Osita

Update: It's going to take about 60 working days to know if we're getting the funding support. It's not that big of a deal, so don't worry.... Even without the funding, we'll still give it our best shot, just slower.

Great, thanks Harker! I will post results if I'm successful in achieving the goal and also if I remember that I said I would! :)

Thank you for that detailed answer and taking the time to make excellent screen shots to illustrate what you are talking about. Super funny about the unit following methods and how they behave. Thanks.

Even the manual does not include a list of the playable units. Is there a way to find out that does not involve buying the module and then working the way through the entire catalog of units? I'm fairly sure (but not certain) that infantry can't be controlled, for example. Also would like to know if a unit is the "leader" for a group, do the other units in that group automatically follow the leader (if they're controlled by AI)? There's hardly any officially published information for this module. The manual is really well done, but there is a lot missing from it in comparison to many of the other DCS manuals. For example, I had to find out from this forum that ships and subs can be played, because the manual doesn't mention them at all.

Just to be clear, I don't want to "hide" the cockpit using the hide cockpit key combo, I want to prevent it being drawn at all, while still preserving things like rain effects, view of the wings when looking left or right, and the HUD glass tinting. So the idea is I want to remove all the instruments, consoles, MFDs, HUD, compass, accelerometer, canopy frame, seat, mirrors, etc. Still get the cockpit effects (rain, shadows, glare) without the cockpit being visible or being able to click on any of the hotspots, etc, and the player can still switch to "HUD only" view which removes all effects as well. You don't have to tell me exactly how, but if you can at least point me in the right direction, that would be very helpful. Most of the mod stuff already on the forums is about how to add things or change the appearance of things, not much there about how to subtract things.

Hmmm.... wonder where the poll has disappeared to?? The forum upgrade giveth, and then the forum upgrade taketh away....

For now we are only planning to do the throttle because TM already makes a decent enough (but weak) F-16 grip. What we might do is create a converter kit for the TM base and grip so it won't break as easy. Just have to come up with some way that anyone could do it without needing to know about electronics, etc. I would definitely like to do this part of the project, but we'll get the throttle done first and then look at what else can be done.

That is exactly why we're doing this project. I mean no disrespect to the high end manufacturers, but most people out there are have to make difficult choices about how to spend their money, and the pricing for some sim parts is just a bit unfair. I've discovered recently that it's often more unfair than it seems, because if you open some of those expensive products up (no don't do it, you'll probably wreck them and lose your investment) it's amazing how cheap the internals are, and sometimes even not well assembled. I could cite the TM warthog stick as a good example. The connector for this, where it attaches to the base, uses a PS/2 style connector, the same kind that used to be normal for a mouse and keyboard before USB was invented. This is, in my opinion, a huge mistake. That's not even taking into account that it's not a very high quality PS/2 connector, made with metal that is too soft and thin. It should not take a Masters degree in engineering to work out that using a design that relies on thin metal pins to support a >1kg stick that will undergo a lot of extreme motion, including possible torsion, is not a fantastic idea. To be fair, though, it's one of the cheapest realistic sticks on the market. Plus the problem is far more likely to affect you if you use a stick extension than if you just plug it directly into the base like you're supposed to. But I think it's frustrating to have to pay $200+ to replace that thing when the pins get bent, because it would probably not have been difficult to use a stronger connector type.

I've been experiencing the same problem, and in addition I don't really want to use the ATC for this purpose, however realistic it might be. Too much realism can get in the way sometimes. For example a user may not have audio turned on, or they may have some degree of hearing loss, or may have language difficulties... probably a few more possibilities I haven't thought of yet. Yes, there are (incomplete) subtitles for (some of) the ATC transmissions, but that's not much help for anyone using a huge screen because they won't see those subtitles unless they're constantly looking over their left shoulder. So what I would like to know is where to start looking for how to mod those runway lights to make them always turn on when it's after a certain time of day, the same way the building lights and street lights do. There has to be some script that controls this. Maybe we could even make it that the lights can be turned on if we're less than some number of miles from the field and it's after a certain time, that way there's some element of that realism while also avoiding the need for extra complexity of having to handle ATC, and avoiding the "lights only at spawn point" bug. I also can see that this bug could be a huge problem if the player doesn't start the mission on the ground. Not being able to use the sim for night flying means I lose 50% of the experience.

Wow... thanks for letting me know that. It's a huge thing. I hope they can fix it or there is some intention to fix it.

I have simple comms enabled, and when I try to request lighting up the runway with Radio, F5-F1-F1 (ATC-closest airport-Inbound), it never ever works. They'll only turn on the lights after I land there. Then they leave them on after I take off (provided I don't ask for permission to take off). Also I only use ATC for this purpose. So what am I missing? It should be really easy, and I'd be happier if the runway lights are on always at night, but even if I have to request it, should work when I do.

OK guys, quick update... we're talking with the govt to get some funding so we won't have to mess around with kickstarter or that kind of thing, hopefully. I think we're about a 75% chance of getting that development funding approved. We're also starting plans to develop the prototype for it. Might be not too long to wait, I will update as often as I have new info to share.

Well I saw something earlier today that said it was already available. Updated to the latest version of DCS World with high expectations. Still not there yet... I hope it is available soon. Everything about this concept is exciting, and opens up a lot of possibilities for big naval battles and beach invasions.

Thanks. I've never really been able to get into Viperpits, though, because of the bug in their registration page (it asks a bunch of ridiculous questions with one that is almost impossible to answer, and when finally the right answer is discovered, then it says "wait for a human to review your application" and they never do). Somebody said somewhere that the admin of that forum abandoned it but left it up, so apparently only people who are existing members can use it.

Roger, but can we make something that's close but based on good guesses and observation rather than accessing the real info directly? And call it something that's sort of close to the real name but not exactly? I know we all want super realism, but if that's not an option and the only thing we could do is wait 20 years for it to be available, then I think having a few things that are a bit off is better than having nothing.

Thanks for all the responses. At least I know this problem is not due to some configuration problem, but something inherent to the game. This is going to be frustrating, but I will just have to power through it, I guess. Is there no way to manually edit the track files?

I want the Gripen too. If nobody is making it, and there are no plans to make it, I will get a team together myself to make it. How do we find out who is making what? No point in planning some big project if there is already somebody working on it.

I have an interesting situation. When I'm flying I tend to perform a lot of advanced movements, often in close proximity to the ground. During the flight everything goes perfectly, and I bring the aircraft home for a safe landing. The debriefing log file even shows all the correct information, including that safe landing. But... when replaying the mission track, the aircraft will crash into the ground when doing something where "nobody should be able to survive that kind of move"... it's almost like the system is trying to guess what should have happened instead of what did happen, taking into account the skills of an average pilot instead of the actual pilot. It's most frustrating because I want to use these clips as the basis for tutorials, but that's difficult with the aircraft suddenly slamming into the ground or ocean at some important point, when that never happened during the actual flight. Has anyone noticed this themselves? Is there a way to fix it? Can I edit the track file in some way?

Thanks RS, but I am not sure how to do that properly. Would I just post a link to this thread? Is that even allowed in the other boards?

OK, looks like we're maxed out at 74. Is that as high as we're going to go?

Yes, and for the full sized version it will work in the same way as on the real control. But for smaller desktop version we may have to do it more F-14 style... that is something still to be figured out. We know for sure how to do it with the full sized one to get authentic cut off and AB detents that function identical to real F-16 throttle.

Theirs is: L = 24 W= 15 H = 12 This is provided for comparison to the details I provided earlier. Thanks for your input on this.

Did you install the Visual C++ redistributable runtime files? You can download these from Microsoft. I had a similar problem and this was how I fixed it myself.

Now I have the draft measurements of the FULL SIZE throttle. I would appreciate those of you who wish a smaller throttle to please share the top height that you want. Anyway here are the specs for the full size one... Base Height: 10 cm Base Length: 15 cm Base Width: 12 cm (est) Throttle arm length: 18.6 cm Total height with throttle centered: 28.6 cm Keep in mind that if you are mounting this in a cockpit, the intention is that the top of the base will be flush with the console, so the height will be 18.6 cm above the console surface. For a normal desktop mount it is too high, but if you mount it on a Virpil desk adaptor with a flat panel extenstion, you can *probably* use it comfortably on a desk setup at full height (assuming you're also using Virpil desk adaptor for the stick, then your arms are both about the same height of comfort for you personally). Now what I need to know is the right height for the desk top version where you're not using any kind of adaptors. I am currently thinking an arm height above the top of the base to be between 6 to 8 cm (but keep in mind because of the throttle grip position and shape, with this arm height you won't get the full range of motion that would be possible with the larger size (I believe... haven't tested yet). Motion range estimates from -60 degrees to +60 degrees. It may be a little more or less in each direction, because we haven't done any actual math or assembled anything yet. This is just to give some idea of what we expect. These measurements should be close to the real thing. Also we're not at this stage planning on using realistic friction, and this will help us keep the cost down. We might use some kind of artificially induced tensioning that approximately simulates the feeling of the friction but you won't get that definite "click click" feeling as you move it. If nobody likes it, we'll reconsider, but keep in mind the idea here is to keep the cost down for you and making that friction assembly will require extra parts and extra machining. All ideas, suggestions, and comments are most welcome.

It is looking encouraging. We're nearly 70% of the way to the goal of 100 positive votes. I appreciate everyone who has voted, even when they say no, because every opinion helps to guide us to your needs. Also the comments are very helpful and all the great suggestions that have been put forward will help us understand what features are most important for you. Obviously we can't please everyone, but if we can make something that makes enough people happy then it's a good result.