DisplayName

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.

Hello to everyone here. Recently I have purchased a VKB Gunfighter Mk.IV MCE Ultimate in order to replace my still perfectly functional Thrustmaster Warthog stick; my decision to replace a perfectly functional stick was simply because the Gunfighter looks awesome. I was also looking at various throttles that are available in Australia in order to assess potential future replacement of the Thrustmaster Warthog throttle; this is pretty much limited to WinWing and VKB as they have direct sales hubs here in Australia. I do like the Warthog throttle mainly due to the boxy design and the toggle switches that I think are generally more useful than say single push buttons or rotary encoders (although a couple would be good still). I was considering the WinWing Orion2 Throttles with the F18 grip. Reason one: Because the design is the same boxy format that I like about the warthog, along with enough toggle switches and appropriate buttons to get the job done. Reason two: The only post-cold war jet that I have is the hornet so I would want the hornet grips. Third reason: I am considering getting the WinWing Ka50 collective in the future as it looks great, looks solid and I believe is made of metal. I also have three helicopters in DCS. This all said. The incorrect angle on the hornet throttle grip is a deal breaker for me. When I use my warthog and rotate it to emulate the incorrect angle of the WinWing design, it is noticeable more annoying compared to even a neutral grip angle. My question here: Has WinWing fixed this problem yet; or have they mentioned any planes to fix this problem? I get that there are tooling costs for producing what would be a new grip, but since this product has been out for a while they would have retooled production a fair amount of times already; each time having the option to use the new tooling with correct angles instead of the same incorrect tooling.

I do love the idea of having the 29K, and for the purpose of a low fidelity module I am ok with the 29KVP. However, for a full fidelity module I am not a huge fan of prototypes; at least prototypes that have not fully concluded the development cycle. Because, when you start to try and make a high fidelity module based upon a prototype that never concluded its development cycle, you need to start making up information (more than a reasonable amount) into to fill in the blanks. The result of this is that you have modelled a high fidelity fake aircraft. In just the MiG29A vs MiG29KVP for example, there are sufficient modifications with the airframe (folding wings, reinforced structure, hook, landing gear) to require a new flight model, and how is such a model developed if you don't know the specific data that differentiates the 29A airframe to that of the 29KVP airframe. In addition, does the prototype have different systems and sensors and is there sufficient information of the performance and integration of such systems. Were the different systems deconflicted with other pre-existing systems, or perhaps the weapons arrangement was different and was not fully deconflicted with the real prototype thus implementation of a specific combination of weapons and sensors might have actually never happened. The result of guessing and fabricating data for a 1% - 2% here and there results in a module end state that could be for example 20% (or more) made up; completely fabricated and thus a fake aircraft has been born. Now, for fully developed prototypes I think a full fidelity module is acceptable. I believe the MiG29KVP was fully developed and even went on trials but the Su33 took favour and thus adopted. And for low fidelity modules, such as a possible modification of the FC3 29A to a 29KVP, now that I think is a valid work around. Perhaps if there is a very well made mod for the FC3 29 to make it into a KVP it could be adopted and integrated into the FC3 pack. It would be very nice though to have a Soviet cold war carrier based aircraft, just not at the detriment of the overall simulations fidelity.

Practicality of module development and reference material aside. I do think that the 29K would be an absolute perfect fit for DCS; even if someone makes a mod to change the FC3 MiG29A (seems we don't need that anymore (once the FF one is released)) into the 29K (even the prototype 29K that was based on a modified 29A). It does tick so many boxes for the red team. Perhaps in the distant future an Indian based dev team might be able to work something out. Personally I cannot understand why people are so fascinated with the MiG29G. Who wants a Westernised MiG; other than Germany at the time and for obvious reasons.

The way I came to use it on the BlueFlag80s server (thank you to everyone who suggested it) was an interpretation of the doctrine that you speak of. First I climb to a high altitude (as people here suggested (which I do with other jets anyway, but not the Flanker which is how I was first using the Fulcrum)) and I conserve my fuel for the fight. Upon finding a target I ensure that I always am at a reasonably higher altitude and punch the AB to extend the range of my weapons. Upon Rmax I launch the R-27R, I have found that they often break off soon because with the altitude and speed advantage they are probably a while off hitting their Rmax. When they break and go cold, I peruse them trading altitude for speed to hurry up this process and close the distance. Often they recommit but as soon as they do they fall within the Rmax of the R27T and I launch and break away. They fly into the path of the R-27T because they think that they have a successful recommit and are chasing me, all while not knowing that there is a missile going right for them. They die. Edit: As okopanja said, I don't rapid fire them. I do need to get used to the speed of the MiG29 though because I did remove my wings a few times.

I thought the R-27R and R-27T was actually a thing; having an R-24T and an R-24R along with two or four R60s was a common loadout on the MiG23, if I remember correctly from watching documentaries about the MiG23 and interviews from MiG23 pilots. Although, the Ka50 as an example can use two different air-to-ground missiles, although it can only cycle between inner and outer pylons which means you can't select either/or. It uses what ever missile is fitted on the left first. This could be similar with the MiG29 in that it could take an R-27R on the left which would fire first, and the second been an R-27T which is on the right and thus firing second. Perhaps? This would be the typical regime for such a mix I'd assume (it's how I use this mix), so it could still be feasible to do this.

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.