DisplayName

As per the purpose of posting suggestions on any forum of this nature, the suggestions that I have made I would like seen integrated into the game. I am fully aware that lua files can be edited. That is not the solution I am asking for. At this point it seems as if the only thing holding DCS together is the (modding) community, and I would like to see ED take some onus and implement some tangible and meaningful things into the game to improve their product.

I have recently purchased the Fw-190 Dora during the sales period and I absolutely love it, DCS WWII is amazing (thank you WolfPack server). However, there seems to be some aspects that detract from the experience and I think I have some suggestions that could help enhance the modules interactions. 1. I would like to see a modifier on key bindings that require a button input, but in reality, control an axis. Example: The gyro gunsight target wingspan dial requires a button to be bound to it. As this seems to move a bit fast when pressing the button, I would like a modifier that we can change the value of between 1.0 (full speed) and 0.1 (slowest); which can be adjusted in the binding’s menu in 0.1 increments. Secondary to this, for controls that have labelled increments, such as the aforementioned example, one of the modifier options could be to have the output as increments which will rotate the applicable dial by one of the marked intervals per press of the bound button. This could be named “EZ42 Gunsight Target Wingspan Step (Left)(Right)”. OR, this could simply be the result of setting the increment to 0.1; or perhaps a 0.0 option which removes the rotational speed and sets a step function. 2. Specific to the EZ42 ballistics unit. I would like the ability to bind a button that cycles through the labelled intervals as marked in section “I” of the chart; 100, 93, 85, 76, 68, and 60. Such a button could be named “EZ42 Gunsight Altitude Step (Down)(Up)”; the up and down as referencing the chart. 3. The “landing gears retraction cover”. Although this isn’t a big problem as I have integrated this into my start up work flow, I would still like this following feature to be an option. Perhaps for things such as landing gear covers, or master arm covers (ref F5E) there could be a tune binding or menu option to have these covers open and close based upon the parent button been activated. When I press the key binding for the landing gear, the cover automatically opens to allow that button press instead of inhibiting the function because the cover wasnt first flipped. 4. Master arm switch. I would like to see the option to have a “Master Arm Switch – (Safe)(Arm)”, this way people using something like the VKB Gunfighter that have a flip trigger with a bindable button on both the up and down positions can use it. Currently I have the up position bound which toggles this action, however, because I actually fly with the master arm off until I need it in all other modules that allow it, this has gotten me into some very minimal trouble a couple of times with the Dora. Now I just leave the master arm in the armed position. The above suggestions are not critical and I have more than enough controls, but I do think these would enhance the fidelity and quality of life for the Dora module; and many other modules.

They are absolutly for air-to-air aplications; although any air-to-ground capability would be neat. In accordance with Soviet doctrine, the probability of kill is not based upon a single missile as it is with Western doctrine. The mathematics shows us that the probability of kill dramatically increases as a function of salvo size — In order to provide some context I will mention that this specifically rules out the use of the same seeker type; as any actions taken to defeat one missile of a given seeker type will also be effective at defeating all succeeding missiles of the same seeker type of the same salvo. This is why the Soviets placed great emphasis on developing missiles of many different seeker types, which is encompased fully by the R-27 family, which includes the semi-active RADAR homing, infrared seeking, passive RADAR homing, and active RADAR homing missiles. The probability of kill dramatically increases from a salvo with varying seeker types, this [salvo] probability of kill surpasses the probability of kill of any one given missile within the salvo. This mathematical principle was also applied to other aspects of Soviet military doctrine, such as that with the design of their tanks; where the individual reload rate was considered to be less important over many other design features (such as silhouette, which has its own mathematical guiding principles as observed in WWII), the reason it was less important was because the Soviets would have fielded more tanks and thus the indevidual salvo size (tanks firing) was greater than what the opposition would have, thus resulting in a mathematical probability of success that is higher than the indevidual probability of success of the indevidual tank (or missile). There is a lot more to be said on this matter, but I just thought to outline the base principles at work in regards to the R-27 family so that there is no misunderstanding that the R-27 family is indeed specifically intended for air-to-air.

You mean like HOJ modes.... yeah, others have made such missiles that perform the same basic function. Although mathematically an application specific seeker is more like to achieve a kill, this is in accordance with Soviet doctrine which is why they also made medium range IR missiles. Expecting ALL global military doctrine to be identical is extremely ignorant.

You also did a favour for the Blue side by adding the AIM-120B (1994) and the AIM-120C (1996) to the F-15C MSIP II (1985). Straight to the good stuff for BlueFor. Ok, ok, I know what you might say, that the F-15C MSIP II in DCS is a ~2000s one with the 221kg, mechanically scanned, planar array, 8-20Ghz, AN/APG-63v1 RADAR with a range of 160km and was concluded in 2020. Officially announcing the upgrade work to the RADAR in 1993, and using the software suite of the APG-70v. This RADAR was relabled as the AN/APG-63v1 and started production in 1999. Over a decade more modern, and you are saying that giving the R-77 to a jet that carried them is a favour, a gift from the almighty and all knowing ED, while still not adding missiles that did exist with Fulcrums, Flankers, ect such as the passive R-27 missiles. Honestly, who here got the favour? . .

Starting to think that might be the way to go. Well, considering the MFDs are currently out of stock, I can just get the UFC and HUD module for now and that will give me some time to get some money back in the hobby account and decide in the future. Thanks for the help everyone.

That is very unfortunate - are you aware of any plans from WinWing to try and make such a feature work somehow? or is there any other programme that could achieve such an outcome? - even if there is a function within the software enabling a hot key so that you use the clone button on the MFD to switch the in-game MFD, as well as a keyboard button (lets just say, TAB, or one of the discreet buttons on the MFD) and the screen can change that way? Kind of like how I can bind a button on my HOTAS to reset OpenTrack when it starts to drift; a toggle function to cycle through which in-game display is been exported to the physical display.

See, I understand where you are coming from, and I think in the context of your use that does make sense. I would enjoy having the display screen though, and if the image doesn't change along with the buttons I feel like my brain will cook because I need to press the buttons that on the display indicate a different function because the screen hasn't changed along with the clone function. In Australia, the AMPCD is out of stock anyway, but the UFC and HUD units are available as separate items. I might just get the HUD and UFC for now, and continue to see what people say about the complete AMPCD. I would love a comment from WinWing about the functionality and integration of the display screen within the clone functions of the AMPCD (MFD Unit1). @WINWING@WinwingTech

OO nice. .damn the DCS community does some great work; that is exactly what I am wanting. Worst case scenario. If it ended up been nothing more than a button box, it is still cheaper than any equivalent button box I have seen: economy of scale wins I guess. I think I am mostly sold on the UFC. The AMPCD though I am less sold on. They only seem to be a viable purchase for me (non VR user) if the display changes along with the buttons when using the clone function. I might just get the UFC for now, see how it goes and see what comes of the AMPCD and display integration for the clone function.

Thank you for your reply. I will add some clarification to my intent. I do not specifically need more buttons, or at least that isn't my drive. The part of the UFC and AMPCD that I am interested is their functionality specifically for data entry. I have found that with the Hornet, it is simple enough to get up and fly about and do a thing or two. But, when it comes to more data focused issues such as re-programming Harpoon missiles because the parameters have changed for what ever reason, I would like the data entry devices mentioned as this would very much enhance the efficiency of that task getting done while also maintaining some external SA. When I need to click the buttons on screen with my mouse, I pretty much ignore everything and focus on trying to press the right buttons to get the job done in a timely manner. I would very much enjoy the UFC if for example, when I put in way points in the Ka50 (via the UFC), it also will display the data on the UFC much like in the PVI-800 control panel.

The purpose of this post is to gather some information about WinWing hardware/software as I am looking at purchasing an item or two just to enhance the administrative functions of flying. You can already see my hardware and modules below in the signature block for reference, and I will try to make this simple and coherent. a. F/A-18's UFC. Now, the F/A-18C is the only post-cold war fixed wing jet that I have, and that I plan to get until something like a modern Fulcrum or Flanker arrives. Obviously I can use WinWing's 18-UFC for the Hornet, but does anyone have any experience in using this device with say. . the Ka50 for data entry. . or any other module that I have, or is its functions mostly limited to the Hornet? b. If I was to get the F/A-18 UFC, is it worth also getting the HUD unit attachment? Noting that I am slightly limited on space as this will not be mounted centre line and will instead me mounted onto my VKB UCM Stronghold. c. The other item that I am looking at is the Hornet's AMPCD or "MFD1" as WinWing calls it. I like that it can switch between three different MFDs, however, I am lead to believe that even when switching the clone function to a different display, the actual build in screen will not change to suit? if the screen don't change, that kind of makes the clone function pointless and I might as well attempt to make my own device using the WinWing display and a 3D printed button frame - perhaps something like the Ka50's ABRIS, or JF17 MFD which would suit the aspect ration better. At the moment I am considering a single AMPCD which will be mounted on my right VKB UCM Stronghold, and a UFC that will be mounted on my left UCM Stronghold. But, I must emphasise that although I do love flying the Hornet, I probably end up flying other modules more often (like the F5 or Ka50 - likely the MiG29 the most once that arrives). An alternative thought I had for the AMPCD was to open up my SolidWorks and produce my own MFD button frame that can be used with WinWing's displays, and something that is more functional with more modules (I've just never made my own devices before but I also do have a 3D printer). Please share your thoughts and feedback on some of the usefulness of the aforementioned WinWing products.

Good rebuttal! I agree!! Slight changes to existing plans in order to make any map more playable and host more historical scenarios is great for us end-users. However, it is even better for ED because they will have a product that is in higher demand and thus will surely become a greater success financially. Now for a tangent! Just to emphasis the importance of the Soviet influence within Afghanistan and the surrounding region, I found this picture in the Australian War Memorial online archive with a description of the image: "Dilapidated Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 interceptor aircraft numbers 321 and 314 in a hangar at Bagram air base. They had been supplied to the Afghan Air Force by the Soviet Union. The Soviets made extensive use of Bagram airbase during their occupation of Afghanistan. It was contested by the Taliban and the opposition Northern Alliance from 1999 to October 2001. During the United States led invasion of Iraq, following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, it was secured by members of the British Special Boat Service. It was then used as a base by Australian special forces and by American army units." Now, we know that the Bagram airbase is going to be included (right?), but, no one wants half of a scenario by neglecting historically significant locations that are within the boundaries of the map already.

Strongly disagree. Mission development would be significantly enhanced with the development of the Western side of the map to include Mary (1521st Centre for Combat Employment) - This is especially important with both the MiG-23 and full-fidelity MiG-29 on its way to us within DCS. Developing the Western side of the map (Mary) would result in a map that is capable of hosting historically feasible missions for both RedFor and BlueFor. It would also enable the long military history of Afghanistan to be rightfully and correctly represented instead of having the Afghanistan map simply be nothing too much more than a virtual bombing range for BlueFor. Whether Mary is to be added exclusively to the full Afghanistan map (if at all), or a future sub-map for people that just want a cost effective alternative to fly their MiG-23 and MiG-29 within a community of like minded enthusiasts, I do believe that Mary is an absolute must have - noting as well that the FC3 MiG-29 already has the liveries of Mary. I have attached two pictures showing the MiG-23 and MiG-29 with their unique nose art that was found on aircraft posted to Mary.

I am super excited for the FF MiG-29 9.12A to come to DCS. Currently I am 50/50 on the MiG-23MLA. The only reason I would even consider purchasing the Afghan map is for Mary; which is the home of excellence for both the MiG29 and the MiG23. With these three aforementioned modules coming to DCS, I do believe that it would be absolutely absurd, lazy, and insulting to RedFor to deny such a historically significant component that meshes all three modules together. I have a whole bunch of modules and I have come to understand rather clearly that having more modules does not in any way, shape, or form enhance my enjoyment of DCS. However, been part of a passionate and active DCS community (no matter if that community is focused on rotary wing aircraft, a specific type of aircraft, or even a RedFor/BlueFor faction) is what does make purchases justifiable and not a regrettable waste of money. Having the MiG-29, MiG-23, and Mary together would give birth to more communities of passionate DCS players, and that is something that I do want to be part of. I hope that ED does not deny such an experience. Having Mary, and a passionate community, would to me justify purchasing all three modules (29, 23, Afghan) comfortably.

Personally, I think the MiG29K (naval variant) would be pretty cool. Especially considering that the MiG29K would be used with the existing Admiral Kuznetsov carrier; which I also believe is enhanced via the Super Carrier module (?) and might even see further fidelity enhancements if DCS got a Soviet/Russian carrier based jet. And, lastly, with the MiG29K we would have a counter to the Cold War F14 tomcats. But, first and foremost, the intended MiG29A needs to be released. But maybe in the distant future.