Hobo 1-1

Amateur. I mean, seriously. If you just crash into the fantail like I do you won’t have this problem. Pfffft.

But I love the F-18. I have the most sim hours in the 18 and it’s not even close. That will change eventually as I’m pretty much flying the Tomcat now, but I really like the F-18. I like everything about the module, just prefer the Tomcat because of my own personal “wants” around what I consider fun. When the A model launched I got absolutely wrecked for asking on Reddit (basically) what the big deal is? A less powerful Tomcat? Compressor stalls? Whoppie! I said that (can’t believe it now, but I did). Like another poster, I also prefer the Huey precisely because there’s so much stick and rudder work. It’s just a preference, not meant as a judgement against others. One suggestion I have for any sim pilot is pick up the Huey and learn the basics. It will make you a better sim pilot all around. Trust me - it’s a fun module and the finesse it requires rubs off on all the other modules you might fly. One last thing - I’d be damn happy to fly high cover for anyone on SAW doing the pew-pew in the weeds. If you see me on, and you want a missile-monkey in one sexy jet to go ballistic on bad guys (or look semi good while getting shot down so you don’t) shout out on 253 or 136.

I can only tell you my personal experience, your mileage may vary. I flew the F-18 religiously when I first started DCS. It’s a very intense aircraft systems-wise and an “easy” aircraft to fly. Flying solo in the Tomcat is the polar opposite. In the front seat the systems are pretty easy (Jester does most everything avionics wise for you VIA command), the aircraft is moderately hard to fly generally and very hard to fly really well, particularly behind the boat and particularly in the A model. For me, and what I consider fun, I find the Hornet can be a crazy busy sim pit. Overwhelming many times. That’s just me though and the lens I am looking through is purely based on my idea of fun after work, tired and looking for really engaging mission on SAW In my worthless opinion, I like having Jester take care of most of the avionics work while I worry about the pointy end getting off of and back on to the boat, locking up visual range bad guys and finding that sweet spot for the AIM 7 (pro tip - lead like a gun shot, but more…….no more than even that - a lot of lead and you’ll rarely miss) or heaters. The long range 54 shots are fun too, but that’s more about setting up a nice geometry and going as fast as possible at launch. Currently I fly the A Tomcat and find it immensely enjoyable, almost exclusively on SAW. The B has way more power, but I find myself really enjoying the Tomcat of the Top Gun days, just as peculiar, somewhat lacking and picky as they were back then. I don’t mean to insult Hornet fans or gush like super mil sim try-hard about the Tomcat. Just the way I see things, totally imperfect and totally flawed (like anyone) ETA - I have no idea how a real Tomcat does, should or did handle. I’m only sharing my opinion as a layperson playing DCS

Physically be able to flip the switches to start and fly the aircraft without any regard to the very real problem of equipment failures or personal safety? Absolutely. Now having said that, there is absolutely nothing like the real thing. I can’t stress enough how differently real pilots fly than sim pilots. I say this not as a put down, but as someone who logged hundreds of hours in a Blackhawk third seat as a Crew Chief. Sim pilots spend a LOT of time inside the aircraft, tend to have extremely rough control inputs (because they don’t realize how radical some of their inputs are because they don’t have an physical aircraft responding to them) and will regularly exceed limitations without a concern in the world. We learn and internalize a LOT of bad habits that would be ruinous in real life. Now, many here have a whole lot wrapped up in your question. To them “realism” fills a void that has everything to do with them and nothing to do with the game. Could I start up a F-18 and fly it? If everything worked (it never does) as advertised and everything was operating at full capacity - probably. But it would be an exceptionally dangerous thing to do. The game we all love is a very faithful reproduction of the aircraft they simulate. However, thinking we’re capable of suiting up and taking on the bad guys is the same energy as people who read Web MD and think they have enough knowledge to argue with actual physicians. I hope that makes sense. Cheers! ETA - we’re transitioning to pilotless aircraft faster than many realize. The new AF “Raider” bomber in design and early production will Be able to fly autonomously or with a crew. We’re going to see a rapid shift to autonomous war fighting with humans flying the support planes and fulfilling maintenance rolls. The last combat plane to require a pilot is the F-22. Everything moving forward will either be dual use, or flat out drones.

If I said the sky was a classic sky blue to my wife standing in line somewhere, you're that "helpful" guy who leans over and says "well, actually it's what we refer to as a 'light blue' as 'sky blue' is rather redundant". You win the obtuse award for the day. Bravo.

I know how hostile this forum can be and how argumentative many are. I apologize ahead of time if my post comes off that way (not my intention). There is no conceivable way an F-15E outperformed a Typhoon in BFM. Although the F-15E and C share the same basic airframe, they aren’t the same aircraft. The E is a much heavier, much lower TTW ratio and a much less 'clean' airframe compared to the C. Totally different performance. People talk here like removing the CFTs is an easy, common task that’s performed at anything other than depot level - it’s not. I'm not trying to be hostile to you or what you linked to. I’m taking issue with it's claims (F-15E outperformed a Typhoon in BFM). Don't get me wrong, obviously tactics play a large role and it's not just *purely* a rate/TTW ratio argument - but after the merge it kinda is. ETA - load up the current C with three full drop tanks and go BFM. That will closely mimic the F-15E, weight wise.

The E is as heavier at gross then C is at MTOW. The E, when configured for ATA, should perform roughly like a 2x3x2 loaded F-14A.

For me I’m looking forward to learning to fly it and using it much the way I use the UH-1 on PGAW. I might shuttle troops or slings, capture airfields or with the Hind’s firepower perform CAS, or even bomb a power plant or ammo dump. How much I fly it remains to be seen as some modules click with me more than others. My current favs are the UH-1, JF-17 and F-14A. makes no sense, I know but those are my favorites.

Can confirm you're extending/retracting/both the flaps at too high a speed resulting in at least one of them being stuck in the full down position.

Make sure you calibrate your inputs with windows itself as well. If you’ve reinstalled the data and the problem persists I think we can cross the installation off the list. I mention this because I had a very similar problem that resolved once I calibrated everything with windows itself. I hope that helps.

For reasons that escape me, tankers, airfields and the carrier won’t respond to me through the communication menu in multiplayer (Hoggit PGAW/SAW/GAW) while flying the Tomcat. I don’t have this problem in other aircraft, so clearly the issue is with me and something I’m doing/not doing and specific to the Tomcat.

Thanks, wasn’t aware that was functional.

I really, really appreciate Jester’s speed callouts. Thank you for the hard work, I see it and enjoy it almost every day. The down side is I am now very aware of how much I absolutely suck at energy management. I’m either rocketing past (and losing angles) where I want to be, or fighting a stall/wing flip buffet from being too slow. Jester’s call outs are helping me unlearn self taught, bad habits. I’m still positively awful, don’t get me wrong, but Jester has become a legit force multiplier. How insanely difficult it must be to code software that has to react dynamically to encounters that are each different than any others. My one niggle, I wonder if it’s doable to break out Jester’s voice volume as a separate slider? Not a game breaker or non negotiable, more of a wish understanding it’s far easier to wish for something than to actually implement it. Thank you for your consideration.

To me, just my worthless opinion, I don't get that heated about pilot body modeling. The bodies do look weird and contorted in some instances, I've noticed it too - just not top of the mind for me.

Hello - what you describe is most likely a data input error. The lat/long must be in the proper format and loaded into the proper waypoints. I know that’s not a specific solution but, it’s a great place to double check. If the weapon comes off the aircraft and works as advertised - just not at the right location - we can confidently deduce the weapon was programmed incorrectly. Auto start won’t cause any configuration problems as auto start bypasses any specific weapons configurations, which you the pilot can’t tinker with until you load your DTC cartridge anyway.

There’s a ‘defog’ button on the ECS panel, right hand side of the cockpit. Press that =) The defogger is loud, but it’s automatic. Simply press the button, the canopy will defog and eventually the defogger will shut off. I use the defogger around 12k on my initial climb to prevent the problem from developing. I’ve found that if I wait until the canopy starts to visibly fog the canopy winds up fogging over before the system starts to work.

Thank you for this help, I really appreciate it!

I don’t say any of this to throw shade at anyone in particular; just some difficult, but truthful observations that if thought about, can help bring clarity. 1. The forum represents a tiny sliver of the player base - a very small percentage of us ever comment or even visit the forums. What is said here is often NOT what the overall player base is interested in. It’s hard to remember this because only the truly motivated ever get around to posting, versus lurking. So, what appears to be an obvious slam dunk to us may not be with the larger player base. Totally normal behaviors - but if we forget that facet, we’ll spend a lot of time frustrated. 2. Evangelizing about our most favored module doesn’t necessarily equate into good business sense, what the overall community wants, or more importantly - will pay for. I hate it too, but reality. 3. It isn’t easy to produce these unbelievably complicated modules and deliver them to an insanely (that’s ok) demanding player base. The F-14b took more than five years and is still AWIP. Remember, during that five hears HB saw exactly $0 in revenue. It was all pro Bono until we started buying the module. An insanely popular module in the forums equals about 100 sales @ $79. I love the forums too, but it’s a honey trap of good intentions for those who want what we hope for, but ultimately our wishes might not be what the game needs ATM. 4. Compared to other markets, the hardcore simulation market is very small and very expensive. That’s ok too, it’s just reality. For example - interested in WWII stuff? You’ll need the asset pack ($15), a map ($30) , a plane ($40), basic joysticks ($70) and I’m assuming the hardware to run it all. That’s a high hurdle to cross for the average Joe to dive in. For example, the popularity of Minecraft is directly related to its insanely low system requirements. Anyone can play it. Many of us have spent thousands on rigs and equipment. Again, that’s fine but it isn’t anywhere near the average game player looking for something new. 5. The study sim market is a fraction of the causal simulation market for all of the above reasons, amplified. We are a fraction of the whole interested in flight sims. My brothers are perfect examples - very interested in flight sims and this one in particular, but the equipment needed and amount of time needed don’t work for them. We are a rare breed of people, in terms of actual size within the gaming market. I don’t say this is put us down - only as a comment on the reality of just how big the market actually is. 6. ED runs the risk of too many moving plates with third party developers. This isn’t a simple offloading of work to unnamed ‘others’ who magically produce what we want. There’s A LOT of work here. A LOT . 7. ED runs the risk of too many modules. Yes, I know to all of us that seems insane. Many of us own quite a few - most don’t. Those of us that own multiple study modules simply aren’t a big enough part of the player base to make a module make economic sense. It’s everyone else who actually carries all the water, in terms of the game’s longevity and most importantly economic prosperity. Remember, profits motivate those modules into existence. I don’t say any of this to insult anyone, or throw salt in anyone’s wounds. I think we sometimes forget - know I do - just how many considerations are a part of what is ultimately a business decision. It’s always easier to troubleshoot and much harder to execute. ET - clarity, grammar and a legion of typos.

Hey there, “Huey Sim” - the keyboard shortcuts/commands for the simulation version of the sim, versus “Huey Game” with crashes turned off, control assistance, unlimited ammo etc. “Huey TrackIR” - settings that allow you to move the machine gun by moving your head, if you have TrackIR equipped and on. ”Huey Gunner” - as above, but with a mouse, TrackIR plays no role. Take this with a grain of salt - consider clearing all bound commands (except the keyboard’s default bindings) for your joystick(s) and starting fresh to avoid any binding conflicts you don’t notice. ETA - I would avoid binding multiple setups. As an example, even if you have TrackIR but don’t care for it while sitting in the gunners seat, don’t set up those features in “Huey TrackIR”. I’ve found I create more inadvertent binding conflicts trying to out smart the settings. I’m sure someone will disagree and point out how not hard binding both ways is (and they are right), but I prefer the painless, more flying, less anger way of doing things. Hope this helps!

This is the kind of thoughtful answer that’s very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you my man! =)

Is there a way to easily see new posts from the dev team, whether they are replies or OPs? I find the most interesting discussions come from dev replies or OPs. I'd like to be able to find those threads and follow them. Apologies ahead of time if I am missing something newb level obvious. If that's true, scorn me as I obviously deserve, but give me an answer too =)