Dudikoff

IIRC, he just installed EVGA X1 software and by toggling the default button in it, he gets or removes the GPU usage boost (from about 65% to 95%). So, he had a low GPU usage issue from the get go, which may not be present elsewhere.

USB 2.0 standard is rather limited power wise, hence why I asked. I had the same problem and have since gotten myself a USB 2.0 hub with an external power adapter. If I use e.g. my two TM MFD's, a Cougar stick, a Warthog throttle and pedals on it, I'd get disconnects from the Warthog throttle without the power adapter plugged in (and even with it it feels like on the edge of its capabilities so I fear adding more devices to it, like Track IR). I chose a USB 2.0 powered hub due to it being cheaper and to avoid any potential incompatibility with the controllers (as the ports on my laptop are USB 3), but I guess going with a decent USB 3 hub would be a safer choice (higher power available so you won't need the external power adapter unless you go overboard with connected devices).

Guys, he knows what NCTR is, his question was why is the MiG-29 type contact classified automatically as hostile instead of unknown which is the actual result of IFF interrogation. I guess AvroLanc gave the correct answer and it was a matter of the IFF configuration that Wags used.

I'm just saying that having an HMS in the 80's was technically not that special since the US Navy had one in limited service long before that (early 70's). At the same time they were also developing a matching missile with greater off-boresight capability, but it got canceled in the end (too expensive IIRC).

These kinds of exchanges are quite STANDARD here. (lame attempt)

Well, HMS, not HMD. There's a significant difference between the two.

Is it a USB 2.0 hub? Is it powered with a separate power adapter? Try to switch the keyboard to the desktop from the hub. If you need to increase the number of USB ports, get a USB extension card which plugs on the mainboard USB headers.

So, they only need to re-release the Cougar throttle and modify it to be standalone.

Yeah, the new grips look much better, IMHO. Extra controls are also great, but shame about the missing AB detent. That's completely impractical.

He does call Bingo fuel or something, though I get the impression he calls it out just before running out of fuel completely as it's pretty soon followed by punching out. It would be nice if DCS would allow this Bingo fuel callout value to be set in the mission editor.

They said it will be a mid-80's one a long time ago (which interestingly enough the poll doesn't include for some reason), so I'm not sure what's left to expect here. And I assume the early 80's and mid-80's is pretty much the same thing major systems-wise. So, I guess the same TCS fit, TF-30's, AN/ALR-45 shown on the HSD instead of the 67 with a separate indicator, no LTS pod.. The early F-14A's would have had the problematic IRST pod (or none depending on the time) and an older AN/APR-25 RWR, but HB made a good choice, IMHO.

I guess it would be nice if DCS mission editor would allow to define an optional cold start position and time as well as for a hot start so if both are defined in the mission, the game would prompt you at the start of each mission to choose which option you feel like. Normally, I much prefer hot starts as spare time is precious lately, but I can certainly understand the appeal of a full start up.

2-5 minutes? IIRC, it was discussed before and stated it was around 90 minutes.

Isn't it RAlt/RCtrl + Home (left/right engine start) and RAlt/RCtrl + End (left/right engine stop)? If so, these are default DCS commands for FC3 modules, but I'd be surprised if you can directly start the engines in the Tomcat like this. Are you playing in Game Mode perhaps?

An honest opinion? I guess you could sell these (though, please make the stickers optional). Not sure if the left arm rest should be adjustable in height ideally, but looks pretty professionally made.

So, posting a conference video from the guys involved into designing the damn thing is misinformation? Interesting.. Nobody's saying that carrying AWG-9 and AIM-54's that came with the Navy requirement wasn't an important part of the design, but there's more to it than simply being designed as an interceptor as those missiles weren't intended to be used against fighters (in e.g. escort role).

You could simply remap all the pilot / RIO controls whenever a toggle button is pushed (or some 2-position switch is flipped) if you don't want to use the in-built UMD layers. There's probably some more effective way, though.

I'd presume some scripting can suffice here. You just need to have an assigned target and then determine those guidance inputs from it (e.g. an intercept course calculated with some delay). I guess for MP scenarios it would be nicer to have a GCI/AWACS interface to assign targets manually, but I'd presume that needs to be supported by the base game.

Had the same DCS crash with the latest OB when I shot down the last Mi-8 in the first mission. Hope it'll get fixed with this week's update. Edit: Apparently not, just a stable branch push this week.

Well, there's this, of course (F-14 is included). https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1922187&postcount=1

I see what you mean, but, what's the point of having more G's to pull if those G's are not really usable (as they would result in an instant plain destruction as it is currently)? In the real airplane, you'd have to pull with more force to get that result. Since on a non-FFB stick, the force appears roughly linear, a higher force pull would result with a higher input value so to me it makes sense. If it doesn't make sense for you or you feel it would be awkward to get used to, that's fine, but, I mean, limiting the G's is a problem in emergency situations, but 2s time-delay isn't? :) I'm not really asking for this nor saying that it's the ideal solution. I've suffered this insta-death like two or three times in total and the idea came to me immediately as a result, but I haven't given it any thought afterwards. Only when I saw someone else had the same line of thought, I backed it up, that's all there is to it. Personally, I hope that this behavior would get tweaked further in some way with time by HB. But, as any such solution would be an *optional* input method, what I don't understand are the righteous posters shooting down any such proposals as a blasphemy even though they would never have to use them.

It didn't really happen in a dogfight to me, I was just using the external views or something and when I got back into the cockpit, the plane was in a thirty degree dive, but presumably rather fast. I pulled slightly, but I guess due to the speed, it didn't seem to pull much and the sea level seemed to be getting close so I added more pull (maybe half the axis in total) and I could hear the plane break down instantly and enter a downward spin, while the screen turned black. So, it was not a normal situation as I completely lost track of the situation because I was not at the controls, but still, the plane seemed to break rather easy while realistically, you would be restrained from pulling too much that easy.

Sounds great, have to try this. Thanks for all the effort that went into remaking these in DCS.

It's not really artificial since in the real airplane you'd have some feedback on the controls that would prevent you from easily pushing over the limits at high speed and this you can't achieve here without an FFB stick. Besides, nobody proposed a one size fits all kind of a thing, but simply some ideas for an optional control variant (e.g. like the Ka-50 has with its "artificial" trimming options). You don't want it, you don't have to use it.

I was thinking about the same solution the other day when I broke my airplane by pulling on it slightly at higher speed. Like having an option for some dynamic adjustment of the pitch axis (well, I guess roll as well to keep the inputs balanced) with speed so that at critically high speed, you'd need to pull the stick much more to achieve the same deflection as with a lighter pull at slower speed. We wouldn't be losing much or any pitch authority really since we're limited by G's anyway. Either that or there should be some tweaking of the G-effects regarding the airframe damage or perhaps pilot effects where there would be a blackout onset while the pilot input would be reduced to a point to delay the instant airframe destruction (unless e.g. the pilot doesn't quickly reduce the pitch input). I presume that in the real thing you would feel the pressure on the controls at high speed and thus couldn't destroy the airframe with a slight soft pull, so I find the current behavior somewhat unrealistic in practical terms. Not sure if there is some G-effect pilot implementation still missing from the module?