Dudikoff

He's not specifically mentioning they were used in combat in ODS, though. The few official sources I've checked mention only A-10s and F-16s on the USAF side and AV-8B on the USMC side (which would be those three dozen laser guided ones fired) as using Mavericks there.

The IR Mavericks mostly went to the A-10s which used them for night strikes, IIRC and I've only seen references of the Air Force using them. A-10s fired like 90% of them, the rest were fired by F-16s, IIRC. Do you have any references to show that the Navy/Marines used their IR variants on their Hornets in ODS? I only saw a mention of the Marines using a few dozen laser ones.

BTW, am I right that the Sim App Pro doesn't really let you edit the key bindings at the moment ("coming soon")? I see there's some "create from game" option, but it says it can't find the bindings in the DCS user folder and I'm not really sure how to get those to appear (it mentions I need to save something in the game).

I can see two black wires on the left side when the handle is all the way down, but I don't notice it TBH.

Here's a potentially useful link showing how different 3080 laptops fare against the desktop one. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Here-are-all-the-slowest-and-fastest-GeForce-RTX-3080-laptops-you-can-buy-right-now.529039.0.html

Interesting. Scalpers?

What's the odd part? The pot is there to move the virtual throttle tension lever in DCS F-18. I guess if one would remove the screw connecting the lever to the pot and thus unhook them, you could fix a desired throttle friction level manually and then use the lever as a free axis for whatever purpose (e.g. nozzles in Harrier).

Agreed, it is somewhat weird given the text, but the biggest issue I've noticed is that the launch bar extend/retract switch is not a three position switch with temporary up and down positions (like e.g. the switch they've used for heading and course adjustments).

NVME drives have much higher sequential read and write values since SATA 3 is capped at 550 MB/s roughly, but these are mostly useful when copying large files only. In loading games, random reads matter and these still didn't reach levels that would saturate SATA3. So, the NVME drives might be slightly faster in loading DCS, but judging from those older game loading tests, that's probably barely measurable, let alone noticeable (I for one didn't notice any difference when moving DCS from SATA to NVME). On the other hand, the NVME prices have gone down significantly so I'm not sure a SATA drive gives you a better deal anymore. Just be sure to get a TLC drive, most of the QLC drives are not there yet.

The laptop 3080 is not in the same ballpark as the desktop cards due to a big difference in power available (e.g. a desktop one has at least a 320w TDP, while the laptop one starts at 80w and has at max 150W). It's somewhat faster than 2080 Super on laptops, but not by much. Having said that, given what the desktop 3080 goes for now on the scalpers market, that $2600 price doesn't sound like a bad deal in comparison. Keep in mind that there are different power variations of the 30X0 laptop cards, so in some cases a laptop with a higher watt 3070 (e.g. 130W) variant can be faster than a lower watt 3080 one (e.g. limited to 80W) and for less money.

Yeah, that's probably the reason. Finally got a set of my own as well so have to see how to mount them best to my current Wheelstand Pro setup.

Perhaps it's due to how the data is encoded and sent which makes it more sensitive to some electrical interference from the PSU or something?

It doesn't matter how new it is if the stories about abysmal availability are true (like, some systems getting knocked out of function after landing on a carrier or MK engines crapping out in flight), which is not the case with their UPGs.

It was an RFI, not a tender if I understood correctly. If they get a satisfying offer and need them urgently, they could always purchase a smaller number of them directly like they did with Rafales.

Well, they've HAD 45, they have 41 of them now and a multitude of issues, apparently. https://thewire.in/security/another-crash-brings-inherent-technical-problems-with-mig-29kub-to-the-fore Supposedly, they're developing a local replacement for them which should become available by early 2030s.

There are new IPS 32" 4K panels with 144Hz refresh rate coming this year, but not 35". AFAIK, the only 35" panels are those VA 21:9 widescreen 1440p ones.

I have a 32" 4K screen with GSync and am very happy with its sharpness (though, in Windows I've increased the DPI to 150% so it's effectively like a QHD screen, except that everything is super sharp) and was considering to "upgrade" to the 38" screen, but was worried about how I would feel about the lower DPI, especially in DCS. There are some 5K 40" screens becoming available now which are basically 21:9 widescreen variants of the 32" 4K monitors. The refresh rate is not high, though and I'll have to find one with FreeSync, but that size might be the logical upgrade from 32" 4K.

It's a different airframe, the most obvious difference is that it uses a new unified canopy (same canopy is used for the single seater and the dual seater). Looks rather ungainly with it IMHO, so I much prefer the original M/K designs. They were probably better built and tested as well, compared to this embarrassment that the new K seems to be.

The point was whenever they need to fix or update anything (some bug, future improvement or more likely a significant rework of various parts when something in the base DCS engine changes, e.g. related to lighting, ATC, ships modeling, etc.), they have to do it in 4 different places which then needs to be downloaded four times. And given how it's by no means a prerequisite for the F-14 module, but something HB decided to offer with it for no extra charge, in that regard it's free, yes. It's not like the F-14 module costs that much more than the other modules to cover all this extra work they're seemingly expected to do for free.

Well, it's not that simple. For example, if the carrier is 99% the same, that 1% difference is not worth having four different modules on the hard drive and all the efforts of maintaining four different 3D models on the development side, especially as they come for free with the F-14 module. It's simply not reasonable to expect or demand this. And if they only model Forrestal, anybody having a problem using a Saratoga which is just a reskinned Forrestal could simply decide not to use or mod the missions which use them. Unless, of course, the modding community jumps in and mods in the other members of the class and keeps maintaining them.

My bad, I should have presumed it from the thread context, but I had more tabs open and forgot it. Rel4y's USB adapter makes much more sense price-wise, though I wish Target support could be retained. Perhaps it could be possible to add another device to Target script files with Relay's hardware ID, I've never gotten myself to try something like that.

There seems to be a more substantial stock available today.

The controller board is in the stick base so it has to be connected to it to work (unless you buy the TUSBA adapter which IMHO would be a waste of money since you can just put the connected stick base somewhere out of the way). There are updated Cougar drivers and they work on Windows 10, including the CCP. Thus, the microstick works as well though you might need to disable the rudder axis in CCP (enabled by default IIRC for some reason) and enable the microstick ones. I remember I also remapped the microstick axis to some Direct X ones within Target scripts for it to work, but don't recall exactly why as I mostly use the Warthog throttle with the Cougar base these days.

Interesting that it's the standard MiG-31 rather than the modernized BM. They have a bunch of other simulators as well on the webpage. Too bad they didn't cooperate with ED and then ideally letting them release a few consumer level modules.

Yes, the engine needs to have and has a lot of power, but that doesn't come for free: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/12/an-engine-shortage-is-the-newest-problem-to-hit-the-f-35-enterprise/ Regarding the range, sure, it beats the legacy fighters they're replacing (with internal weapons load at least), but I'm not sure if that should be enough given the different environments the aircraft were designed in. As a light fighter, the F-16 was not required to have a long range on internal fuel so is rarely seen without those big draggy drop tanks, while the Hornets had a miserable range compared to the A-7s they replaced (on which the Super Hornets improved only somewhat). I'm not sure why such reduction was finally accepted in the end, but at least the carriers had dedicated tanker aircraft at the time. Given the potential conflicts in the current setting (proliferation of various ballistic and cruise missiles, long range SAMs, etc.), a much longer combat range is becoming a necessity these days. While Marines and the many smaller operators might be getting a good deal out of this program, I can't help feeling that the USAF and USN needs would have been much better served by a larger design with a bigger internal load and optimized for longer range and supercruise, even if it had to be twin engined and more expensive from the start (which F-35 turned out to be in the end anyway by trying to satisfy different service requirements with a single airframe).