuitively. "But wait," you are saying, "Sometimes the horizon line of the HUD lines up with the real horizon. Sometimes it's even above the horizon. What's up with that?" This had me confused for a while, too, but the answer is that the F-14's HUD is unlike other HUDs you might have used in yet another way: it has different pitch ladder scales based on the mode you are in. I'm sure you've noticed that in cruise mode or air-to-air mode, you only see pitch lines in 30-degree increments. But what you might not have noticed is that it's not just hiding the pitch lines in between those values--it's effectively "zooming out" to let you see more of the pitch ladder. This is going to require some illustrations. In the following two shots, I have used Active Pause to allow me to switch HUD modes while everything else stays the same. In the first shot, the HUD is in takeoff mode, and the pitch ladder displays 5-degree increments. We are trimmed for level flight, and the reticle is just about on the pitch ladder's horizon line. We can see the 5-degree line toward the top of the HUD, but the 10-degree line is not visible--it's off the top of the HUD. In the second shot, we are in cruise mode. This shows us the 30-degree lines, but what's noteworthy is that we can see them. Like, we can see both the 30-degree line and the minus 30-degree line, right at the very top and bottom of the HUD. The position of the top 30-degree line corresponds roughly to the ~7.5-degree position in the first screenshot. So, what the what?! Here's the explanation: the HUD modes that show you 5-degree increments on the pitch ladder work exactly the same as most other HUDs you've probably used. The "focal length" of the HUD display is intended to match the focal length of the human eye, and the measurements literally describe what you see. If you measured 5 degrees off the horizon in real life, it would line up exactly with the 5-degree mark on the HUD. The horizon line is always fixed in the same position, no matter how you move your head or turn the aircraft. In most aircraft, it would always remain fixed on the horizon (approximately), but in the F-14 it always remains fixed a bit below the horizon for reasons explained above. The important thing is, it doesn't move. But in cruise mode and the various combat modes, the HUD displays the pitch ladder at a different focal length, allowing you to see more of the scale--think of it like viewing the pitch ladder through a fisheye lens. This introduces some weirdness, though, because in these modes the pitch ladder is only accurate at its center point. That 30-degree line is not actually 30 degrees up from the horizon line--that point in the sky is actually about 7.5 degrees up from the point in the ocean that the horizon line is over. Note that the horizon line hasn't changed positions; that's because we are pointing the reticle directly at it, and the center point of this fisheye pitch ladder display does indeed show the accurate inclination relative to the world. Let's see what happens if we pitch up in cruise mode, though: The 30-degree line has come down somewhat--we're moving toward it. But the horizon line has followed us up, and is now above the actual horizon. That's because in this HUD mode, the horizon line will only be in the right place relative your "sight picture" when the reticle is pointing directly at it. If you aren't pointing the reticle at the horizon line, then the only information the HUD is giving you is that the horizon line is in that direction. You are not seeing its actual location. If we pitch down to put the reticle back onto the horizon line, the horizon line will move away from the reticle, and we won't "catch up" to it until we reach the position where it should actually be. So that's all kind of confusing, and not at all how pitch ladders work on most aircraft (the 5-degree increment ladders in takeoff and landing modes do work the same way that pitch ladders work in other aircraft). But once you can wrap your head around how it works, you can at least understand what the HUD is showing you, which hopefully lets you use it more effectively. It's not broken or wrong (and it's not an artifact of slow polling/updating of the sensors--though that does exist, and is why the pitch ladder doesn't move smoothly, but instead sort of hitches along like it's running at a really low framerate). It's just kind of... unconventional.

Same problem here. Follow-me vehicle stops short of runway, and the tutorial just stops.

During the cold start tutorial, you are instructed to tell Jester to begin a "fine" INS alignment by pressing CTRL-3, but that actually tells Jester to abort his startup procedure. The correct input should be CTRL-4.

WarriorX, these are really helpful aids. Thanks for sharing!

How was that my strategy, exactly? I did start with the question. My original post opens: "Random question..." Followed immediately by "Is there any reason why X wouldn't work...?" I didn't make any baseless claims. In fact, I didn't make any claims of any kind. I said that it seems like using the random mission generator to plug missions into the existing campaign engine would be simpler than making a full-blown simulated war-style dynamic campaign from scratch. "It seems like, "as in "to me," as in "I'm speculating here, but feel free to chime in with your thoughts." Which nobody has even bothered to offer, actually. Instead, I just get a bunch of people jumping down my throat for having the temerity to ask the question in the first place, as though I'm somehow at fault for not knowing the answer beforehand. Lesson learned, I guess. Don't ask questions. Don't discuss the game's design unless you can program it yourself. You guys sure know how to make a new member feel welcome! No worries--I won't post here again.

I'm not a programmer, and I will gladly admit my error if anyone wants to explain why making a dynamic battlefield simulation would not be a considerably more difficult task. And you seem unusually angry--no offense was intended. It was just a question. The existing campaign system, at least as I understand it, already functions by pulling pre-made missions from a "folder" for each phase of the campaign. And the random mission generator makes missions. Is it really that crazy to consider the possibility of combining the two?

Random question: they have a random mission generator for A-10C now. Is there any reason why this couldn't be combined with the phased campaign system, so that instead of handful of canned missions in each phase "folder", the game generates random missions instead? Perhaps with some persistent data from previous missions (if that's possible), and configured so that the random missions in each subsequent phase reflect the progression of the conflict? It seems like this would be relatively trivial to do... "relatively" in the sense that it's a much less ambitious project than a fully dynamic battlefield simulation, and all of the necessary components (phased campaign system, random mission generator) already exist. The result would be a semi-dynamic campaign similar to the one in Gunship 2000, with a high degree of replayability.

My guess is that it uses a single vertical spring for tension, much like the Saitek sticks, except that the spring is inside the case rather than exposed. The stick seems to be sitting on a ball joint, and I'll bet that the casing houses a large spring (which is probably why it is round) that gets compressed when you move the stick in any direction. Thus, no gimbals needed, and you'll get even tension in every direction. A single large spring that is 3 or more inches in diameter could provide more than enough tension to hold up a large stick. I'll also note that Thrustmaster has not specifically said whether or not the stick will be made of metal. The info they've released says that the base is metal, but it says nothing about the stick, which leads me to think that it might be plastic.

Tez--no problem! Thanks for getting everything sorted out for me.

I still need help, too! I'm in the same situation as vaiman, basically.

Yeah, I'm in the same situation now, unfortunately. When the first order failed to go through, I went ahead and bought the game from D2D. Afterwards, I got a PM from a member of the ED team asking for my transaction number so they could fix the order. I PMed him back and explained that I didn't want them to reprocess the order, since I had already bought a copy through D2D. I gave him the transaction number in case he needed it to make sure that the order was properly cancelled, and he must have misunderstood me, because he then reprocessed the order. Doh! So now I have two copies of Black Shark. I sent another reply via PM requesting that the order be cancelled and my card refunded, but I haven't heard back yet. :(

Okay. If I can get a confirmation that the transaction failed, that would be great. I'll probably buy it through Direct2Drive if it did. I'm not sure I want to take a chance on the store here again (especially since we're getting close to the weekend, and browsing the threads here, it sounds like the store here doesn't process orders on weekends). I can provide the transaction number from my confirmation email, if needed.

Well, it's been a full day now, and my order still hasn't processed (payment history is still empty, and no download is available). I'd kind of like to get the game before the weekend, so hopefully someone can help me out, here.

Just called cardholder services and no, the payment doesn't show up. The email I got says "Your payment has been processed successfully," though.

Placed an order for Black Shark through the DCS website, and while I got an email that says that the transaction went through, there doesn't seem to be any way to download the game. There is no download link in Files/Products/, and my Transaction History is empty (just a message that says "You have not paid for anything yet."). Except that, according to the email, I have. Did something get messed up, or is there normally a wait for orders to process (I got the confirmation email about an hour ago)?