Voyager

Just looking at the timelines from Wikipedia, it appears the the F-15C was first developed in 1979 and may have received an avionics upgrade in the mid 90's. Similarly, the F/A-18C/D were first deployed in 1987, and the version we have in game may have also received avionics upgrades from the same time period at the F-15C. The F-14B we have appear to have gotten a new RWR display in the 1987 upgrade, but left most of the electronics as they were in the F-14A. If we see the F-14D, that will likely have a glass cockpit more in line wit the versions seen in the version of the F-15C and F/A-18C in DCS right now. So, we've got a mostly early 1970's era cockpit in the F-14B with a couple of late 80's components, while we are probably looking at 1990's era glass cockpits in both the in game F-15C and F/A-18C. On an aside, I was given the understand that the F-14A and B were considered 3 or 3.5 Generation fighters, and that only the F-14D was a full 4th gen jet?

So I just went through the Cold Start training mission using the Assisted Start. I think I got everything turned on, and the INS had time to align, however, once getting the aircraft up and running, I could not get the plane to actually move, even with full AB, it was rather glued to the tarmac. Did I miss a step in all of the procedure? I'd told the ground crew to disconnect air and power, and while I looked for chocking in the ground crew menu, it didn't seem to have anything at that airfield. Am I missing a step here, or does the Cold Start Mission simply prevent one from taxiing away after turn on? Thank you, Harry Voyager

Ok. So which settings need to be set for the mouse to work in cockpit? I've got it working in the game menus, but it does tend to run out of the window.

Trying to figure out the best way to set up the VR hand controls. I'm looking to use a HOTAS for the major flight controls, but want to have a functional click pit for the rest of the minutia, however, after accidentally jettisoning the canopy I've bcome aware that the vr hands pressbuttonsjust by passing through them. Is there a good way to disable that while still keeping the point and click functionality? Also, how does one set up the rift controllers to handle switches that can click multiple ways? Thank you, Harry Voyager

Puling together parts for a semi-simpit setup, and am trying to do a centerstick with extension. For various reasons (i.e. cheap used Warthog HOTAS), I've shifted from my original ideas to the plain Warthog HOTAS with extension in a center mount, and I'm trying to figure out the simplest, low cost way to mount it, that does not involve mounting it to the desk The way the base screws down from the underside implies I can't just mount it to a 4x4, so I'm wondering what are the good ways to get in onto a simple pedestal mount. This is intended to be a medium term* solution, so I'm looking for simple a low cost, rather than highly finished. Thank you, Harry Voyager *The bigger, longer term ultimate concept is just starting on the engineering, and I'm looking to fly while I think and recover budget for the next Cool Thing(tm**) stage. **No, not really . Its just a joke. Please put the carp away...

So I'm going to ask a dumb question here; does the F-14 have the peak turn rate to stay with an F-5 at the F-5's best corner speed? What is the F-5's best turn rate speed? What is the F-14's best turn rate speed? I don't think I saw that answered?

Yes there is a method to the madness, corrupting future generations and what not, and I'm wondering, does anyone know where one could find child safe F-14 (or other fighter jet) plushies? Thank you, Harry Voyager

It all depends on how the engine model long is done. If they've got complex failure models including detonation and fuel octane ratings, you can get 72" out of the R-2800 as early as you have water injection, but you will have to be vigilante of you intake temperatures and cylinder head temps, lest the engine go into detonation and pre-ignition. Otherwise we're probably looking at either the 64" 2600 hp rating, or the 54" 2300 hp rating.

Of course, now I'm all wondering if anyone has an F-4 on the horizon....

So how do its counter measures stack up?

Rather interested in the F-14, but wanted to understand what the expected multi-role and A2G capabilities we are and will be getting with the plane. Basically I want to understand what it can and cannot do, and how it stacks up to the other US multi role fighters, such as the Hornet, or a future Strike Eagle, before I decide to dive in. Thank you, Harry Voyager

True, but just because it looks cool and has an epic history doesn't mean it can survive a modern SAM environment. I guess before I take that plunge, I want to understand what I would be giving up.

Not sure if this is the right sub forum for this type of question, but I'm thinking about dipping my toes back into modern era fighters for a while and debating which one I want to start looking at, and I thunk, for me at least, it boils down to the F-14, F-15C/E and the Hornet/Super Hornet, and I'm trying to understand the pros and cons of each. The F-14 has the advantage of being available and, apparently being exceptionally well done, and having activity in the Persian Gulf, as well as being carrier capable. What I find myself wondering is how capable is it in multi role combat? How broad is the expected attack papas expected to be? Also, how Diego able is in the more contemporary air defense environments? I recall hearing its counter measures were behind the curve by the time it retired. In the hornet option, while I'm more interested in the Super Hornet version, and I expect it may be sometime before anyone starts one, I'm given to understand that the legacy Hornet is very similar and one can easily transfer to the rhino from a basis in the standard. As near as I can tell, the DCS Hornet has an impressive and growing array of capabilities, but it doesn't call to me the way the F-14 does. The final option is the Strike Eagle. While it doesn't exist yet, I gather that it is in work, and the F-15C is readily available and I gather a large chunk of the A2A systems are similar between the two, and the array of international users of the Strike Eagle would mean a wide range of possible scenarios. Overall, how do the capabilities and viable time periods of these aircraft stack up to each other? It's going to be a while before I can dedicate real time to this, so I'm not in a huge rush to pick one, but I do want to understand what the trades are. Thank you, Harry Voyager

Ah, that would rather neatly resolve things. I'll pursue that route then, and work the throttle and trim box while I'm waiting for Virpril to restock on the base mounts.

I'm looking at setting up a semi-simpit setup, including a long throw joystick that would eventually be set up into a floor stick configuration, but I'm not sure which stick I should be aiming for. The main use will be for WWII aircraft, and the P-47 in particular, but I'm also interested in maintaining the capability to use it in modern era simulators. I'm currently using a CH based setup with their fighter stick, pro pedal, pro throttle and throttle quadrant. I'm given to understand they use and F-16 style stick, and I'd kind of like to keep the pinky button for push-to-talk and a spare 4-way switch for game function (pause, kneeboard, look at map, etc), and probably need 2-4 fire buttons for WWII era aircraft. At the moment, I'm looking at something like the Virpril Mongoose base unit, but am not sure on the grip section. Their WarBRD appeals because for WWI, it has all the right buttons in all the right places, but I expect it will be lacking significantly for modern sims. Their Constellation Delta looks good because of the extra controls, ambidextrous design and the two stage trigger, but it lacks the pinky switch, or any switch that would be good for push to talk functionality. I do plan to move that to the throttle, but that's a custom build I haven't even started yet. The Thrustmaster Warthog grip matches what I'm working with now, but it doesn't seem to be available sans base, and I'm loath to get parts just to throw them away. I'm avoiding the Mongoose grip largely because it seems like way to much stick for my planned uses, and I'm mostly going to be flying US aircraft, and want to maintain some commonality in configuration with them. Are there options I'm missing here? General thoughts on what might work best? Thank you, Harry Voyager

I've been playing around in VR in other flight sims lately, and I'll further this: for all the immersion boost it provides, you lose peripheral vision which is essential in dog fights and many non dog fight manuvers. If any of you drive, consider how far you are into your peripheral vision when you check your blind spot while changing lanes, or look behind when reversing. In current VR, to do that, I have to rotate my sitting position about 60-90 degrees to do that. The loss of pixel count is also a limiting factor with current sets. We're getting closer but we're not there yet.

So this was loosely inspired by the Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles series of videos on WWII engine performance* along with various things that I have read over the years. Basically, it seems like there may be a relatively straight forward and consistent set of parameters that determine whether a piston engine is at risk of detonation, including charge temperature, fuel quality, anti-detonation, cylinder temperature, boost, compression ratio, etc etc etc. Further, it appears that during the 1930's and 1940's, NACA conducted very extensive research on most, if not all of these factors, which was largely forgotten about when jets rendered high performance piston engines obsolete. Additionally, it appears that this may have been a significant area of logistical impact, even though it may not have been very visible to the pilots and historians of the time. FInally, it appears that aircraft design and development was much more legos and mix-and-match and see what happens than current modern highly integrated aircraft** Given all of that, it seems like there may be value added in building a generic engine for modeling piston engine behaviours, that can accept the various piston engine inputs and output the heat dumps into the cooling systems, power at the shaft, and likelihood of the engine suffering detonation, among other necessary factors. While I'm guessing if something like this does not already exist, it would require an unpleasant amount of code refactoring, it seems like implementing a generic highly universal model for it could reduce the overall workload for implementing new aircraft, along with opening up possibilities for mission and campaigns, dealing with the difficulties of the impacts of logistics, problems with fuel quality, or managing engines in conditions that they are manifestly unsuited for. My personal interest is the Thunderbolt, and I could see training campaigns running on low octane stateside gas, to Normandy campaigns involving from 100-130 to full 150 octane, to the challenge of keeping the engine running right in frozen Russian campaigns in lend-lease frames on 94 Octane avgas. Overall, I'm thinking given the apparently un-integrated nature of WWII aircraft design, it seems like they would be amenable to generating much more genericized high detailed models that more modern aircraft with their tightly integrated systems. It's gotten late here and the idea still isn't fully formed, but I'll hold here and pick this up later. Thank you, Harry Voyager *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTD7DqXfRno ** There was an interesting discussion by a different team explaining how they could justify adding floats to many aircraft that never had them, where the developers responded by posting a set of period papers detailing how to add floats to basically anything, even if it made no actual practical sense (witness the F4F-3S)

Cool. I don't have a dog in that hunt, though I do think it would be interesting to have the different fuel grades modelled, though I'll write a separate post on the wish-list forum. Has anyone tested the equilibrium speeds of the two planes? I'm guessing that the Bf-109K-4 hits it, but that the P-51 overheats before it gets there without a dive, but I'm not sufficiently skilled to test it here yet.

The 109 in this is both using the 97 octane fuel and the MW-50 injection? I've heard elsewhere that it was more commonly C3 or MW-50 injection to spread the performance boosts around, and without those, the K-4 was not much better than the G-6. I'm not far enough in to test it, but I e heard that the Merlin P-51 could do a high speed cruise on lean, so could do quite a bit of its circuit at ~400 mph TAS. I also suspect that the aircraft's equilibrium speed is considerably higher than its listed Max speed. If either or both of those are correct, I would expect in a combat escort engagement, one would typically see the P-51s dropping in at 450+ and even the K-4s climbing in at 350mph. Pair that up with the low shell velocity on the MK108 and the ammo count on the 6x.50s and the 109s are going to be at a serious disadvantage.

Thank you. That's good to know. I think where I'm worrying about the parts are I'm given to understand the P-51 have both radiator flaps and oil coolers to manage, and the Thunderbolt may have the turbo waste gate to control too. I've read they can use a unified throttle control, but that to really push the envelope one needs to handle all the knobs. I kind of want to try the Quadrant, but I also play other flight games that really need the buttons on the Pro throttle more than the army of levers, so there's a trade-off I have to decide on.

Starting to dabble in the DCS TF-51 and am looking for advice on controller setup and mappings, and over the years, I've accumulated a lot of different devices to work with :D. Right now I'm trying to understand if it would be better to use a CH Pro throttle or their Throttle Quadrent for the engine stuff. I'm currently setting it up with the pedals and fighterstick, using an Occulus Rift VR headset. I've got both hand units, though not sure if they'll be useful. I've also got the CH MFD with the extra buttons that could be added into the mix, though that may not work great in VR with a cat. Ultimately if this works, I'd like to do combat flying and be able to reuse this setup or most of the setup with the P-47 whenever it gets released too. So, thoughts? Thank you, Harry Voyager

Given some of what was dug up in the Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles video above, I'm wondering if DCS is set up to handle the fuel grade and detonation complexities of that turbo supercharger system? I could see a P-47 campaign essentially having a subthread of getting the necessary tuning, engine settings and 130 octane fuel to get the engine to run reliably at 70-72" boost. It sounds like, from the High Stakes P-51 campaign that it is possible to have persistent damage in a campaign. I wonder if it would be possible to handle partially persistent damage and repair: i.e. after each flight, a certain amount of repair happens, on certain things, but not necessarily back up to 100%, and a new plane is not a 100% perfect plane? According to RS Johnston's memoir, his best plane was a D-5, that someone else crashed, and while his later planes were newer configurations, none of them were quite as good as that one was tuned up to be. I may have to get the Charnwood and High Stakes campaigns and start poking around in how they, and the mission editors work... I'm rather late to the party and haven't actually played any of the DCS World WWII games yet; all this kicked off because I've got Thunderbolts on the mind again and was just dropping in to see if one had been added yet.

What I think would be rather interesting is if it was possible to track the visual impacts of damage and repairs. Basically when things are damaged and repair or rebuilt, they never look quite the same as they did before, and if you could track this, and display the deltas, over time and use every players' plane's personal appearance would diverge, hopefully enough to disrupt the clone factor.