Rainmaker

The F-15 and F-14 are not similar in any regard really when it comes to individual work loads...people need to stop drawing up that comparison. The workload is no different than flying a single-seat F-18, F-16, etc. The extra body is a force multiplier but not a hinderance if they are not present. There’s about six switches on the console (that I can think of) that need to be put in the correct spots, before you get in harm’s way, that are tied to the back seat. Outside of that, systems management is all integrated into both seats, there isn’t a requirement to switch seats to employ anything, nor a need for anything like voice attach that extends beyond any other single seat fighter out there. It’s as user friendly as an F-16 in that regard.

Why? Because the F-16 and every other single seat fighter is impossible to fly without a second guy in it? You need to jump seats because you are being shot at? Why? Your thoughts seem completely unfounded from a reality standpoint.

The A-10 is one of the exceptions to the normal nogs ops. They were using them in afghanistan as one of the first fixed wing aircraft based in country. Props to them for pulling that off too.

Keep making it up until it becomes true? :)

The two will never really match. RL controls are flown off 'force' more than they are travel of the stick. They have a sensor at the base of the stick that senses force inputs and flight controls are moved based on that. Lots of folks believe that is an 'F-16' thing because of the uniqueness of the controls, but in reality many aircraft fly that way. You could freeze the stick arm and still fly through force only with some as an example.

Yeah, the actual nuances between self-gen systems and LOX don’t really extend into anything DCS besides perhaps a BIT system and something you might be able to give battle damage too

Keep in mind I'm speaking of real life, and not necessarily what's modeled in the sim currently. The switch and the probe that senses the icing condition are not related. The sensing element resides in the left inlet, and is nothing more than a probe. If there is ice build-up on the probe, it triggers the advisory light. That's basically it's only function/purpose in life. Ice present, light on, ice no present, light off. The switch controls the inlet probes on the front of the motor. Turning the switch on, directs air across the probe to raise inlet temp at the motor's mouth. That doesn't effect the temperature of the air around the sensing probe, or the probe itself. The advisory light is just there to let you know you should turn the switch on. The switch being on, doesn't really effect whether the light stays on or goes out, that's dependent on the icing condition. In DCS, it's basically partially simulated, and partially not simulated correctly. The light coming on is directly tied to air temp and altitude, it leaves out other key variables like the presence of moisture in the air, which is required of course, to make ice.

Tanker/drone pilots need someone to hang out with. :)

So, in RL, it’s really wasted effort to download weapons unless you are doing a reconfig, you’ve reached flight limits (some weapons have them and have to be inspected), it needs some form of maintenance that requires downloading (hargar, jacked aircraft, etc). This is USAF Air Force experience, so there may be differences with some branches or exceptions on a carrier, for instance. I have been around F-18s, F-14s, Tornadoes, etc and with other US guys, Brits, Aussies, etc and their practices didn’t differ much from ours. Forward firing munitions have some different requirements than bombs, but in this case, most of it is treated the same. Munitions take a while to download so it’s not in anyone’s best interest to expend a lot of time unless the safety aspect, maintenance, or next flight really requires it. As for the gas yes, specially with aviation fuel. Vapors are way more hazardous than the fuel itself. Was always typical for us to fuel after flight. Always best to know about potential fuel problems in advance. Sometimes you leave them a little short of full to account for thermal expansion so they don’t vent gas during temp swings.

Sounds like you have never been on fighters.

That why my first two questions were to get clarification on what you meant. (I.E. guidance or effects)

Yep, the bomb dump dudes are your assembly line. They take the body and add the kits, fuzes, etc.

I know exactly what they are. I’ve spent 21 years in the military. The bomb itself is the same. You’re still not getting it.

In terms of what? Accuracy or weapon effects? Same bomb body, just different guidance. There are some that combine both (I.E. EGBU-24). You also have to take into account...’most’ everyone here is making a ‘guess’ as the real life weapons accuracy/effects data is classified info. I’ve got plenty of old pictures from Kuwait of the bunkers that were hit in DS, still intact and still used to this day without rebuilding them, and many were hit with multiple 2000 pounders. If you were to walk inside them, many don’t look like they were ever blown up aside from the holes in the ceiling. Actual wartime armored/fortified assets are much different than the dirt structures we’ve been hitting for 20 years. Unfortunately, you are talking about a lot of extra modeling to simulate the effects on both. ED has shown models of different fuzing being modeled, we can only hope that weaponeering becomes part of the mix at some point in the future.

I’ve probably stated this 5 times already, 2-3 in this thread alone. The suite 4+ version and the version that existed in Desert Storm are 2 different eras of the same airframe. That extends far beyond something a minute as a UFC. You can’t have both eras of the same jet regardless of what UFC you have. There’s too many under the hood changes that mean way more that the minute differences between the UFCs.

They never usually are, you’d have to get into the maintenance manuals to really get a clear picture of what powers what. I haven’t combed through the EPs of the F-18 manual, but ones like the F-15 manual for example will give you a go/no-go list there of what you can expect to be operative vs inoperative under certain operating conditions. That can be a bit more useful than looking at the bus diagrams which tend to be very generic and not provide a lot of info for those situations.

Yes. TR units are your normal DC power provider. If they go down, batt is going to take over...but it’s only going to give you minimal essential items. Those are usually going to be listed as ‘essential’ bus items. Your other 28 VDC buses are going dead in the water. For better or worse, they are the ones that the designers said you could live without if things got that bad for ya. Some of the stuff is going to require DC and AC, and if gens are dead...well, it isn’t going to work anyway. I don’t know if the F/A-18 has an inverter or not...so there could be some AC capability there...I just dunno the answer to that.

Yeah, I’m still not on the same page with yah yet. And out of curiosity, is there a statement that says that DC buses are only powered by the battery? That’s normally not the case from the aircraft that I know of. Battery would power DC buses, but usually only under emergency circumstances, and only those buses labeled emergency/essential. Everything else would be disabled and cut out of the loop to save on power draw against the battery.

Still not sure I get your question. Are you just asking how DC exists on the airplane during normal operation? If so, the answer is still by the generators. AC is converted to DC by transformer rectifiers. They feed your DC buses.

Transformer rectifiers are used to convert AC to DC. When it comes to emergencies, it’s about ‘essential systems’ and ability to keep the jet airworthy...not so much about things that it ‘could’ power. DC also draws a lot of amps...and aircraft wiring has it’s limitations.

Yeah, I dunno either. It is DDR3 1600...but it only shows about 11/16 usage using MSI AB. I would think it would flood more data to the RAM to make up for any slow speed issues, but that’s merely speculation on my part. Any chance the mobo could be bottlenecking data? Anyone know of any way to check the data transfer amounts across it?

Thanks for the input. I have been using MSI AB for testing as it has a really nice in-game overlay for seeing usage and just about anything else you might want. Unfortunately, it’s absolutely useless in VR as it won’t display unless your in 2D. Using the logging tool, I could verify that both were giving pretty much the same numbers, the win monitoring was just the only way to get a real-time screenshot. Changing the clocks on my video card would be super easy, so I may mess with that a bit and see if the usage numbers go up as a result. The RAM deal crossed my mind. There’s just one thing that bugs me, and that’s the huge disparity between running in 2D vs 3D. If we’re talking video rendering, the pixel count should be almost a 1/3 higher in the 5760 res vs the VR 1920x2...unless I’m missing something. In the end, data being data, why such the hiccup? If it’s getting slowed by the RAM, why only in 3D? My RAM is descent stuff, so there’s a little room to mess with it, just not sure if there would be any way to differentiate results.

Okay, so...at a loss here. Screenshot will probably help more than anything. Specs: 3570K OC'd to 4.2 (yup, living in the past still and okay with it) Z77-HD3 mobo 1060 GTX 6 GB (I think drivers are from April) Oculus Rift CV1 and/or 3 monitor setup at 5760 x 1080. Been playing with this for a day or so. VR is garbage at the moment, and it makes no sense. We could all agree that I'm due to upgrade...but at the same time things don't add for that being the current reason why my VR frames suck. When I put myself over downtown Vegas at 5760 x 1080, I'm sitting on 70 FPS with my current setup...not shabby at all for a 8 year old processor. I switch to VR, struggling for 30. Initially tried without an overclock vs overclocking to 4.2, still the same result. Screenshot tells the story on usage. MSI AB monitoring utility isn't saying anything different really. That wasn't a low spike, there's still consistent overhead there and I'm stuck at garbage frames. Anyone have any bright ideas on a cause or a fix?

If that is the case, perfectly fine and I don't agree/disagree on whether it's right or wrong as I just don't know for sure...but it doesn't work that way right now (with gun selected specifically). Selecting gun, and hitting the pickle button, designates a ground point...but that's only after you use some other source to make a ground point and then clear it. After that, pressing the pickle button, creates that ground designation diamond. If you just start a mission, select gun, hit the pickle, nothing happens. Use the ground radar (as an example), select a ground designation, clear, select gun, hit pickle button, ground designation point appears (can be cleared and done over and over again using the same method).

So, two different issues with this. 1. Designation with the HUD via the pickle button in CCIP/CDIP is still wonkey. Either: 1. It isn't supposed to function at all 2. It is supposed to work, but it still doesn't work properly until you have already made a previous ground designation using something else. Either way...a bug...as you can't have that both ways. Either it's supposed to work and it doesn't, or it does work in some instances and it's not supposed to. 2. The TDC thing, if it is/was a bug, it's still there. Only works in AG/Auto. Pickle button designation also works here too as it captures the pipper location and designates. F/A-18 DCS EA Manual: CCIP Target Designation Option: When in CCIP mode and the TDC is assigned to the HUD, and the CCIP Bombing Cross is within the HUD field of view, pressing the TDC displays the TD on the HUD and it can be slewed within the HUD field of view using the TDC. The TD will initialize on the Velocity Vector or at 7.5 degrees, whichever pitch angle is greater. When the TDC button is released, AUTO bombing mode is entered based on the new target location.