Jayhawk1971

Before the patch, actually for a long time, my - subjective and deliberately highly unscientific - impression was that I had a better PK the farther away the target was when I launched. I don't know why: maybe due to the AI starting to defend the instant I launch a Phoenix in TWS, it simply runs out of chaff when the Phoenix finally reaches it?. Anyway, yesterday I tried the Marianas instant action mission against the J-11s, and while on a positive note the AI actually launched all of his AIM-54s, our combined 7 Phoenix-volley managed to down 1 (one!) J-11, whereas on previous attempts I (I alone, no help from the AI wingman) managed to at least take out 50% of the J-11s with Phoenix missiles. So maybe some of you more knowledgeable gents could be so kind as to compile an interim set of optimal launch parameters for the current implementation, which I fear will be with us for quite some time (given ED's full plate and patching policy to "sit" on individual fixes until they can release a more cumulative patch monthly). I can not provide a Tacview track, because I've disabled Tacview as it steals valuable FPS, and I need every single additional frame in VR. So much so that I might even consider giving each additional frame a name and invite it for tea and biscuits.

Can confirm this worked for me.

No, judging from the context it was presented, I'm pretty certain it was meant as good-natured ribbing, and I'm certain no disrespect was indented. Neither was my post, I assume that's (hopefully) crystal clear to everyone here! I merely thought that, as far as good-natured mockery goes, it was a funny term. Nothing but mad respect for the workload those WSO's have, operating all those systems and sensors while also having to maintain SA and hold the pilot's hand at the same time. RIO's are definitely getting proper representation on YouTube, though, in the form of "Bio" Baranek and "Mooch" Carroll. So if anyone ever had any doubts concerning the quality and necessity of backseaters, they definitely put things in perspective (Bio even more so with his excellent books)

Mover often refers to any backseater as "Trunk Monkey". As good a name as any.

Obviously the...err...Phorrestal.

Phantastic news. Now hopefully someone will make (or is already secretly in the process of making) a Vietnam map, or (and!) a Cold War Central Europe map!

But on the plus side, we could have a D model F-4 I guess it's spelled "Eph Phour".

I have to say, I didn't think there were too many Hollywoodisms in Fear the Bones, anyway. Sure it captures the late 80's feeling, and 80's movies, but it's certainly not "Over the Top" (see what I did there? ). Anyway, apart from the final two missions, the campaign is still pretty much anchored in plausible scenarios. Sure, the ready room banter has been transferred to the cockpit (and where else would you put it with the absence of a Ready Room?!), but it's not at all overdone. I did enjoy it very much, as it struck a good balance between simulation and entertainment. DCS in general is way too sterile anyway, and campaigns such as Fear the Bones IMO capture some of the good old days of combat simulation gaming, titles from Microprose, Jane's Combat simulations and others. The icing on the already delicious cake would have been a "campaign branching" for replayability, where the second to last mission could have had a different outcome (maybe when you play it a second time, you don't get the scripted ending) that would lead to a different final mission, but I don't know if that's currently even possible in DCS, and of course it would change the story arc you've crafted. Looking very much forward to your RAG campaign.

Would it have been possible to replace the propellant after a certain time period, or were those things sealed tight? I mean one would assume that the guidance package was the expensive stuff on the missile, and too valuable to waste simply because some chemicals decide to diffuse. BTW, my comment was referring to this, hence I was wondering if the propellant was what may have caused the "temperamental" part.

It's pretty obvious that the AI spent either too much - or too little - time at Anderson AFB's "Disney Land".

I think I've read - many moons ago, so I don't recall where, or what the specifics were - that degradation of the propellant became a problem over time, which decreased reliability of the Phoenix. Whether that's true or a "sea story", I have no way of knowing.

There's a master light switch on the throttle. No need to "fiddle" with anything. So no "World of Warcraft" automatic light switch necessary.

A couple of updates ago, ED changed the way you play campaigns: you can skip missions, and you can refly missions that you've already completed. So you don't have to fly the whole Zone 5 campaign again in order to fly that new mission. I could be mistaken, but I believe that's not possible with purchased 3rd-party campaigns due to copyright restrictions.

Tomcat announcements are my favorite announcements! If we may make guesses (I'll put it in spoiler tags just in case), I'd take a stab at it and say:

I don't know. But I have flown to Edwards AFB, which was of roughly similar "detail" as Fallon. (I tried to find the "Star Wars Canyon", then flew south along the Death Valley to Edwards.) Since NTC would be about 70 mi ENE from Edwards, I don't see why it should be any different. So in a pinch, going the FARP route and placing some units should be in the cards.

Would now be the right time to kindly ask ED to maybe reconsider adding Fort Irvin/ NTC to the NTTR map (IIRC, that was actually being considered early on)? "Everything is subject to change" could work in both directions, right? I could think of many things involving the Apache that'll be a lot less awesome than a full-fledged NTC campaign.

A lot of "internet drama" could have been avoided if the poll would have been titled differently. Instead of "should we have a C-172 in DCS", maybe use "would you buy a C-172 module for DCS" instead? Maybe something to keep in mind for similar polls in the future. I voted "no", but not because I think there shouldn't be one, rather than that I personally would not purchase one for DCS. To help give potentially interested 3rd-party-developers a realistic forecast. Other than that, the more modules available, the merrier. If any dev believes there's a market for product XY, go for it! With 3rd party developers in the mix, it's not a zero-sum game.

That's the key phrase, IMO. That was what many here tried to communicate to those that subsequently throw accusations of "selfishness" and even "spitefulness" around, and think all are generally being big, bad meanies! Heatblur has been open about its list of priorities here and all over this subforum, so I don't understand becoming all emotional about it. ! However, I need to point out that I don't think anyone in this thread asked HB to not make a pilot body. Just that they, personally, don't need one. I believe that's an important distinction.! I can only speak for myself, and I initially responded to the person who basically wanted Heatblur to drop everything and include the pilot body immediately, or else he won't buy the module, with the additional twist of giving unsolicited business advice. (Almost) Everyone loves options. I would never dream of going on an online crusade to deny anyone their optional features. And I assume neither does anyone else in this thread. If anyone cares, personally, I am actually quite neutral on the issue of having a pilot body: currently I absolutely don't miss having one (I honestly don't ever notice the absence of virtual limbs) and I find the current implementation in other modules detrimental to functionality (except in the Huey, where nothing gets obscured, so I don't care either way). But I find the concept of a functional virtual body representation - an avatar - intriguing and I'm completely open to an implementation - and would welcome one! - that adds value to the VR experience. A good example of immersion (from outside the "sim world") would be the body mod someone made for Skyrim VR: it replaced the floating hands with a body that reacts to player input (can also pick up things, hold on to them etc). Simple but effective.

I guess when the DoD asked Grumman for more transparency, they took it way too literal.

I got the second issue "fixed" (if one can call it that): I contacted the AI via the comms menu, and ordered it around the old-fashioned way. After that, the radio voice commands suddenly worked again (wingman, tanker, SC atc....all worked again as it should).

Hi, after the recent patch shortly before XMas I have had some unpleasant issues with Vaicom Pro and AIRIO: 1. At least on the Caucasus map, Jester won't tune TACAN correctly. Especially tanker. Example from a couple of minutes ago, Heatblur "Reforger" Campaign, mission 2: 11:37:35.961 TX5 | ICS: [ Arco ] , [ TACAN Tune Arco ] 11:37:35.946 Recognized : 'tacan tune arco' The command is being recognized, but Jester either doesn't tune the correct frequency, or on other occasions choses the wrong band (X instead of Y, or the other way round), or he forgets to set the needles to the pilot cockpit. 2. Suddenly, AI radio commands are no longer executed, albeit recognized. I just get a beep, but nothing happens. Tried both radios for good measure, both giving a wingman command and contacting tanker to refuel: 11:43:44.805 TX1 | UHF ARC-159: [ Tanker ] , [ Intent to Refuel ] 11:43:44.791 Recognized : 'arco approaching for refuel' 11:43:44.158 Joystick : 'Transmit TX1 release' 11:43:41.848 Joystick : 'Transmit TX1 press' 11:43:40.238 TX2 | VHF/UHF ARC-182: [ Tanker ] , [ Intent to Refuel ] 11:43:40.227 Recognized : 'arco approaching for refuel' 11:43:39.847 Joystick : 'Transmit TX2 release' 11:43:37.388 Joystick : 'Transmit TX2 press' 11:43:26.591 TX2 | VHF/UHF ARC-182: [ Wingman 2 ] , [ Go Echelon Left ] 11:43:26.576 Recognized : 'two go echelon left' 11:43:26.073 Joystick : 'Transmit TX2 release' 11:43:23.910 Joystick : 'Transmit TX2 press' 11:43:02.098 TX1 | UHF ARC-159: [ Wingman 2 ] , [ Go Echelon Left ] 11:43:02.079 Recognized : 'two go echelon left' 11:43:01.527 Joystick : 'Transmit TX1 release' 11:42:59.467 Joystick : 'Transmit TX1 press' 11:42:33.942 TX2 | VHF/UHF ARC-182: [ Wingman 2 ] , [ Go Echelon Left ] Does anybody else have any of these issues? Everything worked fine before the latest DCS patch. The wingman radio thing happened today for the first time. I didn't change anything with DCS or Vaicom. Changes outside of DCS were a small Windows 10 update yesterday, as well as installing the latest NVIDIA drivers.

You mean highly educated graduates from the renowned "/Kurt Plummer/* Center of the PC Test Pilot School", located at NAS Mom's Basement, or its subdivision at Fort Tuck-In? * old simmers should be familiar with that name, as well as the use of "/ /"

Thanks Victory205, I'll try that in the next gaming session.

VR pretty much takes care of any obstructions the canopy frame and control stick pose in pancake mode. It's really a "new" gaming experience. Even though I run a bare minimum system, I'd rather endure the underwhelming visuals and bad performance over going back to 2D. I don't even notice that there's no pilot body, as I my focus is divided between looking at the instruments and outside, but if HB can come up with a great implementation that really acts like an (necessarily less muscular and handsome, of course ) avatar that can mimic all my core movements (leaning, hands/arms move with mine or the mouse pointer), I certainly would welcome it. Well, I can't. Been trying that "full cross control" thing Jungle mentioned in the F-14 Tomcast, well, didn't really go as planned. Instant flat spin, heading out to sea. Oh well. Back to doing racetrack patterns around Nellis. On the plus side, I do go to the gym regularly.