RPY Variable

The only thing I know is that if my throttle peripheral is 100% but no afterburner (detent option to off), and want to go afterburner, I need to go back to like 80%, click the detent button, and then go 100% again in order to work. If I click the detent button with mil power and my peripheral throttle on 100%, nothing happens. So every time I want to go afterburner I have to go throttle down, detent button, throttle up again. most of the time I have to do it multiple times in order to get it right. With the F-14, I just click the detent button and it goes to afterburner. I don't need to cycle back, or know if the detent is on or off.

On the F-16, the Afterburner detent option helper works like a toggle switch. The problem is that there is no way to know in what position that detent is (on or off). Every time I need to turn on the afterburner, I go to full throttle, and no afterburner, if I click the detent, nothing happens, so I need to go back to non afterburning and then click the detent button again. And I find myself cycling two or three times until I turn on the afterburner, because maybe I'm in a hurry and I cycled back and forth to fast. On the F-14 is way simpler. If I have the option on. Full throttle will be mil power, if I want the afterburner I just click the detent button, no need to remember if it was on or off, etc.

I have no mods. But, I run the cleanup. It stated that it had deleted some viggen textures (I only flown it on the free trial). But after that I had the crosshair working! Thanks

Maverick page is missing the crosshairs making it really hard to pick a target. I noticed since 2.7 And when adjusting the MFD brightness with the BRT button, if I raise the brightness, it works fine, but when I change to another page, the brightness goes to the default position. So I need to scale it up again. It is as if I had to adjust the brightness for all the different MDF pages.

Set steerpoint from map and CTD.

In my opinion Iglas would be super useful. Specially in MP environment. I have been on lots of cases when I needed them. Vikhr AA employment is a bit cumbersome when the bandit is on the move, and specially if it is a fast mover. RWR also, just to know if I have a good terrain masking or not. And FLIR for night operations would be incredible. I love night operations more that day operation, but is a no go with the Ka-50. All this things are present on a modern attack helicopters and are the main limitations of the Ka-50 version we have right now. This are just opinions on what would be nice to have, regardless of what ED is planning at the moment.

They been developing military simulation for quite awhile, so they have been taking some kind of risk in a grater or lesser extent. There is always a risk. And they don't do it "for our entertainment", there may be a lot of reasons, but the main one is an economic reason.

The laser on and lase of is a must. You have to constantly look down to check for the switch position. Same as the BARO/RALT hold mode. Also, HUD brightness, shkval brightness and contrast, and NVG brightness rotaries on the axis commands.

I just had a situation in MP where I was hiding next to a mountain and got sight of an enemy Ka-50, a mistral and a Huey. I was at 4km, look up the Ka-50 and shkval didn't lock!... I had to go manually. Then the vikhr got the Ka-50 but didn't kill it. Then I went for the Huey and again, no lock, I had to go with guns, manual. I got it but then the mistral got me with its Air to Air. If I had had an igla I would have made a disaster. Before that I try to lock a jtac/humvee at 2.5km and it didn't lock. It was moving, and again, I had to go manual, but I miss. So I had to ultimate it with the upk's. I don't know whats up with the shkval.

It's me or I am unable to request bogey dope to and AWACS or EWR... This is a killer in MP... not only being not able to defend myself but I can get no info on the situation ether.

Double "A" works perfectly to the default menu, but some submenus menus sometimes change some positions. For example: "Jettison drop tanks" sometimes is on position 1 and sometimes on position 2". Some "Beyond Visual Range" positions change depending if the radar is on transmit or standby.

Yes, thanks.. I tried it and I didn't liked it. First, it is another thing to open/install/configure, then, I installed it and it rendered the radio menu useless. There must be a reason for that, but I had to start running a full investigation to find out why that happened... it was more a problem than a solution. I have to admit that the added commands that the extension advertised sounded pretty good. I would be grate to have a similar functionality without having to deal with all that.

I've been trying voice attack and it works great. I can set the TID ranges, lock ahead, break lock, toggle STT, etc... All of this without searching through the jester menu nor needed to remember what key combination or HOTAS button to use. Is way easier to remember, "Jester, radar range 50" than to remember the key combination. The potential is incredible. The only problem is that it can only be used with the Jester bindings, because jester menu is dynamic, so the key combinations to access Jester sub menus change depending on the situation. There are two solutions that I can think of: 1. To add more jester and iceman commands. I can do a list of the most important ones on my opinion. Jettison Drop Tanks Radar Silent Radar Transmit Jammer RPT Jammer REC Chaff Program Flare Program TCS Zoom Out TCS Zoom In Radar Azimuth 10°/20°/40°/65 Radar elevation angle Middle / Middle High / etc (If my previous post gets taken into consideration) 2. To have the option (on the special menu) that makes the Jester menu not dynamic. That way we can implement as much Voice attack commands as we want. Regardless of the two solution it would be nice to have as much Jester and Iceman key bindings as possible. Another thing that would bring Jester and iceman to the next level would be to have bindings for numbers and North, South, East and West. That way we could have a key binding named "Iceman set angels relative" and then with the numbers mapping I can ingress whatever altitude I with Voice Attack. Another example would be, "Jester set steerpoint one” and then I cans say "North, four, six...". Another "Jester set ripple quantity" -> "six". Knowing that the intruder is next, wouldn't be a bad idea to add more flexibility to the AI crew.

I have always flown the F14 most of the time as a RIO, but lately, after some more bindings have been added so as to avoid the Jester menu (distances, TWS and RWS and lock ahead most of all) I've started feeling more comfortable as a pilot. The menu works great, but sometimes when you are on a close encounter Jester menu may not be a good option. The thing is that, as a RIO, when I'm looking for bogeys at high altitude I tend to set the radar elevation so as the "top of the cone" is at my same altitude and the rest is below my altitude, that way I use all the potential of my radar scan volume. The same goes when on the deck, but the inverse. I point the bottom of the radar cone at 0 feet so as to use all the available scan volume of the radar. The problem is that via Jester menu is quite difficult if not impossible. If you set via Altitude and Distance on the Jester menu, the angles always change depending on my attitude. You need to set various "Altitude at distance" to get there. That feature is great If I know where the bandit is, But if I'm searching for an unknown it is not so useful. So that is where Elevation High / Low / Middle, etc... comes into play. But those angles, like they are now, they are of little to no use. What would be absolutely great is to modified the angles of the High, Middle High, Middle, Middle Low, and Low of the Jester Menu. Like they are now, 30° & 12° Up and -40° & -12° down they are way too extreme and they offer a minimal radar scan volume, and also, you are way inside the PAL mode if you have to use more than 20°. If I know where the bogey is I just use the Altitude at Distance of the Jester menu, but If I don't know, the only useful elevation to use is the Middle options, the other ones have no use at all. The solution would be to change the elevation angles of the menu (simple implementation, just change a value). Also if Jester set the angles based on the current radar mode, because the angle needs to be a little more when using 8 bars RWS against 4 bars TWS. This last one is not so simple, but it's nothing that Heatblur can't do I made an illustration which is on scale and shows the current state and what would be like on the proposed situation. This is based on what a human RIO would do if the aircraft scanning at low altitude or high altitude. Like it is right now I find that it has practically no use at all, so (in my opinion) there in nothing to lose. I really hope this get's implements because it seem like a minor thing, but this is doubling the radar scan volume when flying high or low. Edit: This is based on the manual -> "1 bar being 2.3°, 2 bars 3.6°, 4 bars 6.3° and 8 bars 11.5°"

If I fire on POS mode I get less range than firing on HAS mode. On the video I'm going M1.0, but if I go 45k feet and M1.5 I only can fire at a distance of 33 miles and the missile goes on a dive. It is like firing on HAS mode, but only with a distance firing restriction. At 40 miles and 40k altitude, the missile only has to do a 25 degree dive to hit the target, so logically I would expect to loft a little further away than 30miles on POS mode. Is this the right behavior? The video shows the situation, that loft takes more energy away from the missile than anything else. https://streamable.com/qj1hga

This aircraft is so iconic, it is an export success used worldwide. So it is kind of a shame to be this strict with this particular USAF version. For example: Chile, Greece, South Korea and Taiwan Block 52's are AGM-84 Harpoon capable. Oman and Turkey Block 50's also, as well as Egypt block 40. I'm not implying to add all the features of all the F-16's variants, please don't take this into the extreme. Just to draw the line a couple of inches to the right. I would love to have an AGM-84 Harpoon capable Viper. Even more, the lack of it was was almost a no buy for me. This one thing would add so much missions possibilities. If we lived in a universe where it would be feasible to have a DCS pack with all the F-16 variant I wouldn't mind, but that ain't going to happen. It's not like if ED will be making another F-16 variant in the future, and if so, it wouldn't have much sense to do so just two add a couple of features and take a couple more. So if we are going to stick with this DCS F-16 for the next 15+ years, I wouldn't mind a little more flexibility. It also would be great for business .

That's the reason they gave, but for you there's other reasons. I'm addressing the technology timeframe between modules, that is why I used the F-35 example. But again, for you I'm addressing some other thing. You've said: "run your own server", "it is your PvP grip at best", "remove if you don't like it", "you are playing the wrong game", "play with the F-18 then", "there are other reasons", etc... If you have said something along: "I think the F-18 version ED made is great, and I preferer the most modern version possible, disregarding the timeframe of other aircraft and how they interact on DCS", which is exactly the opposite of what I think, I would have not said anything. It is a perfectly valid opinion about the subject, and you are entitled to it. But what you are not entitled to do, is to change other people's opinions to prove your point, and that is exactly what you are doing. It is called straw man fallacy, google it.

I had some conversations with people on servers and some of them feel the same way, saying that the F-18 version was a bit too modern and some F-18 pilots even stated they don't use that feature because they think it is a steal. The most common thing to hear on the server's discord is that ED should have chosen an earlier version, which would have gotten along much better with other modules. I just wanted to address the subject in the official forum, but it got moved to a "multiplayer issue". If thinking this is my "PvP grip" makes you happy, be my guest.

No, no, and also no. lol

I don't understand the logic behind moving this threat down to the "Multiplayer" forum. Because is says "multiplayer" on the title?. I was addressing the decision of the F-18 version DCS made and how affects playability on the DCS environment. This manifest itself in PVP environment which inevitably goes on in multiplayer sessions. But it has nothing to do with multiplayer itself. This is one of the most core DCS discussions we can have.

C'mon, you know what icon, the "unknown" aircraft icon, the most relevant piece of information that the HMCS gives you on the F-18, maybe you missed that.. I didn't find the option on the mission editor. Nevertheless 99.99% of servers just loads the aircraft as they come. Nobody is talkin about datalink. F-14 has datalink, F-16 has datalink. That is dodging the subject. Yes, and when DCS bring up the Tactical Airborne Laser Weapon System (TALWS) we all use that, really fun.

Well. That "Hornet's MSI integrates Link-16 info better" it was this threat is addressing. Problem solved? Not at all. Just to be clear, the main problem is constantly having an enemy aircraft icon in midair, the aim-9x just makes it worse. The only way to fix that would be to not include the F-18, and that is not a real solution. Shame ED didn't select an F-18 version that was closer to the technology of the F-16 1991 they made. They could have made a more representative version of the F-18 than a "off-the-line U.S. Navy Lot 20 jet circa 2005" version. Is the system real, yes. Is possible to be in the merge with a 1991 aircraft vs a 2005 aircraft, yes. Is playability broken in that situation, definitely.

I think exactly the same. I think this is one of the main points of the conversation we are having now. Like I said before, adding the F-35 ( I know there is no info available, don't take this laterally) would be realistic, but it will also break playability. But it also isn't "The Final Countdown" movie, where F-14 where dogfighting against Japanese Zeros. The reality is that on every server that there is an F-16, F-14 there is also going to be an F-18 with this system, so it is kind of unfixable. I know that 80% of players, play offline and 80% of the rest play on PVE servers, so they surely love this feature, but in the PVP environment, the F-18 is always in a within visual range situation. The aim-9x was the first big change on multiplayer, but now with aim-9x+MIDS the change has been extreme.

I just wanted to know what you guys think. In my opinion in multiplayer, it is a ripoff, it breaks the playability. I know it is available on some F-18, but if DCS adds the F-35 with the meteor missile it would also somehow be realistic but it would also break the playability. I don't think the benefit of having that system justifies breaking the playability. I want to be clear, it is my humble opinion but if ED was asking itself if this would break playability, the answer is yes.

I have a 2K monitor and only can see no more than 4 post at a time (and are 2 lines posts). In my phone, when entering to the main forum I can only see 4 sub forums, 4!!!. before, with the html forum I could se like 20 sub forums per screen. I'm losing a line to have the "105k messages".. who is willing to lose a line in order to have this information? nobody. I knew that the old forum was going to change sooner or later, but I expected it to be better, more functional, not way less functional. This is unusable, my mouse wheel won't last more that two days in this style. Now I need a 4K monitor to have the same information I had before on an old 17" monitor. And please don't say "We understand that change can be difficult", like if we where old dinosaurs that are afraid to change. We love change, but change for better, not for worst. The style is nicer, but if I had to chose, I chose the old one, which was way more functional.