Biggus

@Diesel_Thunder, you've been enormously helpful. I've got yet another request, with absolutely zero sense of urgency about it: Could you please get some images of the assembly with the flaps switch? Thanks to your pictures in the other thread, I've got plenty to work with now. It is massively appreciated.

@Diesel_Thunder Thank you very, very much! That's perfect!

@Diesel_Thunder could you grab some pics of the right side front seat console please? Nearly every other image I've found has the O2 tube and other things laying across them.

Yup, I've been using the F-4C and G there, but didn't realize they also have an RF-4C. The fighter cockpits have been enormously helpful for the left side and the front, but the right side is really hard to see. The right side is much clearer in the RF-4C but I'm not sure how different that will be from the F-4E. Still, it's a very big help and thank you for drawing my attention to it!

I'd have a lot less to be annoyed about if they'd just documented it somewhere that users will see. I spent a couple of hours of my time trying to chase down a non-existent binding, thinking I'd made a mistake.

I'm bumping this, because I'm making a very abbreviated front cockpit and I'm struggling to find useful images of the front seat right hand side consoles. The 3D cockpits have been an enormous help for the left side, but there is stuff laying on those right side consoles. Has anyone found a decent set of images?

Probably going to need an E-2B or C. I still don't understand the decision to model an E-2D with the modules that presently exist, and that needs to be corrected for the Tomcat, the naval Phantom, the Intruder and the Corsair. (Also a KA-3D would be nice).

Could be. I find it interferes with the head stabilization stuff, there's probably other things it isn't playing nicely with.

Thank you for making that comment! I thought I was going mad. I'll play with FOV. I've got an ever so slight tilt right now that doesn't exist when I use SVR. I had an enormous amount of tilt on both lenses in what felt like opposite directions until I cleared environment data, and there's a menu option in OXRTK that has my right eye with a 40 degree rightward clocking rather than overlaying with the left eye properly. It's bizarre. I think it might be part of why the WMD alignment tool doesn't seem to play nicely with OXR.

So you're hitting with 17% of your missiles and you seem to be under the impression that this is as good as it gets in DCS right now, but at the same time you don't seem receptive to advice on how to improve your odds from people who are enjoying vastly greater success. Because as far as you're concerned, you know what you're doing. So much of this forty one page thread is people who supposedly knew what they were doing finding out that they, in fact, did not know what they were doing after all.

In the development timescales we're looking at, we can get incredibly close. Look at the modules that have started development in the last six months. It's almost as if ED have encouraged era-correct module development with a long term plan. A late F-4J would fit within a Linebacker campaign with the exception of the smokeless engines, but that could almost just be a variable configured in the mission editor. If that and the F-4E sell well enough, it would probably encourage HB to make an F-4D. At that point, you'd be down to needing a MiG-21PF or PFM and then some AI assets - earlier SA-2, SA-7 (which I believe still exists in the game assets but is hidden), an EC-121, E-2B, and C-130B/E/H and you'd have a workable base. With the time it will take for the game engine to support such an enormous map with unimaginably dense jungle, I think concerns about anachronistic modules are a bit premature. Substitutions in the meantime will be necessary, but having the F-4E we are getting in a Vietnam campaign is a bit like having a 109K-4 in a Battle of Britain campaign in terms of user experience. It's going to be an interesting few years.

I'm sure Vietnam is an inevitability at this point. It might mean waiting until DCS is able to handle destructable vegetation, but that can't be more than two weeks away. The other problem is that most of the assets we have from around that time turn out to be just a little bit too new. The Fishbed is post-war, the SA-2s we have I believe are also post war, the Tiger II is post war, the coming A-7E is looking like it will be post-war, the A-6E is likely post-war, and so on. None of this is to say that it's impossible. Far from it. I'm certain it will happen. We might actually just be held back until common consumer hardware is able to deal with the problem of fighting over large swathes of jungle and hopefully by that time, appropriate modules will be available. That's how I see it, anyway.

Might be worth creating some sort of note within the binding screen that there needs to be a keyboard key bound rather than just leaving that binding blank and having users experience what is from their point of view a bug. Even if devs consider this correct behavior, from a user perspective it's poor design.

Thanks for that! Sounds somewhat similar to the Tomcat.

Six, IIRC. Singles on the outboards, pairs on TERs on the inboards.

This is probably a silly question, but are the consoles backlit?

I've spent a few days using the virtual 3D cockpits here whilst designing some panels for my abbreviated home cockpit and at some point I looked up to the windscreens, where I noticed a pretty large difference. I believe this is the one-piece windshield on an F-4G. Compare it to the F-4C here. Whilst the height of the camera is a bit different, that canopy bow is very chunky on the one-piece.

In the meantime rather than going to the trouble of setting up a VA profile, just use Bailey's profile.

I was under the impression that Jester is getting an upgrade soon (probably with the Phantom release), so perhaps HB are waiting for that before adding bindings?

If you're using a rotary encoder, there might be some settings in Virpil's software to accelerate the input. I don't have a Virpil throttle, but that function exists for Winwing's software and I'd expect Virpil to have done something similar. Back to the topic though, I really hope we can program our laser codes and countermeasures from the cockpit soon. I've been thoroughly enjoying using the F1 online lately but there are times where I cannot operate effectively with other players and AI. Add those features (plus the AUF2 dual rack) and I'll be as happy as a pig in mud.

I seem to be having trouble getting the tool to reappear. My autoexec.cfg file has force_cross_eye_recovery_tool = true and I've removed the config file for my G2. Is there something I'm missing? Edit: This is interesting, @BIGNEWY. I have two exes, one to launch in SteamVR and the other to launch native OpenXR. I very rarely use SteamVR these days, so on a whim I tried it and lo and behold, the WMD alignment tool was there! So I closed DCS and restarted using my OpenXR exe and the tool was missing. I closed DCS again and restarted with SteamVR, aligned everything nicely, saved the settings and closed DCS. Restarted using OpenXR and the alignment settings weren't transferred so there's obviously some alignment stuff being saved elsewhere. Perhaps this is why a few people have reported that they can't access the tool? Second edit: I was able to access the tool with an OpenXR DCS session by reverting to OpenComposite. So that's good. However I have a vertical misalignment using OpenXR that I cannot fix using the available range of selection. It's interesting because this misalignment does not happen with SteamVR.

That's entirely possible too. I've got no data at all, I was hoping that perhaps the Aerges guys might be able to share some information.

I didn't realise that you'd added the alternative hat assembly. I seem to have an endless supply of 6 and 12mm tactile switches, so that's a really helpful addition, thanks yet again @_BringTheReign_!

Very interesting,@fausete. You are saying that every alignment type will take me to the exact same point, provided the initial alignment was sufficient and only the route to that point will change? Now I'm questioning my other assumptions and this thread probably belongs in another subforum. I think I might have conflated alignment quality with INS drift. Should I have seen some drift though? My flights took me to a single waypoint over 250nm away with eye-watering precision. Granted there was only one period of acceleration (the take-off) and one left turn of around 90 degrees, I'm surprised that I was able to get so close each time. Edit: Apparently maneuvering violently doesn't induce any drift in the INS. Several 4-8G turns and I'm still able to overly a VOR station 280nm away. Is this expected behavior? Under what circumstances should I see drift or need to take a fix? F1EE ALM heavy gs alignment.trk

It's an interesting question, but I don't think it's answerable with the information we have. My gut says it's better for there to be a gap so that Heatblur and Razbam don't have to compete as much on the impulse buyer part of the market.