PFunk1606688187

In all fairness the fidelity of something like a PMDG aircraft is pretty damned high, higher than with most FC3 aircraft I'm pretty sure. The systems complexity and depth of whats modeled is pretty high. Granted the biggest issue with syncing a shared cockpit seems to be the avionics, like the FMC, but overall thats not really necessary for the most basic of flying experiences. What is the difference if all you need to do is be able to share the state of button clicks, with the non-lead pilot basically being slaved to the state of the lead pilot's craft? What I mean is if your goal was literally to have someone just sit in the same plane as a person flying, able to flip some switches like on radios and experience the same flight path with limited latency. To me it doesn't really seem to matter what fidelity of systems we're really dealing with here when the bulk of what creates a shared cockpit is basically just button presses and switch states that all exist in and are triggered by LUA code. The effect of those presses might be something beyond anything FSX does, but how different is a taxi light switch in a DCS aircraft to an FSX tubeliner? I think thats basically what I said. Its very possible, its just a matter of applying the time and resources to make it happen which would likely be considerable and usually that investment doesn't weigh well against its implied benefit, next to other concerns at least. There are so many things which require far more work right now and there are very few devs to go around. I do hope that its on the map somewhere as with DCS World in its continuous state of game engine renaissance, now is the best time to incorporate it into the landscape, if not literally at least in terms of building into the new infrastructure the appropriate doors to its eventual implementation.

Well I don't want to tell you your business, and I'm not an expert, but somehow some guy in his spare time managed to do quite a bit of work to sync up the PMDG 737NGX. http://www.desk-pilot.com/#

Beats me. I find the ergonomics of the Ka-50 in general to be baffling at times. Of course you don't have issues because you have a style which works with it. My friend however has a very aggressive style of flying where he blends lots of maneuvers with simultaneously doing target acquisition. Its the kind of thing where if he rolls into an ambush he isn't gonna turn tail and run, instead he's gonna go smashmouth and try to waste them then and there while dodging missiles and gunfire. Simply, what he does, and he does it well as I've witnessed, is simply not possible if he has to have the trimmer near his designate button. He has the trim on the pinky of his X52 with the designate on the clutch button.

Stance is too narrow. I already feel like my Saitek Pro Flight pedals are too narrow sometimes. If you ever want to do a stick between your legs set up you won't be happy with CH pedals I'm fairly certain. I seriously doubt its more rugged. By the looks of it the real difference between the combat and the pro flight models are the fancy silver foot pedals themselves while I doubt they really toyed with the inner workings much. I love my rudder pedals but rugged is not a word I'd ever apply to a Saitek product. Too much plastic in the critical parts to let you get away with any serious abuse, accidental or otherwise. My realization came one day when I was flying with my shoes on. The forces I put into the pedals were exaggerated because I couldn't feel how hard I was pressing on them. I kicked them right off the track. It wasn't even a hard kick, more of it just being too much pressure and it came off the rather narrow track. When I opened them up it was of course all plastic in there and while I got them back on track, I did dislodge them again once when I was placing pressure on one pedal but not the other. Again, fixed them no issue, though the friction control doesn't work anymore. All in all they're great for the price point, but rugged? I'll save that term for MFG Crosswinds. I'm not trying to discourage OP, more like framing the product in the correct light.

Whether you have FFB or not, basically while the pilot needs to be manipulating the cyclic he will not be trying to reach for controls in the right hand's general area of the cockpit. Its not really anything to do with home cockpit versus real cockpit, either way when the pilot has hand on cyclic he isn't keying the PVI-800. Its doubly unlikely since, as you say yourself, in a helo you need to worry more about collective than cyclic half the time. Funny thing is my friend who is very good at flying the Ka-50 has his controls set up very differently from how they are on the real Ka-50 cyclic and collective because he likes to be able to cue targets with his HMD while doing hard turns, and if you used an identical layout to the Ka-50's you'd not be able to use the trim button and the designate target button at the same time. Something tells me they never meant for the Ka-50 to do what he does based on how they laid the controls out.

Well what you're describing is something which Ka-50 designers theoretically created the autopilot to handle. The idea behind the single pilot cockpit of that attack helo was that with enough automation the he can have the flying workload reduced so he can focus on the systems when he had to. Maybe the systems design is a failure. :P Also, just to note, the stick in the Ka-50 is for the right hand, the ABRIS and PVI-800 (or whatever its called) is on the right side. No real pilot in the midst of any maneuver is going to be able to use those systems. You think he's gonna reach across the stick with his left hand? Even in the A-10C when you have combat area items not on the HOTAS its mostly easily accessible for the left hand, like almost all the FENCE items. Even deadening the lights is on the HOTAS because the lighting panel is aft on his right side. Everything to do with engines and emergencies is on the left side, for very obvious reasons. So you have two solutions. Learn to fly with your left hand or put a mouse on your left side. Most however learn to live with it, its not as inconvenient as it sounds, though I have a friend who flies the Ka-50 very aggressively and he insists on being able to designate targets and stuff in the turn which you probably wouldn't even do in the real one, so there's that. You just need to find your own control set up. You can get almost everything you need on that HOTAS. In this respect the sim can be even more flexible than the real aircraft.

Secret to using the mouse nub is to not use it for the mouse. I've only met one person who told me it worked well for him as a mouse, and I think he was a freak. Either set it to bands and set up some key emulation or set it to be a directional axis and map stuff to that. Its utterly hopeless as a mouse, but I love it as a de facto fourth hat switch.

I believe you're referring to the Motor setting. IGN is for in flight restarts if I recall my emergency procedures correctly. You're supposed to motor the engine for several seconds after a false start, put the switch back to normal, let the temps drop below some figure which I forget, then proceed with a normal start.

That is so funny. A Hawg by any other name.

Everything you can map that sensibly allows you to do the most actions without taking your hands off the stick. Things like Gear up/down are low priority being that they're usually twice a flight, while things to do with selecting weapons or waypoints or slewing a targeting camera or something are high priority. Take the HOTAS concept to heart and you'll come up with a system. Of course its impossible to know how to design one til you know how to use the systems themselves on a given aircraft. How can you know whats important without learning it? Thats of course when you can choose to adopt another's control scheme. You can categorize it generally, like target management switches, weapons release and selection switches, etc, or you have specifics to an aircraft like TMS and DMS which for the A-10 does both the previously mentioned things. Every aircraft is different but there are some rules of thumb you can use. Trim should always be readily at hand, so onto the POV switch that you can most easily reach (unless you have to use it to control your camera).

No doubt part of the enduring attractiveness of being involved with organizations like NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all. I'm sure some Swedes could weigh in with a few interesting perspectives however.

This is the major flaw in DCS ground AI. The ground AI by default have superhuman situational awareness and response times. The only reliable way to overcome this is to implement some scripting which some do. I'm not an expert on IFV combat, but would it be realistic to put a hundred+ 30MM on top of a BMP, even if you don't kill him, and expect perfect return fire? I would bet on the crew being shocked and suppressed.

I am guessing pilots who specialize in Air to Air like F-22 pilots will have lots of experience using eyes and standard wing-width gun funnels to go guns will be able to cope with not having a radar adjusted gunsight if it came to that.

Changes have been made to the shoulder position but I think that the difference between eye position and head position are not incorporated into default view system. Basically the changes that have been made have made this mod better more than redundant, as I understand it.

You owe me a Lobster.

This is a fool's paradise. Go 0/0 curve and fly better from day 1. :thumbup:

Organically integrated VOIP is always a good thing to have. It is vastly superior for promoting teamwork since while TARS is free, running a TS3 server is not, and TARS is also not being actively supported right now by Headspace owing to his own busy life. The situation with TARS is already bad enough since you can't use the latest version of TS reliably so that puts a lot of pressure on the players themselves just to get it running. TARS may be very nice (when it works reliably) but its far from optimal for the broader community. A much more optimal solution is to have it so everyone automatically has the ability to talk to each other without needing to join someone's TS. This is all pretty obvious really. Communication is essential to good team work and not having that built into the sim is silly. Vain hope #211 is that Edge and the following dedi server code will furnish this essential feature.

The same thing that happens when you're flying close formation? Twitch FPS games have sophisticated ways of handling this problem, some more elegantly than others. Same with any multiplayer game to be honest. FSX has a few aircraft that have multi crew code available. The simplest solution they make is they create a master/slave interface. Basically the pilot flying is the one who is always in sync and the slave connection is the one that has to keep up, which is just fine I guess since he isn't the one handling the controls. This vid does a good job of explaining what is probably the most polished one I've seen. FHsIpvMJuig In a tandem cockpit it seems like it ought to be even simpler since none of the controls are shared, with each section of cockpit totally isolated. In this situation the requirements for total sync would likely be even more lax. Its not really that monstrous a challenge, its simply that nobody is interested in catering to it since its not a big money maker. I have no doubt its ultimate implementation wouldn't require all that much more than a focused plan and consistent manpower.

At 30 knots thats just about half a nm per minute, so depending on your time of fall it could be far enough off off target to make some difference. Also, not being an expert, but depending on where the target is in the impact cone couldn't it affect the accuracy? If the arc of fall looks more like its chasing the target rather than falling onto it that could make a difference in accuracy, particularly if expending energy is an issue. I don't know enough about the LGB profile to know for sure. I'm not really sure if LGB guidance logic is in any way designed to cope with a moving target (at least the one in this sim), but the bang bang guidance seems to be far from ideal. Newer JDAMs are going to be fully rated for TGP terminal guidance to moving targets but I'm not sure if that includes the laser seeker head as being part of that. All in all hardly my first choice for a moving MBT, but an interesting experiment.

I don't think its backwards, its just another option. It depends on the situation, but there is no practical link between post release guidance and using CCIP or CCRP. In the case of a moving target, especially in the one you've described, CCRP could be more practical, but its all relative to the situation. For instance, if you wanted to lead the bomb's release rather than have it release to strike where the target was at pickle then CCIP is the only solution that doesn't involve toying with the TGP post release. Not that either solution makes a lot of sense unless you have a good reason for not using the gun or a maverick. In the end it would make a whole lot more practical sense to try and get at least a mobility kill with the GAU and then plink that stationary target with your Paveway, or let someone else finish it off later. @Scrim I read that the Paveways are the only ones that have an AFM for the bomb (think thats what Ir ead it was) so its behavior should more readily represent realistic limitations, of which lasing late is one of them. Obviously an early lase will cause the bomb to expend all its potential energy while trying to fly pure pursuit with its TVV. In reference to my own thoughts on leading the moving target at release, I can only wonder if the latest Paveway behavior might necessitate this choice if you want to actually score a reliable hit on a moving target, depending on its speed of course.

If its a moving target you could use CCIP. Nothing preventing you from using that with Paveways. Also there's nothing about CCRP requiring you to use a waypoint as SPI. CCRP merely tracks the SPI location and if that is slaved to your TGP tracking gate then you should simply be able to drop the bomb on the tank where it is and then the Paveway will track the laser almost right away. The problem with the paveway running dumb is that its seeker head is narrow enough that if you don't drop it on or near your target then it won't even see the laser. TGP SOI TMS FWD Long while Point Tracking, CCRP profile to GBU-12, Manual Lase the moment it drops or shortly thereafter, ???, Profit. (I think that will work, never tried CCRP with moving target). Alternatively you could just eye ball the lead on the tank, SPI the road ahead of it, CCRP that spot, and if you guessed the windage right your LGB seeker head should be able to track and hopefully still be on a ballistic profile that will allow it to correct for the Tank's travel. If the target is moving and the LGB is constantly steering Pure Pursuit then its possible it could exhaust all its energy and ultimately fall short, so maybe a lead-late-lase method would be more accurate if more finicky. CCRP is not slaved to waypoints, nor is it slaved to level bombing, nor are LGBs slaved to CCRP. Its all rather more flexible than most people's default methodology seems to be in these parts.

You could always use your NVGs to find it? EDIT. And a quick glance at my in game controls tells me that there is no default binding for either the Emergency Flood switch nor for any of the lights on the Lighting Panel. Only lights I know of that you can key by default are external.

Make a SPI with your TGP (TMS FWD Long) then slave all to SPI (China Hat FWD Long) and your maverick will be looking at it too, along with everything else.

I believe I saw a video of someone doing gun attacks on T-90s from very very high angle dives (top armour) and having some success killing them. I think.

I read "they die" as in both engines die and not a single engine dies, ergo I think that its highly unlikely this is caused by no boost pumps. The DC Boost Pump is what feeds the APU and will simultaneously feed the Left Engine if I recall correctly. This means that the only engine that should fail would be the Right Engine, but even then the Right Engine shouldn't even be able to start with the boost pumps off unless you enable crossfeed from the Left Fuel system. The question I would ask is whether you're actually getting the engines fully started or if you're just attempting a start and seeing them die. Are you trying to start both engines at once or trying to start the second engine before you see the "Engine Start Sequence" light on the caution panel go out? Track would explain it pretty fast.