Jayhawk1971

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.

Unless I have missed it, no one in this thread said such a thing. The gist, mine included, of those who you would "accuse" of being "stuck in the 90's bubble" was that an animated pilot body would be nice to have, and most welcome, but it should not be a top priority ATM, when there's still more functional stuff to fix/ polish/ finish. All in good time. People (generally speaking, not you personally, Rosebud) really need to realize that development, especially when it's a small team that has high standards in their work, takes time. Pestering them every week about your pet features will not speed up the process - quite the contrary: by forcing them to respond, they have to take time off from working on their respective modules. Do you guys sit at home and think "if I don't ask Heatblur about XY right now, they'll forget about it! Quick, to the Batcave forum!"?

Just bought the campaign a couple of hours ago. I have to agree about the FPS. I assume the smoke is the culprit. I tested free flight on the Marianas in the Huey, and while certainly not great, it was manageable. I tried mission 1, and got as far as Guess I'll have to wait until ED optimizes the map, and/or I get a chance to upgrade my system. Maybe I can squeeze some more frames out of the settings. That being said, I loved the atmosphere and attention to detail very much during this first mission (and the intro)! And of course the movie references (Full Metal Jacket, and the intro is somewhat "Platoon-ish" ).

HB did just do a lot of work on the Viggen and pushed back the Tomcat stuff. So maybe something might happen in the next large patch. And then there's this, from the Heatlbur roadmap: "Pilot bodies and animations are coming to the Tomcat. We plan to expand our in cockpit animation systems to better serve side by side aircraft such as the A-6E." Maybe they are waiting for something related to A-6 development? In any case, there's also the flight model that will get some more tuning, missile API overhaul, (hopefully) Jester upgrades, two SP campaigns (maybe even a third one?), new afterburner effects, the F-14A early (and Iranian semi-version), RWR improvements, dynamic cockpit (FORGE), enable/disable Jester in MP, ground friction tuning, fixing the spawning issues in MP, visual damage model improvements, vapor effects, TARPS pod (non-functional)...and ECM fairings. They probably won't be able to do all of that at once, so priorities have to be set. IMO I'd rather have missiles to shoot that work exactly as they should (or at least come as close as legally possible), planes that don't blow up when spawning on a carrier, "smarter" A-A Jester, finalized flight model, and new campaigns before I'd want the visual improvements...which for me includes the pilot body. I've been playing flight sim games since 1983, mostly without a pilot body in the cockpit....I can wait a few more months. And when we finally get one, I bet it will be amazing, because even though HB might take their time (small team, largely part-time), boy do they deliver good products!

If that was aimed at my post, you might want to read it again.

I wish ED would create a separate environment for the "competitive" part of the player base. A "DCS Air Quake" module (), if you will. Or, add a "competitive mode" to "simplified" and "simulation" modelling. In any case, those who want their gameplay to be "fair" or "balanced", start DCS in such a mode, or load/ choose that module/mode (or admins implement it on the respective servers), and bam! no more ECM and all missiles behave exactly the same, all modules get "nerfed" accordingly, to the point of relative parity. Fair and balanced. Those who cherish the challenges of dissimilar areal warfare can simply continue playing "normal" multiplayer. That way, those who are simulation enthusiast can enjoy the specifics of their favorite module(s), with all strengths and weaknesses, while the competitive crowd can enjoy whatever they enjoy. And the devs don't have to deal with the constant nagging, arguing - sometimes outright whining - about the perceived artificial advantages or disadvantages, and can be left in peace to focus on finishing their - some still very much WIP - early access modules (which is the vast majority of modules in DCS) and missile API! That being said, ECM modeling was, is and most likely will remain to be the most iffy part of DCS. All the juicy details are still highly classified, and that includes stuff from the early 1950's! I heard an interview with Gero Finke (True Grit) some time ago, and he was highly uncomfortable talking even about the barebone basics of electronic warfare (probably stuff that you could find on Wikipedia). I don't see any way of meaningful EW integration into DCS, with ED's current focus on systems simulation, due to the classified nature of the technology. From my layman's POV, the only viable approach would be "effects simulation", but that in itself can be rather subjective, and may not meet ED's standards for quality simulation.

The Tomcat is not the Hornet! It doesn't have a UFC and MFD's. Also the Hornet's HOTAS has a lot more functions. If you play more complicated scenarios rather than simplified SP missions (=only one radio channel, easy navigation only using Steerpoints), you will need the left console of the F-14 often during flight operations, not just for start-up. Because hidden under the pilot's left arm are: AN/ARC-159 radio panel, TACAN control panel, AFCS control panel (SAS, Autopilot). Also keep in mind that IIRC, HB are planning to do a high resolution, highly detailed pilot body. What impact that will have on precious FPS in VR remains to be seen. Worst case, you'd have to turn it off anyway (like many have to fly with mirrors off, despite them looking nice and immersive). Just to be clear: I am not against having a detailed pilot body available at some point, I just don't see this as being a top priority ATM, nor do I come even close to understanding how such a comparatively trivial thing could seriously influence a purchase decision. That are some really strange priorities right there. Seriously, you are depriving yourself from owning probably the best jet module in DCS over that?!

The first thing I do when I enter a cockpit that has a pilot avatar in it, I disable it (with the exception of the Huey). Because the almost totally rigid arms are always in the way of the left/ right consoles, obstructing important knobs and switches. The only immersive implementation would be if the pilot hands/ arms moved when I move mine, or the mouse cursor. I'm exclusively VR, BTW. IMO, a pilot body should be one of the last items on a substantial list of things that I'd rather see fixed/ added. So Heatblur has been making the correct business decisions, their priorities are just fine. Functionality > cosmetics.

I don't know what the heck you guys are doing, but I have had zero problems taking off with full flaps, both A and B, both land-based and from a carrier. There's ample time to raise the flaps before I reach 225 kias. In the A I use full burner taking off from a runway (unless I'm no external tanks, guns only), and I use mil power for the other takeoff conditions (A on the carrier, B everywhere). Edit: The only time I've ever had problems with jammed flaps was when the axis I had it bound to spiked with throttle movement (G940 problem, solved by opening the damn thing and removing a screw), causing the flaps to deploy partially, just enough to jam (interestingly, sometimes they jam asymmetrically, which is a nice touch by HB).

I got an Amiga as in interim before my first PC. Got Gunship for the Amiga as well, and Falcon 1, and played Digital Integration's F-16 Combat Pilot to death. I believe I also had F-19 Stealth Fighter on the Amiga, and F-117 later on as one of my first PC games. I do have fond memories of F-15 Strike Eagle III on the 386, playing it all night with a school buddy in coop mode (via cable) over the weekend. Oh, and Chuck Yeager's Air Combat! Loved that game!

What does Jungle mean by "Q"? Q-corner, dynamic pressure related to the pitot tube, or:

I remember playing Spitfire Ace on the C64 as well! My first more serious look into "flight sims" was Microproses F-15 Strike Eagle, and I got really seriously invested (reading the manual religiously) in Gunship, all on the C64.

Someone call Elon, and/or we'll crowdfund, and buy Iran's whole Tomcat fleet. Gift it to the US Navy under the condition that the Navy has to eternally keep them in flyable status, at least for airshows. Then the DoD can finally declassify all that stuff and we'll finally can get the D.

I own a G940 and have adjusted "center spring" strength using the Logitech software. So my stick isn't limp at all (that kinda sounded dirty )