Dudikoff

This one? https://wccftech.com/samsung-crg9-49-ultrawide-gaming-monitor/ Yeah, since the 49" screen is basically two 27" panels put next to each other, the original 1080p resolution was definitely too low.

IIRC, the R-60M only has a rather limited all-aspect capability which requires the target to have afterburners on.

Looks great, thanks, though I presume they only had F-14A's? Are you planning to do a low-vis version perhaps?

Man, those A's are so old, they're getting rusty ;)

An interesting article on The Drive: Confessions Of An A-6 Intruder Pilot

Maybe could be worth checking the graphics driver settings for V-Sync as it could be set to half-rate (30 FPS) (the same could be set via Nvidia Inspector so check if you haven't used that as well). Though, I'm not sure if those settings are overridden by the game setting (and thus ignored by the game).

Does the C-101CC provide coolant for the missile's seeker anyway?

Both systems have the same purpose in the end, but if e.g. my simplified understanding is generally correct, the AIM-54C would normally burn less speed during the mid-course phase and thus would have more available on the final (which would match those claims that it has some optimizations against more maneuverable targets). In that case, perhaps some drag values could be adjusted so that on average it ends up with somewhat more energy? I mean, what's the point of having the C in the game if it's modeled exactly the same as A is? I'm sure HB could make a reasonable educated guess based on the data available and give it a somewhat improved performance.

I guess those should be the leftover default bindings for all DCS modules which are not used for the F-14 currently. I could see how it could be useful to have this to traverse the home base and assigned steerpoints plus those additional reference points (as a workaround to have a flightplan with more than three waypoints), but it could also be confusing in case the additional reference points are not intended to be used as waypoints/steerpoints. If such a system would be implemented, perhaps a mission editor option could be added to denote traversing only through HB and the three steerpoints or to include the rest as well (in some fixed order).

I think there's technically enough info to try to implement some difference between them (DCS permitting, of course). https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2890020&postcount=125 https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1066 So, if I understand correctly, during the mid-course phase, the AIM-54A will periodically get messages from the AWG-9 on where to look for the reflected SARH signal and then adjust its course towards the target directly. Not sure at which interval these messages are sent, but I guess the missile will burn more energy because it will keep readjusting itself towards the target until the terminal phase where it switches either to ARH homing or SARH with PN. The interval is also different in case ARH (less frequent) or SARH terminal homing (more frequent) is used (or basically TWS or PD-STT). For the AIM-54C on the other hand, it apparently has a digital inertial system with an autopilot so it can fly towards an optimal intercept point calculated by the AWG-9 on launch and then updated directly in case the target changes its trajectory.

This is the chart from the Su-27SK manual, it was already translated.

Those are rather modern upgrades with MFD's and stuff, so not exactly what I had in mind (the original F-5E cockpit with some enhancements, like the INS, etc.). I'm just surprised they couldn't have added radar ranging in the A2G mode for bombs and rockets and indicate it with the existing gunsight reticle.

IMHO, INS would be nice, but I'm not so sure about the gains of having a more advanced radar without some BVR missiles to accompany it. I'd prefer if they made a variant with Mavericks and more Sidewinders. Now, I really miss a computed bombing sight on this module. Did any of the F-5E export variants have those?

I concur. I have a USB 2.0 hub (which supposedly works more reliably with these controllers) and when I plug the two Cougar MFD's, the pedals and the TM Cougar plus Warthog Throttle, sometimes I'd get the same flickering problem or the Throttle would disconnect during the sim. Plugging in the hub's power supply made it much more stable.

But, in STT mode, the Phoenix uses its SARH seeker which I'd expect has a much longer range than its active radar (given the AWG-9 power). On the other hand, I could see the datalink being a must in TWS mode to get the missile close enough to the target you want to hit and then signal the missile to go active.

I think it's not the case, the missile would get lost according to what the devs said (there was some earlier discussion on the topic). IMHO, it would not be logical to always simply activate the missile as you have no idea what it will lock on to and e.g. there could be friendlies or neutrals between you and the target. On the other hand, I can see your usecase as well, but then there would have to be some override for that; it shouldn't be the default behavior, IMHO. But, is the datalink even used in the STT mode? I'd expect it's not?

Just rambling here, but that sounds like a possible feature as you do know which button you've pushed and if indicated, then you immediately know that RIO selected/overruled something.

Ideally, the ADV variant would be added as well. But, yeah, after the F-14, the Tornado in general would probably be my next wet dream thanks to the DI game. The HB would of course be the perfect 3rd party for it (both existing tech and attention to detail wise), but they already did the Viggen AJS which is somewhat similar role-wise, so I feat they might not be as thrilled about doing it.

I guess there's already a B in game and if they implement a HUD and a PTID, why not go a bit further and make a D to complete the variant trilogy. But even if they wanted, they can't make the B you're asking for because they don't have a weapons part of the NATOPS which describes all the PTID menu functions.

In theory and FoV-wise, not quite as then you could zoom out on the ultrawide screen to see the same cockpit size vertically that you're seeing on the 16:9, plus you'd see the extra part to the sides. In practice, though, the same cockpit zoom as on the 40" or 43" 16:9 would be too small on the 34" ultrawide to be readable and useful so, yes, a bigger 16:9 screen is obviously more useful than the smaller ultrawide. But, that's not a fair comparison except perhaps price-wise as there are no 40" and 43" gaming models AFAIK yet (e.g. higher refresh rate and with adaptive sync).

Had the same issue in one of the single missions today. I tried to tell Jester to lock on a single target ahead, but kept getting a message from VAICOM that the radar is in lock mode. It would be nice to know what causes this and how to get around it.

I get what you're saying, but you're explaining it in a wrong way. The vertical FoV is the same in 16:9 and 21:9 in theory, but your physical vertical size is too small for you to comfortably zoom out. My point is that there's nothing wrong with the 21:9 format for DCS, but yes, I'd agree that the 34" monitor is not the ideal size for it.

That's misleading as it's technically not true. Just by looking at those ratios, it's obvious that you get a larger FoV with 21:9 (i.e. 21 compared to 16) for the same vertical space (9). So, with a 40" 4K (16:9) monitor for example, you have the same FoV as a 27" (16:9) monitor, but with better sharpness (due to increased resolution) and I guess better immersion as it's bigger (unless you push it way back from you). But, even though it's bigger physically, you don't see more vertically for the same cockpit zoom level, while the 34" ultrawide gives you a bigger FoV for the same vertical level (even though its vertical size is PHYSICALLY noticeably smaller than on the 40" screen). Now, I do get what you're saying and for me the same vertical on 27" (16:9) and 34" (21:9) is physically somewhat small for proper immersion, hence why I upgraded to 32" 4K (16:9). But, I wouldn't mind having a 37.5" ultra-wide monitor (with a loss in sharpness as it has a vertical resolution of 1600 compared to 2160) for a wider FoV.

Which more modern one would that be? There's currently only one of the new Ford class delivered, but given the amount of issues with it, it's at least a few years away from operational testing, let alone service.

Sorry, is that a 3-way rocker (forward, center, back) or a 2-position rocker with depress? If it's the former, it might be useful as a mode switch in Target.