Dragon1-1

Here you go. Considering that "Average" stands for "average for a naval aviator", I feel like a badass. Some of those were reflown, once or twice, and the night CV qual is the last trap, not the first. That said, I did fly 10 day and 6 night traps. Funnily enough, I feel like night traps were easier, either because I got in my practice when doing day qual, or because of the long run in and more opportunities to look at instruments. I have to say, the hardest part was probably not going into over-G in a dogfight. I got dinged quite a few times for pushing the plane too far. I suppose if I could feel the Gs, it wouldn't have been a problem. Of course, winning a dogfight while sticking to that limit and doing it fast enough to satisfy the instructor is another thing entirely. Either way, that was fun, now for the real deployment... and then, Zone 5.

You can, but not nearly as much as you can a CPU without 3D cache, and it's generally not recommended. So, you won't get extreme margin pushing on multiple stages like you do with Intel chips. If AMD doesn't do anything stupid, they should not undergo undue degradation.

I do, and the X3D series does run hot, but it's manageable, especially since the X3Ds also have fixed clock speeds due to the needs of their L3 cache. I'm pretty sure even the latest Ryzens aren't quite on the edge the way Intels are, and when undervolted, I'm sure my 5800X3D will last me a while. When the rig is due for an upgrade, it'll be to another X3D Ryzen variant.

I'm so glad I made the jump to AMD. It looks like my next PC, whenever that comes, will also be a Ryzen machine.

He's trying not to break the helicopter. Exceeding the limits is not good for either the airframe or the engines. Even if you don't notice immediate effects from running hot, that doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not sure if they're modeled right now, but they might be in the future, and being in the red too much might result in an increased probability of having a failure, or at least logistical problems in DC (I hope they do model maintenance).

It seems we're about to get some news, maybe tomorrow. Take a look at the roadmap thread.

This bombing mode actually predates the Viper a fair bit. I think the A-7, which had the same HUD as early Vipers, already had that, not to mention the F-14 was already equipped with similar functionality.

Again, the huge explosions we see in DCS are an engine limitation, this is the only way DCS has of showing a damage that counts as a kill. Most of the time, you know a tank is dead when it stops moving, shooting or whatever. If the crew is still alive, they'll bail, and if you're staring at it through the TGP you should see them open the hatches, climb out and run for the hills. This is, essentially, what a "mission kill" entails. A mission killed tank might not even be immobilized, but it's no good in a fight. This doesn't happen in DCS, though a heavily damaged tank might move very slowly. What should be happening is that the bomblet hits the tank, and the tank is no longer capable of performing its intended task. If mobile, it might try to drive off, or the crew might abandon it if not. The point is, the tank is no good to anyone at that point, except perhaps to try to tow it away and fix it. CBU-105's bomblets are more than capable of inducing that state. Few tanks have any sort of decent protection from the top, though Russians started putting ERA tiles up there some time ago. In DCS timeframe, however, it would absolutely butcher an armored column. That's what it's for.

It doesn't. AIM-7M is new enough that the delay had been practically eliminated. It's got digital electronics and a new seeker, which went a long way towards making it not suck.

It is, look at shipping costs. When you add it up, it works out to over 1800 AUD (I have no idea how it converts, but Amazon has those cards for 1800 USD). It's a typical way Chinese sellers use to make it seem like a deal. They set a low price, so that when you sort by price, their offer comes up early, and then make up the rest by a ridiculous shipping cost (no, you won't get any red carpet shipping for all that money). It also looks like a founder's edition, these are not typically as spiffy as, say, an MSI offering. I'd say, it looks like a pretty average offer.

You don't fly parade specifically, but you do fly other formations, most notably the one where you're trailing behind the wing with your probe in the basket. The workflow for this case is exactly the same (and with the S-3, the level of precision needed is not far behind). Knowing how the tanker is supposed to look from the cockpit, particularly if there are any good reference spots, would help immensely with learning AAR. I'm good with a KC-130 (it's big enough that putting the gun cross under the pod suffices for horizontal+vertical alignment), but the S-3 is much more finicky. Similarly, at one point you take up a formation on the tanker's wing, and cues for that would not be amiss, either. It's fairly easy to figure out, but when someone is learning that, some pointers would help a lot.

It should go in the box. Center detent is optional, and you don't install it if you're flying an aircraft. It's for when you want to use your HOTAS to play something like Elite:Dangerous or Mechwarrior 5, where you have forward and reverse on the same axis. In a flight sim there's no use for this.

More like companies only button, though I suppose some ultra-rich people (think Elon Musk) could work something out with them. A regular rich person probably wouldn't be worth the trouble of working out the legal stuff. Companies use the quote system because there's usually additional information involved, every installation would be a bit different. In addition to hardware, it also involves installation, training the staff and probably a support contract, too. It doesn't actually have to cost that much to work like this, although it usually does since you can bilk a company for far more than most private customers, due to how business financing works.

Would that be possible to add some more screenshots as illustrations for M2 and M3? In particular, there are materials for sight picture you get when in proper formation with a Tomcat, but not for the S-3D in various phases of AAR. Adding pictures of the tanker with important cues highlighted, just like the Tomcat ones, would make tanking with that particular aircraft somewhat smoother, since without it, you kind of have to figure this out yourself as you go, which is not ideal. Also, do real pilots really fly parade at night just like they do during the day? I find it hard to believe that the ejection seat triangle is, on a low vis scheme, possible to see at night without NODs in most conditions. I guess they have just learned to look at the whole sight picture by the point they're trying this at night, but still, that's a tall order when you can barely see the jet's outline. Isn't there really anything more to say about formation lights and so on? Parade is easier because it's cues are a formation light and an antenna which is easy to see in a silhouette.

We could use a USAF-style B-course, actually. Might be with the Phantom, it's a more interesting jet and it has a backseat, unlike our other USAF fighters. It would be interesting to compare the training styles between USAF and USN.

Honestly, if you can get anything above unsat on formation flying, AAR shouldn't be that much of a problem. The tanker does not have the ridiculous roll rate you have to somehow keep up with. Also, try practicing in the IA mission. The S-3 tanker is hard. Better learn on something like KC-135MPRS in the IA mission, then you should be able to plug into the S-3 well enough for the mission to accept that. Ideally, practice on KC-135, then move onto S-3 (not sure if there's a pre-made mission where you can quickly jump to it) and then do the 2nd mission. You have to fly a tight formation and fit in the tight box behind the S-3, which isn't easy, but it's doable.

He calls out what he sees on the RWR. So if you've got a lot of Hawks around the airfield, you can ignore it. If you're playing as US or Israel against Iran, which uses the Hawk and its derivatives extensively, ignoring it is ill-advised, although it also depends on context. If you've just taken off and have Hawks on your own side as well, you're probably fine. If you're over Iran and a Hawk pops up, it's probably not going to be friendly.

The problem with Force Feedback is that I haven't seen any system strong enough to truly emulate a hard stop. A mechanical stop has a distinct feel and it can't just be pushed through. To emulate that, the motor would have to be able to resist an enormous force. Of course, there's also the possibility of a bolt-on physical stop that you can attach and detach according to what you're flying, like with detents on the Winwing throttle. However, the motors would need to be aware of the stop, to avoid damage.

Finally did it! Below average, but TBH, I'm happy I passed at all. Seeing as every task that didn't involve holding hands with DCS AI in close formation came out "Above Average", quite a few on first try (of course, I'll wait with bragging till we see the final grade sheet ), I'd say it's the AI not my flying skills. My AAR is rusty, but I was so tired and stressed after all that formation flying, that I decided to practice it in some other mission and maybe come back and refly this one. Or maybe just fly a little, get better at plugging, and then try to get a good grade at night. I came out of this firmly convinced that the problem is roll rate. The Tomcat, if it wants to, rolls fast. Unannounced turns of any kind simply give you no time to realize the lead is doing something and react to it. Doesn't really matter how much angle of bank he ends up at, it matter how fast he gets there. I'm sure if you ask Paco, he'll admit he wouldn't just slam the stick to port or starboard without warning, like DCS AI does, and expect the hapless trainee to keep up. This is made worse that when lead rolls, the wing has to move up or down, which needs to be done in a controlled manner, which is hard when you have to do it fast. ED needs to be pushed to implement a roll rate limiter for such (and many other) scenarios. Now I just have to do more or less the same thing, only at night... At least there's no tac turns, so it'll go faster. Hopefully.

Just finished M2, and man, flying formation on DCS AI is a gut-wrenching experience (the tanker, with its weaving back and forth, was actually the easiest part...). However, I'd like to report a grunt walking along the flightline and through my jet, multiple times, as I'm starting it up. He's lucky DCS doesn't model sucking fools like him into a jet engine, or I'd never be able to get the thing started safely... It'd be nice if he could be sorted out in the next patch.

In fact, they should essentially be special threat steerpoints, that's what they are internally in the real jet. Hopefully when we get the DTC, this functionality will come with it.

The latest versions do have it, but early models (the ones we're the least unlikely to get in DCS) didn't. They just had ACL system for Case III, not unlike the Hornet. Why do you think my favorites are the Tomcat and the Phantom, with MiG-19 also up there? That said, I do have a soft spot for the Viper, despite it holding your hand plenty in a fight. That said, I'd like the Jaguar and the F-111 more than another 4th+ gen jet. Physical interfaces will always be there, for the simple fact that gestures and thoughts are messy. With a stick and throttle, or at least the thumbstick on the latter, there's no doubt what you're telling the jet to do. That said, they might switch to fiddling with the tablet full time.

I think the suggestion is "don't announce release dates", but they're already announced on a short notice, and not doing that at all would be annoying, too, particularly for people who don't have a fast internet connection that can download a 100GB patch in a few minutes (which is a lot of people around the world, particularly outside major cities).

Another reason not to want the F-35 in DCS. Where's skill in that? Put the FPM on the 3-wire marker, flip the PLM switch, watch as the aircraft lands itself. When you do an SHB in a Tomcat, dead on the numbers (because otherwise you won't make it down), that's legitimately impressive. The Hornet takes plenty of skill, too. It sounds like the F-35 largely trivializes even the SHB, nevermind a regular trap.

That only shows that the problem goes really deep. There's no reason for the operating environment to change on a regular (not daily) basis. That we were only doing computing for just 80 years is not the problem (in fact, most of modern engineering is not that much older). The problem is that for most part of those 80 years, we were doing it wrong, and we still are. Consider two things: 1. Much of modern computing world is based on what started out as an ad-hoc OS to play games on a spare computer one guy had laying around, and had since been modified and expanded by everyone and their mother. 2. Fans of said OS will tell you that this is a very good thing. Have you considered that it's extremely expensive, and not usually done, because our software development culture had made it unusual, as opposed to mandatory? "Move fast and break things" is has been established as the way to be "innovative", but all it does is build technical debt. Consider this: had Windows been created, on the architecture level, to be secure against intrusion, it wouldn't have needed a security patch every month, because most of those exploits would not be possible in first place. There was actually an OS that did just that (Multics), but it didn't ship with IBM PC. It could also run for years without being restarted and hot-swap everything including CPUs (not its last one, of course, as a mainframe OS it usually had several). That you can't just pull a GPU or an SSD out of a running PC and insert another, and that you have to reboot it every so often, is not a law of nature, but a deeply embedded design flaw. And don't even get me started on a crock that is the internet.