Dragon1-1

...or unless he's got a very long extension, mimicking a real flight stick. In fact, the gimbal could even be mounted under the simpit's floor, that would raise the whole thing up, but it'd be realistic. Also, the Bf-109 at least was very much unflyable if you let the speed get out of control, this is reflected in DCS version. 60Nm should be enough to replicate most real aircraft sticks in normal flight. I hope they still sell them by the time I save up enough to buy that thing...

P-80 actually did fly in WWII, but only for recon over Italy. In Korea, it was much improved, and it was a successful attacker. So I think it'd be nice to see it.

Yeah, this look solid, but my collective mount turned out to be held together by a pair of very poorly designed barrel nuts. The stick mount, at least, doesn't seem to have that problem, since the nuts are side mounted, perpendicular to forces that'd normally act on the stick. The stick mount is the same basic design as I made myself, for a fraction of the price, although using 20x60 (yes, those exist) alu profiles. This has some 3D printed plastic parts, but those aren't a problem. The problem is that there's not much other than friction to prevent it from rotating when sideways force is applied.

Of course, if you do that, you can get away with a desk mount, but then, you're not using the full capabilities of the hardware. My own desk mount design is already dodgy on occasion because I swapped out springs in my Orion 1 for a pair that's very stiff. No threat to the solid pine desk, but it can slide around. Making a mount to keep a Cyber Taurus stable is not a trivial matter. I don't know about MonsterTech, I have one second hand collective mount, and it's a crock held together by friction. So I don't know about those. If I ever go in that direction, it'll be 100% DIY, with alu profiles and steel mounting plates. Yeah, if you're doing a centerline mount, make sure you've account for the full range of motion when designing the seat. Especially if you're getting the version with the reduction gear.

Knock it off with the big font, it only makes your posts harder to read. The document I cited is specifically an air to air part of the Dash-34. So of course it doesn't have this information, because it's not the right manual (though it does mention the existence of air to ground modes in a few places). It does reference another document, which presumably does, but as I said, I don't have the "rest of the Dash-34" in which this information would be listed. I would very much like to see it, though, because there's also a tantalizing implication (on page 3-1) that the F-15C can, in addition to bombs, carry CBUs and rockets. Yes, that Dash-34 is old. It's also period-accurate for the F-15C. So I think it's very relevant. Links to the articles, please, assuming they're unclassified. The evidence I've seen is to USAF putting this capability in, then trying very hard to pretend it doesn't exist. Worth noting, in another document the Dash-34-1-1 (AA weapons) and Dash-34-1-3 (classified stuff) were listed as primary reference documents for operating the F-15C, while the Dash-34-1-2 (AG weapons) was not. So I wouldn't be surprised if most actual aircrews never even saw the Dash-34-1-2. Which might be the reason it's nowhere to be found on the internet. It might be a good idea to shoot the USAF a FOIA request for it. See if they can dig up some dusty copy of it and scan it.

If you use the Winwing grip, it's all-metal. Some sort of alu-zinc alloy probably. So I wouldn't worry too much about metal fatigue. The only concern would, perhaps, be the plastic F-16EX extension. Other brands, I don't know if they'll even be an option. Yeah, I imagine dialing down forces will be something that'll be done a lot, though I hope DCS will feature an option to simulate 1:1 forces where possible. Spitfire, in particular, is well known for its feather-light controls. Forget wood, and forget using an office chair. Wood will bend, and the chair could jump out of the locking plate, unless you make the wood very thick (think "load-bearing beam" thick). Metal all the way, with a dedicated seat securely bolted to the rig. Forces of this magnitude are no joke. I'm keeping an eye on an open source Hornet cockpit building project (OpenHornet) and they've got a stick design that replicates the real thing. No FFB, but the gimbal is on the similar level of torque. As for mounting it to a desk, you'll probably break the desk. They're seldom built to withstand such high forces, even the good ones. I wouldn't buy one of those without a proper simrig.

One day, after I build myself an aluminum rail cockpit rig with an UFC and MFDs, those are going to be the next additions. Not before, though. There's absolutely no way anything other than metal could withstand those forces. We're getting into real aircraft forces territory here with the high end offerings.

The sad thing it, it's so hard to explain to some people. Besides conditioning, they have unwavering faith in omnipotence of computer technology, and in exponential growth (we're already seeing the plateau approaching). Of course, shysters peddling AI services are more than happy to take advantage. Indeed, chatbots are designed to encourage humanizing them, that's the whole point. This could be useful for DCS, in fact, I think BeyondATC already does uses an LLM to drive ATC comms for another sim. More natural interactions with various agencies would be welcome, but we should never mistake it for an actual human (then again, I think we all met humans with "inherent limitations", so to speak...).

Yes, you do. Waving your hands about and asking people to believe you won't cut it. I haven't actually posted the FM, but it's probably not OK to post it, because it's from the 1981 (no, we're not talking about mid-70s, the C is an 80s bird), so past the cutoff, but it's easy enough to find. T.O. 1F-15C-34-1-1, page 1-1, at the bottom: "A secondary capability includes the automatic or manual release of air-to-ground (A/G) munitions. Refer to T.O. 1F-15C-34-1-2.". I don't have that air to ground manual, but I think you'll agree that they wouldn't have printed a whole publication just to say "nothing to see here, maybe you can strafe them, lol". Unless you were around actual Eaglejets and saw that wiring wasn't there, just dealing with Pentagon for 22 years is not evidence for this particular case. It certainly doesn't trump my evidence, which comes straight from actual F-15C documentation. Because weirder things have happened in military procurement. Just because all logic suggests it should have been removed doesn't mean it was. Besides, citing "basic economics" in a discussion about an organization which can't even properly explain where half its budget went (and it couldn't for at least six major audits) seems somewhat farcical to me... If the -34-1-2 is too hard to find (can't imagine that publication was used much), that's fine, but if ED has that information, and they might, then this capability should be included, since it's part of the aircraft both physically and in documentation.

Try doing that in VR, then. "Overwhelming" is exactly how I'd describe my first foray into IFR while flying VR. I guess I didn't have my sense of balance BSing me, but the disorientation, claustrophobia and nerves were recreated pretty damn well for me. And no, that it's not real doesn't matter much for the monkey part of the brain that's responsible for those sensations. In fact, the experience was very much like real pilots describe entering IMC, complete with having to fight the urge to fly "by feel" (despite sitting in a chair!) in order to focus exclusively on instruments. While I figure the real thing is even worse (can't take off the googles if things get too hairy, for one), if you remember the procedures and manage not to panic, your chances of survival would go up. For what it's worth, you can learn procedures in the sim. As far as how much experiencing it in VR helps with not panicking part, I don't know, but it might help some. On topic of trainers, the L-39 has an IFR hood that can be deployed in order to practice that. The training mission makes even you fly a route using only some beacons and a compass using it. Not easy, but does build confidence if you can figure it out.

Do you have any evidence beyond "basic economics"? Because AFAIK, the air to ground stuff was in at least one Eaglejet manual. Yes, US Eaglejet squadrons don't train for air to ground, that's been established. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to to. We're not constrained by USAF doctrine. Only if they actually did remove the wiring should that capability be removed from our jet. In fact, "basic economics" would make a good case against you. Air to ground stuff being INOP won't affect the primary mission, but actually removing it costs time, manpower and requires certifying a new configuration. So it's actually easier to leave it in physically and just not use it.

Given that there are examples of people with no experience managing to take down GA aircraft and survive (with ATC guidance), I'm willing to say you're exaggerating the issue again. Mythbusters managed to land a professional airliner sim with ATC talkdown. If you actually make an attempt to learn proper flying technique, as opposed to just jumping in and flying around, then sim experience could probably make a difference here. You know, questions such as "where to find the gear lever". Yes, the sensations matter. Sim training is not a guarantee that you won't freeze or do something dumb in the real thing. However, it might be used to familiarize yourself with basic concepts that you need to survive a landing. I'm not claiming you can learn real flying only by jumping into the sim and fooling around until you can sort-of fly. I'm claiming that you can use it to practice procedures, familiarize yourself with the physics, and with how to read the instruments. That's more or less what sims are used for in professional training, but it requires a healthy dose of RTFM and reading up on theory, or at least flying proper training missions that explain how to properly execute the maneuvers. The point is, being able to read instruments and fly using them, as you typically do in a sim, can compensate for not being able to fly with your backside. Just because it's nice and sunny outside doesn't mean you can't use the variometer to judge your rate of descent instead of eyeballing it. I wasn't the one asking about it (and besides, I have my doubts about that module being much good for anything), but it can be used to teach basic principles of flight. I don't know if it's got all the peculiarities of props modeled (the WWII fighters do), but I think we need to clarify whether you're arguing about simulation in general (which also includes other sims) or about the Yak-52 specifically, which is a much lower bar, and not even representative of other props in DCS. Also, the Yak-52 has a nasty trap in it: the AH is an old Soviet type that indicates pitch in reverse. I wouldn't recommend anyone fly that when also learning a real plane (unless the real one also has that type of AH). It shouldn't be a problem in VFR, but in IFR, learning this kind of thing wrong can kill you. Also, the cockpit is metric, which can also be confusing, especially if your charts are in feet and knots (the L-39 can switch between metric and imperial instruments, not sure if the Yak can).

You seem to be specifically talking about a prop driven GA aircraft with minimum flight instrumentation. What you say is not true in general, for instance in the Tomcat, for instance, you can barely hear the engines running, they're drowned out by the ECS fan. In an airliner, you don't listen to the engines, either, they're deliberately made to be quiet, after all, not to mention they're far away. I think you're making a bigger deal of those small details than they actually are. Larger aircraft (or fancier GA ones) aren't flown by "flying sensation", they're flown by looking at the flight instruments, something that'll be familiar to a simmer. In fact, I've heard actual pilots caution against relying too much on the seat of pants feeling, and on cues that you mention. In fact, trusting the seat of pants over the dials had killed a few pilots, mostly GA, but at least one airliner, too. Assuming they aren't confused by the seat of pants feeling existing in the real plane, a simmer will have a correct instinct to start scanning the gauges and adjust controls based on that. More than that, a sim does teach you how to read those gauges in first place, which isn't necessarily obvious. Why not? Other than the fact we fly fighters in DCS, which are very different animals to something like a Cessna, we landing properly is an essential skill. You can learn the proper sight picture if you fly in VR, the bouncing requires a motion platform, but applying proper landing technique is very useful in the sim. Likewise, proper climbing, diving and banking is very much something you can learn in a sim. You can't learn how it feels (though a motion platform can help you practice getting coordinated), but you can sure see how it looks from the cockpit, and again, on the instruments. DCS is not WT, while you're not required to use proper techniques outside certain training missions, learning and applying them pays off. We should, I think, distinguish between "take off from taxiway and turn the jet straight to the front line" kind of DCS player from one who actually bothers to learn proper flying. A competent simmer will learn RL techniques for flying aircraft, because those techniques exist for a reason. Besides, there are aircraft in the sim, like the Spitfire, that will punish lousy flying (especially TO and landing) technique hard. Also worth noting, single engine GA aircraft are harder to fly than an airliner, or a modern fighter for that matter. Significantly so, in fact. The very fact of having a piston engine to manage (forgot carb heat when descending? Too bad, you're now a glider), as well as prop effects to deal with, give them challenges that larger jets don't suffer from, and turboprops suffer much less. Also, tricycle versus taildraggers, put a real pilot in the latter who only flew the former, and there will be pain (and possibly a shredded prop). BTW, this particular issue will be familiar to any longtime jet player dipping his toe in warbirds for the first time. So it's also a good question, what exactly is the non-pilot trying to land, and just what did he fly in the sim.

No, I mean "do you need to know this at all" before you get into the plane. On your own, with no assistance, you'll still go "hey, this is heavy!" for a minute or two, jerk it around a bit, then your brain will adjust and you'll be flying as usual (and if you go simming right after landing, your home rig will briefly feel too light). Similar to switching between a car with and without power steering, they control the same, only in one of them, you need to put some muscle into it. If you don't have that minute or two, then you're probably in a situation that'd be difficult to recover from even for an experienced pilot. Our brains are flexible and if you've got the right intuition as to how to actuate the controls, actually doing it is relatively simple. Now, greasing the landing can be a different matter if you're not aware of certain aerodynamic peculiarities like updrafts and downdrafts (not modeled in DCS except for the carrier's burble, but present in the civvy sim) or some quirk pertaining to the specific aircraft, or if you learned to land on a naval aircraft and smashing the ship into the deck is your SOP. That said, you should still be able to stay alive, and it's not like an actual pilot's license magically grants you the power to land smoothly every single time, anyway...

It greatly depends on the aircraft, and if you have mechanical controls, it'll also depend on airspeed. One of the primary considerations when diving in WWII era was to avoid going so fast that you won't have the physical strength to haul back on the stick and pull the aircraft out of the dive. If you're not going very fast, it's going to be much easier. Then, you've got individual aircraft quirks. Spitfire, for instance, is well known for needing very little stick force to throw it around the sky. FFB joysticks on market can get close to a real Yak-9 (another example of remarkably light controls), but will fall short of the forces most hydraulic systems are tuned to. I heard somewhere that the stick forces for US aircraft were standardized based on the P-51 control forces, presumably during cruise.

Here's the thing, do you actually need to know those things beforehand to be able to fly an airplane? Yes, real aircraft controls are stiff, and few home rigs come close. Mostly because most home furniture can't take that kind of forces, you need at least a frame simpit to handle a realistic gimbal without bending. FFB bases can help, but even then, commercial offerings still fall short of real fighter controls. Still, if that's the main difference, you should be able to adjust after a short period. One thing you can't learn while sitting in a chair is how moving your own body feels, though people do build DIY motion platforms. This can be a safety-critical effect. That said, we don't have the "seat of pants" feeling in the sim, so we compensate by staring at the instruments. That's actually the safest way to fly a real airplane, provided you have the instruments in first place.

Actually, the datalink does work, so BRAA calls aren't the only way to get SA using the E-2. We may be missing some features of CEC, but at least the Tomcat can link up and get tracks from one, I think the Hornet can do that, too.

The difference is that you're able to see how much flight path deviation you have, if you don't do this perfectly. A "direct to" command assumes you mean to fly in straight line from your current position to the designated point. Particularly when the ATC clears you direct to some point, you'll be expected to stick to that line reasonably closely.

WP military hardware typically had Russian language cockpits. Russian was usually taught in schools the way English is now, so that wouldn't have been an issue.

Do you know how the Flying Banana handled this? Looking at the pics, it doesn't seem to have much in way of flight assists, what with being a 50s design. Then again, perhaps it was simply very hard to fly, not exactly unusual with helos of the time.

I've had a problem with SimAppPro not seeing a collective plugged into a port on an USB card. Only "native" mobo ports worked.

It's the same because ED has coded the animations for the Hornet, and the appropriate animation for the Tomcat is not part of what they did. It'd be nice to see era-appropriate gesture for the Tomcat, but I don't see it coming anytime soon, given how half-baked many of the deck crew features are (magic teleport, anyone?).

That's the normal way of doing it. I went on a big binge when I started out because COVID was going around, there was a big sale and I just got my first VR headset, but even then, I didn't buy everything, just the stuff I thought I'd like. After that, it's been a steady trickle. Oh, and don't worry about never catching up with new releases. Module development takes a long time, and even campaigns are a lot of work to create, so they come out rather slowly. Even if you do put the sim away for a while, you'll catch up faster than devs can add content. With multiplayer, it's a bit different, but there, you really have to study and learn the aircraft in order to be any good.

It's not a fallacy when you consider that for an SSD, the probability of failure is proportional to how often the drive is being written to. Game files are updated much less often than ones on the OS drive would be (which is usually chock full of temporary stuff), meaning that having other data on different drives does reduce the likelihood of a total loss. In theory, a larger SSD should take more writes, but in practice, this isn't always true. If one of those spares is bootable, you have actual redundancy, in that you can recover, with most of your data intact, from losing your primary OS drive.

Yeah, because that wouldn't happen IRL, either. Demotion is something you get for a far more serious violations than prematurely wearing out Tomcat airframes (albeit doing that too much could affect your promotion chances). When Dynamic Campaign comes, you could this become a consideration, because aircraft would then have realistic downtimes, and an overstressed jet would probably have a longer one due to maintenance having to check for more things like whether the wing box is still good.