Jayhawk1971

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 )

I think it would be easier - provided both parties had any interest in doing it - if HB consented for ED to incorporate the Forrestal into the paid SC module with all the SC features. The exact same treatment ED is (was?) planning to give the Stennis (one full fidelity version for the payware SC module, while the barebones version remains free to use). Sure, it's probably not that easy to implement in case of the Forrestal (different dimensions may require a different AI pathfinding logic) as with the Stennis, where you'd probably just need to replace the CVN number on one of the existing "Roosevelt" subclass models (plus maybe some minor cosmetic changes). But. I believe it will enhance the appeal of the SC module, and would be a nice gesture by ED towards owners of the Supercarrier who have been (and still are) waiting a long time for any improvements (A-model Tomcat still gets the Hornet treatment!).

Isn't there a number next to the map marker on the F10 map? I never tried to use multiple markers, but with the one it's fairly straightforward with AIRIO: Set your marker on the F10 map, which will be "map marker 1", then tell Jester to set "Map Marker 1 to Steerpoint 2" (or whichever you'd like). So far I've only had to use that feature in one single player mission - where it worked as advertised - so I haven't tried fixed point, surface target etc. Hence I don't know if VAICOM recognizes these (yet).

Well, I wasn't... ...because the poster I was replying to was asking about our curve settings, and I told him mine were zero. He replied back that reducing his curves actually helped, and in the post I assume you are referring to I tried to encourage him to try with no curves. Be that as it may, artificially dampening stick response to make one single task ostensibly more easy (and is it, really?) while sacrificing performance at some other part of your spectrum is not a good approach IMO. It's like always putting training wheels on your bike for speeds under 5 km/h. Sure, you won't be tipping over that easily, but you'd run into significant problems at higher speeds. BTW, I can confidently and consistently manage to do all "tomcatty" stuff without curves and a small DZ on a crappy, 12+ year old G940, a minimum spec GFX card and a Vive Pro. Not due to my natural good looks, superhuman abilities and minty fresh breath (that's a given ), but due to putting in some effort to hone the appropriate motor skills and build the necessary muscle memory. Yes, coming back from some time with the Viper or the Hornet will mess that up some, but that's the way it is. Edit: That's generally a good notion, but to be fair, without previous input by the "curves cosa nostra" ( ), the question about setting up custom curves would probably never even come up for the majority of new players. So at least give people all possible options to give him a chance to try out what will work for them.

I'll just leave this here (boldened highlight by me):

F-15E (hopefully less "beyond" and more "2022") Edit: if we count the Apache, well, then I'm equally excited about that as well.

Also great for left-hand-orbit aficionados. Hours and hours of left-hand orbit fun (at night, too, exclusively)

The Tomcat's controls are analog, so curves are completely unnecessary and detrimental to its performance. It's the best setting for the Tomcat, even if you don't have a flight stick extension. Treat it like a WWII warbird. I too started with curves (it was being mentioned in a couple of guides when I first got into the module, after all), but as was suggested by the "Tomcat pros", I quickly went to zero curves. It'll take a while getting used to the very light touch the (simulated) Tomcat requires, and every time you come back after "cheating" on her with a FBW-module like the Viper or the Hornet, you'll pay for it by having to get reacquainted with her controls.

Zero, zero, zero. No curves.