Dudikoff

Perhaps you didn't read my post at all as the game DOES include and use an IRST switch (i.e. "O" key) and you seem to be making the same point I was trying to make (i.e. that setting the WCS selector to OLS position probably activates the IRST as the primary sensor in a real airplane as there's no separate switch for it). The problem in the game with the current implementation is that once in BVR radar mode (i.e. "2" + "I"), if you press the IRST switch ("O"), it will switch to OLS mode *AND* deactivate the radar which actually has the activation switch on the console (as if you switch "O" again, it would switch off the IRST, but the radar would remain off so you'd have to switch it on again with "I"). This creates a problem if you use a 2 way switch on e.g. Warthog Throttle to activate the radar illumination. I presume this is not how it works in the real airplane and if you set the WCS mode to OLS, the IRST will be used, even though the radar illumination is still active (as both can coexist in some CAC modes). So, to reiterate, instead of having to play with states and scripts in TARGET, it would be nice if ED would actually implement that BVR mode functions as a switch between OLS (activates the IRST, but *doesn't* deactivate the radar) and RLS (deactivates the IRST in BVR activated with the first press) primary modes (which would also be useful to e.g. Virpil T-50 Throttle owners which has a rotary mode selector switch; I also used the Saitek flight panel rotary selector for that purpose before). Also, by removing the IRST switch in general, the probably incorrect possibility to deactivate the IRST in close-air-combat modes would also disappear. It should be an easy correction.

One thing that has always bugged me was the IRST on/off switch; since the actual aircraft have the OLS (IRST) and RLS (radar) options for BVR modes and I don't see any switch to actually activate the IRST, I believe it should be removed. If there is indeed no IRST on/off switch (?), then it would make more sense IMHO if the BVR mode key (i.e. "2") would toggle between OLS (where the IRST would be activated automatically) and RLS (where the IRST would be deactivated automatically) BVR modes. This would be in-line with the close-air-combat modes where the IRST is automatically activated AFAIK. Currently the IRST can be switched off in CAC modes, but I don't see why (and how?) that would ever be done. Of course, if there actually is an IRST control switch, then please disregard the post and I'd appreciate if someone would point out its location to me :)

I just got a used Warthog throttle on eBay and luckily it works and is in good shape. I received it with an almost fully cut USB cable (it was sent wrapped vertically around the throttle so I presume the weight and the sharp edges caused it), but it worked after a rather shoddy wire soldering job. Quite happy that the TARGET software can easily combine it with the Cougar stick base and it's a vast improvement over the Cougar throttle functionality wise (though I really feel TM should have added a rotary control on the front of it like the Hornet one has, Warthog or not). Good point. I'm really curious to see what VKB will do with theirs when it finally gets finished, especially regarding those extra panels in front which I miss from my Saitek X65 (which can easily mount those extra flight panels from Saitek; the biggest problem being that Saitek stupidly never incorporated them in their SST software so that they can be seemlessly combined with their HOTAS). Virpil throttle has some nice touches (like the mode button and the programmable lighting), though I'm not sure how flexible the programming software is. The flexibility of the TARGET scripts is what drew me into getting my Cougar stick modded instead of selling it unused, so I hope Virpil and VKB will have a powerful programming software as well.

They are working on it and it might be released later in this year IIRC.

OK, thanks for the update. Was just wondering if it's still coming or it's cancelled or something as there were no updates after the MCG-Pro release.

Can you comment on the MCG-TM status? I asked about a month ago on the last page, but there was no response.

Yeah, I was (unpleasantly) surprised as well; just five years earlier.

This is not a new thing, it's been like this for years. I'd presume the German Air Force disabled any A2G weapon support when they modified the ex-DDR 29's for their service and they reflected this in DCS.

I'd expect it to run well over 30 fps at that resolution and medium details. You could add another 8 GB of RAM if possible.

Sapfir-23MLA variant would be the only option IIRC (unless MLA-II from MLD was installed later on(?), but then they could just call it the export MiG-23MLD).

I missed these updates somehow. So glad to have the MiG-23 done in the game after all (the initial rejection by ED was quite a shock). MLA is a pretty good choice, especially if one with the later mods like CM dispensers and SPO-15. MLD would have had some advantages in close-in maneuvering with the vortex generators and the extra wing sweep position, but these planes were not meant to be dogfighters anyway so the difference is probably not that drastic compared to e.g. a MiG-29. Can't wait for it to be done to try to land that thing, thanks Razbam.

Which is certainly not a surprise in the context of DCS World :)

The ED should add better support to easily define the afterburner switch point on the throttle axis (per module I guess), rather than to play with the axis curvature until you hit the sweet spot for your controller. Falcon 4.0 had it.

I'm not sure how well the strengths of the AC-130 would be served by the DCS at this moment with somewhat limited infantry, soft target and fragmentation effects modeling. Not to mention the AI sniper ground fire.. I'd still prefer the F-15E at this point; even though its appeal is somewhat blunted by the MFD's of the F/A-18C and the upcoming F-16C Block 50, it's still considerably more capable than those in terms of payload and range, I'd expect. Or at least the A-7E which would be a nice step back from these multi-roles (i.e. the vulnerability to enemy fighters would certainly add much appreciated tension to the missions and require better coordination with friendly fighter cover)..

I hope this means what I think it means -> downloading only deltas of the modified files. If so, thanks ED, finally. This will mean a lot to users with limited speeds and/or bandwidth. Edit: After seeing that the 1 GB patch with deltas is followed by another one of 9 GB without deltas, perhaps my enthusiasm was a touch early.

Is there another one? :)

And where did I say otherwise? I just mentioned them as something that was planned in one form or the other (either for the D or for one of the proposed variants like Quickstrike, etc.) and as something which would further complicate the development of the F-14D module; the whole point I was trying to make being that the amount of work required for the F-14D could have been even worse if they developed its A2G capabilities as planned. AMRAAM was tested on it as the funds were allocated for the integration, but IIRC the Navy diverted them to LANTIRN program, guessing correctly the upcoming operational mission profiles (A2G rather than A2A). If only a software update was required (after the comprehensive testing program was completed of course), I think it wouldn't be a big stretch to include it as an option if the D module was developed and it would add another handy feature to it over the F-14B. The biggest obstacle might be the HUD representation of the AMRAAM mode as I would presume this did not get in the manuals.

Can the raven make a guess about the MCG-TM availability? :) Seriously asking, just wondering about some rough estimate, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year..

IRST is basically a D-exclusive because what was carried on the earliest blocks of the A by that name didn't really work well at all and was removed pretty soon (if it was even delivered to operational units?) and replaced by some dummy weight IIRC until the TCS became available. There's also the HUD, better radar with NCTR (which is quite important for the basic Tomcat mission), ECM, MFD's, new navigation system.. Quite enough to improve on the F-14B A2A experience and again not THAT different that it would be too expensive to develop (like e.g. if it had synthetic radar mapping, various smart weapons integrated like Harpoon, SLAM, HARM, etc.). LTS video feed could be projected on the MFD so PTID is not really required, IMHO, except perhaps in the very basic TID emulation mode perhaps just to have a bigger screen to designate targets easier. If I was making it, I'd also sweeten the deal with the optional AMRAAM integration, especially if it only required a software update on the D (ducks for cover).

There already are two switches on the left side on the current prototype design. What the others pasted on that original image are proposals. But, I see they added these four rotaries on the right side of the throttle instead of those rectangular buttons. Are these encoders or just axis? Is there some push button functionality? They look sort of rough, IMHO.

Thanks for the info. This switch between the TCS and LTS feeds is basically how I understood the PTID screen worked on the F-14D before the D05 software update (which I guess supported it through the bus), but regarding the LTS feed being displayed on the old TID screens, it's hard to find documented evidence as most USN budgetary documents which mention these upgrades state that PTID is required, but they don't really go into detail. And since it was a long time ago, people involved with the Tomcats might remember it differently. For example, I did read on some modeling forum that when they interviewed Lt. Charles Zuhovski, a RIO operator from VF-211 (which according to Wiki received Tomcats with LTS pods in 1996 and deployed in 1997 with them for Operation Southern Watch over Iraq) for some decal research, he supposedly stated that he flew several missions with LTS equipped Tomcats which had no PTID screen installed. I found a photo of a VF-211 Tomcat taken by the mentioned pilot apparently, so there might be some truth behind this story.

Can you please share some more details on your findings regarding the LTS image being shown on the TID screen? There was this thread on the forum discussing this same thing and IIRC the end conclusion was somewhat different (i.e. the LTS pod required the PTID screen to show the image; on the F-14D the image was shown on the MFD before the PTID screens from retired F-14B's became available).

That's not technically the question here. Early J-11A which looked like the one in FC3 had no datalink at all apparently, while the datalink was added in a later upgrade, but before that another upgrade also replaced the screen with an MFD. So, the question is whether to remove the datalink as the cockpit matches the early J-11A standard which didn't have it or pretend that it's a later J-11A standard with the DL and ignore the missing MFD. Personally, I'd prefer it to be an optional so both could be used depending on the scenario.

The Sparrowhawk HUD was finally ready for operational use in 2002 so it didn't get that much use IMHO to warrant its development, especially if the F-14D might get developed as a module which had its own modern HUD (compared to that F-14A/B had). From what I've read on some forum, the PTID on the other hand arrived rather late to most of the F-14D's (as it was taken from withdrawn F-14B's or even from some A's), so it would make more sense to have it on the F-14B's, but that would require a separate F-14B module to be developed and I'm not sure if PTID upgrade alone warrants it. The make-shift installation of the PTID in the F-14D was apparently rather easy, but that would only support the TID emulate mode, which I suppose only showed the TID/LTS picture. It was fully integrated by software upgrade once there were enough units available for all the F-14D's, but that upgrade was only available for the last F-14D cruise apparently.

Quite an unexpected straightforward statement, which basically counts as a promise on this forum :) Here's hoping you'll manage to pull this one off.