Voyager

For example, what happens if you take an engine rated at 54" put a higher octane fuel in it and jimmy the turbo so that you can overspeed it to boost the engine up to >70"? Does it A) Explode after 5m B) Run just fine C) Work for a while the give out unexpectedly? D) Require the intercooler to be run extra wide to prevent problems, but otherwise work ok? If you answered E) Nobody knows unless it's actually been tested on a representative engine you would be correct! If you answered F) Someone actually did it but didn't record the details of what they actually did, you would also be correct! And if you answered G) The records are contradictory and no one's quite sure how they changed it and this is why high fidelity simulation designers are all bald, you would also be correct! Welcome to the wonderful world of WWII aviation, where everything is long since declassified, and that doesn't always help as much as you'd think... Could be worse though. At least they're not trying to model a B5N Kate...

Didn't the Germans, at least, largely end up yanking it out of their planes though? I'm given to understand the allied bomber waves figured out their IFF squawk and just started using it themselves. I suspect it probably partly worked in the Battle of Britain, but the whole radio system was not known for its reliability at the time, such that the RAF ended up doing that black and white underbelly scheme, simply to assist with the spotter core differentiating friend from foe. And apparently the radios in the Pacific had even more problems... (Radio talk starts at 1:46:35 )

I have not tried the Thrustmaster TPR either, but do have a pair of Crosswinds. The centering cam is replaceable, and they do have a set of Jet representative cams. I'm personally using the prop job cam, mostly because I use them most for WWII era aviation, but the material is very solid and comfortable. It is a composite so it does not get cold to the touch if you are not wearing shoes or foot coverings when your using them. I also appreciate just how much spring tension you can put into the centering. I noticed on my older CH Pro-Pedals that, if I got distracted, I could forget just how much rudder I was applying, without lifting of the pedals entirely to figure out where I was again. The MFG's I've got so strongly sprung that I always know where I am in the travel. Also encourages me to trim when I can.

We'll also need to be aware that that 437 mph is at combat weight, which kept going up as they added more and more fuel tanks, plumbing and other stuff to the plane, and it's probably higher at the weights the earlier razorbacks operated at. As I understand it, the big difference between the M/N was less the engine, and more that they had a bigger turbo that could drive the critical altitude much higher than the ones used in the 'D' model.

The Mexican Air Force roundel is a Green-white-red triangle with the point pointing downwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roundel_of_Mexico.svg The current one is the same one they used in WWII. The Mexican P-47 squadron had a combination of US and Mexican markings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201st_Fighter_Squadron_(Mexico)

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/be9/dcs-world-p-47d-thunderbolt-dials.jpg This Thunderbolt appears to be marked for the 130 Octane gas. Note that the red lines on the Tachometer are at the 52" and 64" position. For better or worse, the P-47's engine operating instructions are a thorough mess, and a weird mixture of interwar conservatism and late war "run it until you or the other guy blows up". This is the best collection of freely available manuals that I could find: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/p-47-thunderbolt-manuals.5081/ AAF Manual No 50-5 has these restrictions for 91 and 100 Octane: 91 Octane: 40" 2700 rpm for 1.5m 100 Octane: 52" @ 2700 RPM for 15m And has no mention of WI limits, despite it also covering the bubble-top version. (It just says, You won't use it in training, because you don't need such power...) The British one (AN 01-65BC-1) mentions that you get 58" at 2700 for 5 minutes with WI. AN 01-65BC-1A adds in 130 Octane support with the same Mil power and max continuous limits as 100 octane, but bumps up the 5m WI War Emergency power to 64" @ 2700. Finally AAF 51-127-4 gives the limits for 150 Octane gas in a R-2800-C engine. That gives you 72" @2800 RPM for five minutes, and 15m at 54" @2800 RPM, so you do get a little bit of additional limits at non WE. However, none of these manuals say anything about what you're supposed to do with the other 10m of water you've got on board. Bring it home? (AN 01-65BC-1 pg. 18 b(1) "A tank of 15 U.S. gallons capacity," AN 01-65BC-1A pg 6 8. [...] "The system consists of a 30 US (25 Imperial)-gallon supply tank.[...]", AAF 51-127-4 pg 26: "When drawing 54.5" Hg, the water consumption is 1.9 gallons per minute; using 72" the consumption rises to 2.9 gallons per minute") I can understand how the 5 minute limit initially came to be: with a 15 gallon tank, burning 2 gpm, which leaves you with only about 2 minutes of buffer room before you are over-boosting an engine with no ADI. That would be bad. However, then they doubled the tank capacity, and never seemed to revisit the limits. Likewise, the baseline 42"@2550 RPM makes sense from an operational standpoint. Unless you are in combat, the P-47 just doesn't need more than 42" to do everything it can do. It can hit 250 mph IAS at 42"@ 2550 which is the entry speed for everything short of loops or Immelmanns, which really require about 350mph IAS to do, and you aren't getting that without much more power than 42", so you'll almost always start those from a dive. It will be interesting to see how they resolve the various inconsistencies involved. On a side note, are they are able to model the weird asymmetric flap deployment? (NACA TN 2899 pg 61) Thank you, Harry Voyager

The safety analysis on a lever arm that can produce 50-100lbs force at the end does get a bit interesting when it's intended to be placed in close proximity to one's bits, yes... I do need to get that vector space done though. I gather the patents on the haptic feedback thing either recently expired, or are expected to expire soon.

Question, since I'm in the 360's it's probably moot, but would the existing units interfere with a gamepad? I'm just having sparky ideas, so not likely a primary use case, just wondering.

I believe I did check the Use Mouse in VR. When I did not have it checked the mouse pointer would be locked in the center of the VR field of view. What is weird is that, because I can see the mouse in the monitor mirror of the VR, its usable in VR; I just can't see where it is through the VR headset view of the same scene.

Just rebuilt my computer with a complete clean install of Windows 10 and DCS, and I'm having a weird problem; I cannot see the mouse in VR with my headset on. I've enabled mouse control in VR, and I can see and control the mouse in the mirrored view on my monitor, but I can't see the pointer in my headset. I'm using the HP Reverb. I can see the mouse in headset on my other VR flight sim, so I'm thinking I've got DCS misconfigured, but not sure how. Any thoughts? Thank you, Harry Voyager

So have not gotten to the point where I'm able to run benchmarks in DCS yet, but I can say my current Passmark single thread scores on the 3800X are equivalent to a 5.0 to 5.1 Ghz Coffee Lake chip, ranging from the 3070 to 2940 depending on which core it runs on. A 5.1Ghz 9900k gets a 3090 single threaded passmark. This is just a base clock score; no overclocking or Performance Boost Overdrive yet. I also expect there to be both more head room for the Ryzen in-game performance to improve as AMD sorts out Windows thread scheduling, and for the AM4 platform to have more room for upgrades than the Coffee Lake platform. We will see how it performs once I've got all the DCS stuff installed and testable.

Is there a way to export keymaps? I'm going to be rebuilding my PC this weekend and wanted to try to keep my current DCS keybindings. Thank you, Harry Voyager

Is there a practical performance difference for our application? As I understand it, the single thread sequential data rate does not seem to be any better for the NVME 4th gen over 3rd gen, and that the improvement was in the number of simultaneous areas that cod be read? As I recall, Tech Deals did a comparison between SSDs and ended up finding that even the 660p had the same load times as all the available SSDs. I believe they ended up comparing a Gen 4 drive to it in a later video, but don't see it at the moment: I'm not sure we gain anything by going to a gen 4 NVME drive that we don't gain more of by going to a bigger entry level NVME.

Send benchmarks when you've got it set up. I'm planning a similar backbone rebuild soon, and I'm still trying to decide between Ryzen 3rd Gen (though probably a 3700X for me) and an I9-9900K build. Ironically, I believe I've got a six year old PSU in mine...

One point I will raise is that the I9-9900KF chips (I9-9900K without integrated graphics) seem to be frequently going on sale for 400-420 USD at the moment, and they have lower ram latency, so at the moment you may be able to run lower cost parts compared to most of the Ryzen high end builds. It's worth checking the prices to see if it's within the budget.

So which parts of the memory are most important? I'm in the middle of planning a PC Refit myself. I've already got a 1080 Ti FE but still running on an I7-4770 from about six years ago. My target is high resolution VR, either HP Reverb or Pimax. In that context, does the Ryzen meet the I9 with appropriate ram selection?

Was listening to Kurt Schroeder's interview on Air Crew Interview (#26) and during the discussion on flight testing the F-14 he said some things that got me thinking: the key things were that during the high AoA testing, the aerodynamic load shifted from the wings to the fuselage due to the wings losing lift at high AoA and the lifting body effect. The second was that, due to the elevons handling both roll and pitch, if you did both at high G you could get yourself in trouble. Third, while in the F-14 losses, I didn't see many lost wings, I did see a noticeable number of them destroyed due to engine explosions. All of this leads me to wonder if the point of most likely failure on the F-14 was actually the fuselage spine rather than the wing pivots? Investigating this would entail tracking down records of any F-14s that had mid-air structural failures or over-G events, or a combined lift profile analysis at high AoA/high G load to drive a finite element analysis of the structure under that force distribution. Does the DCS engine even support lift migrationike that? I.e. from wings to body dependent on AoA?

Aren't there some dedicated no combat training servers? He might be able to hop on one of those and see who's up to fly? There's a lot of basics one can practice before even firing a weapon.

Also, VAI has a module to use Voice Attack integrated with Jester. It was a pain to get it working but I found it to be game changing.

Tweeking around the controls and control mapping, and trying to figure out how to bid the Display Controls to "Press to toggle" commands. I'm guessing they're not implemented, so wondering if that's something I could do in the controls LUA? I'm using the CH MFP, so I might be able to write a script to simulate a button hold/release on each press, but the could be a bit clunky. Also, are there hooks to bind the air source to? In air to air refueling set up, you're supposed to switch it to left engine so you aren't sucking gas into the cockpit, and that's a bit "fun" to do with the mouse in my current setup, so thought I'd try and bond or to one of the spare keys. Thank you, Harry Voyager

Try a Steam PD of 190%, or an ED PD of 1.35 and see how that looks. I think that should be the same density boost you had from the two stacking (1.2^2*1.3=1.872, 1.872^0.5=1.368)

Because it's a very MegasXL sort of button and I wasn't expecting to see on in an actual aircraft. They've only been in FPS games for the last five-ten years or so. In retrospect it makes sense that there would be controls like that, but it isn't something I've thought of myself before.

Ah, thank you. That is exactly what I needed. Somehow I'd thought the counter measures were on the thumb switch. Very interesting.

Can anyone point me to what the actual buttons on the A/V-8B HOTAS are and what they do? I'm looking to put together a unified control map of the aircraft I'm either currently flying, or interested in flying in the future, and the venerable Harrier is definitely on that list of future planes to fly. Thank you, Harry Voyager

I believe the in-game setting and SteamVR setting operate in different ways. As I understand it, the Steam setting is set to change the total number of pixels: i.e. 2.3 is 2.3 total pixels displayed, whereas the in-game setting changes the pixels per distance: 1.3 is 1.3^2 = 1.69 times the total pixel count.