streakeagle

Before I got the MCG Ultimate with the optional hat switches, I had my cursor controls programmed to simultaneously be both analog axes and buttons and made the center press a button rather than toggling between analog and button modes. But I almost never used the analog axes. Since the Ultimate have me the option of dedicated hat switches automatically detected and configured, I used them. So the only customization I do on the ultimate are: 1) configure flip-down trigger to detect up, down, and pulled. 2) Configured the twist axis to have 5 buttons: center, left/right, far left/far right. 3) made the twist axis far left/far right continuously flashing on and off when triggered. I use that button configuration to page through the kneeboard as fast or slow as I want. It has taken me some time to get used to the ergonomics of the MCG style grips. The TM Hornet grip was my favorite. But I like to fly MiGs and many of them have a grip similar to the MCG, especially the brake lever. I also started flying multiplayer quite a bit. The MCG can be configured to work well in any aircraft and still have unused buttons/controls. But as well as the MCG works and as painful as it can be to change grips, I still like swapping in the closest grip I have to the aircraft I am flying. I try to keep my grip swaps no more frequent than one week per week.

The F-4 in the 1970s and 80s was the P-40 in WW2. Newer, better planes were available from the start of the war, yet the P-40 remained in production for most of the war and served to the very end. "teen" fighters could fly rings around it. The MiG-21MF and MiG-21bis had edged it out in ACM performance with much better power-to-weight and low-altitude performance than earlier MiG-21s. It was never the best at anything, but flown to its strengths, it was pretty good at everything. My preference for older aircraft is simple: 1980s+ combat with AIM-9L/Ms and AIM-7Ms/AIM-120s is boring and tedious compared to 1960s heavy, gunless fighter with unreliable missiles that have limited to no dogfight capability vs small, agile, gun armed MiGs. Thrown into that environment with little or no air-to-air training and given fixed routes and formations, a lot of F-4s were shot down that should not have been. But a handful of veterans, like Robin Olds, and a handful of new pilots/rios with decent air-to-air training, like Ritchie/DeBellevue and Cunningham/Driscoll, could win big in the F-4. I love the challenge of trying to win a gun range dogfight with an aircraft that didn't have a gun. The F-14A is a big step up from the F-4J/S in air-to-air, but in principle, it is similar, just improved across the board. It was also limited by being so underpowered compared to its contemporaries, the other teen fighters and by the early 80s, the MiG-29 and Su-27. In WVR combat, the F-14A would have to work just as hard to beat the MiG-29 as the gunless F-4 had in trying to fight MiG-17s, MiG-19s, and MiG-21s. Whereas the upengined F-14B and F-14D are arguably the best ACM fighters of their generation while also retaining the high speed performance and long range radar/missiles. So, if you fly the F-14A with early AIM-7s and less capable AIM-9s, it isn't too bad a representation of the slatted, gun-toting F-4E and is adequate for the F-4J/S. Name a better alternative available in DCS. Which brings me back to the original topic of my post: the F-14A has become my main DCS ride due to the fact that the F-4 is unavailable and none of the available DCS modules is closer the capabilities and performance of the F-4.

The inner wings didn't have slats, they were the original leading edge flaps, which were for landing/take-off, not for maneuvering at combat speeds and loads. The caption for the linked photo even mentions the fact that the only the outer wing panels got slats. Your link showed something I didn't know: the F-4S slats still moved a little: they didn't retract back into the edge of the wing per the USAF slats. They merely pivoted to be more inline with the wing, but were still extended: i.e. there was a slot between the slat and the wing even in the "retracted" position. Slats are a very specific device compared to a flap. Slats are usually retractable and often operate automatically based on the air pressure on the wing. At higher AoA, they get "sucked out", and then as the AoA gets lower, they get pushed back in. The USAF's Agile Eagle program experimented with many different setups trying to find the best compromise and then retrofitted it to nearly all F-4Es that had been build with the original "hard" wings on all other F-4 variants. All hard wing F-4s had leading edge flaps, though the inner flaps were locked in place in later variants/upgrades. The F-4S upgrade originally did not have slats, but for some reason the Navy suddenly decided it was a good idea, but went with the simpler, more cost effective solution of only fitting the fixed slats on the outer wing panels. Slats fixed in the up position are only useful at higher AoA. In level flight and lower AoA, they merely cause drag. But it was an easy choice: sacrifice Mach 2 speeds that were never used for being able to safely push much higher AoA with less induced drag and no chance of snap rolling into a non-recoverable flat spin from adverse yaw effects. The F-14, F-16, and F/A-18 all got leading edge and trailing edge high lift devices, critical to high AoA dogfighting. Ironically, the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15 did not. The USAF/engineers decided that the F-15's performance was so great between its low wing loading and high thrust-to-weight, that it didn't need the weight or monetary cost of high lift devices. So, all it got was some rudimentary flaps on the inboard wings for landing and a little bit of curved down wingtips to help at high AoA. With leading edge slats and full span maneuvering flaps, the F-15 could have been a much better low speed dogfighter. The F-14 seems to have been short changed, too. Per DCS World, manually dropping the flaps can make a big difference in a slow fight, but they easily get jammed down when used that way. I really wish engineers and accountants would learn from the past: almost every fighter that ever had maneuver flaps and/or slats that could be used at combat speeds benefited greatly from it.

The F-14A is about halfway between F-4 and F-14B performance in terms of specific excess power: acceleration, climb, sustained turn rates. Most of the charts showing F-14 superiority over the F-4 use the unslatted F-4J. It has been a while since I looked at the numbers, but if I recall correctly, the actual margins are closer to 10% than 20%, which is still significant in a 1 vs 1. The slatted F-4S didn't even exist when the Aero book was published. The slatted F-4S would have had slightly better turn performance, both instantaneous and sustained, but slightly lower top speed, lower acceleration, and lower climb rates. The F-4 paid a steep price in drag for the fixed slats on the outer wing panels, which is the only slats the F-4S got. The F-4E at least got the retractable ones on the inner wing. The final version of the AWG-10 radar on the F-4S wasn't an AWG-9, but it wasn't bad either. It was digital and it had doppler. Just not the power or extra features like TWS and of course, couldn't use the AIM-54. But look at the aircraft already in DCS World or coming in the next few years. None of them are as close to the F-4 in overall capabilities as the original F-14A. RAZBAM's MiG-23MLA is a very close match in flight performance, but again, better aerodynamics and a swing wing provides some advantages in acceleration and climb with comparable turn performance. It also has a decent radar more or less equivalent to the F-4S AWG-10. But it is single engine, single pilot, land based. In the absence of the F-4, the F-14A is the next best thing.

I agree that swapping grips on the Gunfighter base is a pain in the butt. They finally implemented a solution on the newest grips that makes it easier to lineup the barrel-nut lock collar by adding a flat spot to keep both round pieces lined up when you insert it into the grip base. Then you have to flash the firmware, reset to defaults, calibrate the axes, and if you are using one, load a saved custom profile. It would be nice if it had the ability to automatically recognize the grip and use the profile/calibration from the last time that grip was connected. I haven't had any problems with the grips detaching from the base, and they have taken a beating. I had some kids try my VR simpit and they really banged the stick around hard. I am surprised they didn't break a spring or worse. The plastic is light but sturdy. It is fairly rigid yet hasn't cracked or broken at all. But if it takes metal to make you happy, that's the purpose of the MCG Ultimate. I didn't want the Ultimate for the metal. I wanted the new switch modules and stiffer switches. The fact that the metal gives it a little more weight was just an added bonus. Hopefully, after you try it out, you will overcome your first impression and appreciate the VKB setup as much as I do. But you can always get the adapters to use the TM grips. I did. But I rarely use them. The adaptability of the MCG Pro (now Ultimate) makes it the best choice if you are constantly switching aircraft, particularly in multiplayer. I do periodically switch to the F-14 grip and TM Hornet grip. But I almost never use the TM Warthog grip because I have never cared for it that much and the only aircraft that benefit from its use, the A-10C and F-16C, are among the aircraft I fly the least.

While the F-14B is absolutely amazing, it was never the aircraft I wanted. I primarily prefer older, less capable aircraft and older, less capable weapons. The aircraft I really want of fly the most in DCS World, the F-4, was first delayed, then put on indefinite hold, and now canceled by ED. My only hope is that a third party that has experience with developing two-seat, all-weather, US Navy fleet air defense fighters steps up to the plate (hint, hint -> Heatblur). The initial production F-14A armed with AIM-7E/AIM-7F is much more to my liking, but the slightly newer, better F-14A we have right now is close enough. It is the only aircraft available in DCS World that can even come close to substituting for the F-4: carrier capable, twin-engines, relatively low thrust-to-weight, backseat RIO, and all-weather radar interceptor with the option to carry 4xAIM-7 + 4xAIM-9. The big bubble canopy, giant radar, and the variable geometry wing's superior lift and drag characteristics make it a bit more capable than the F-4. But if you don't arm it with AIM-54s it largely flies and fights like an F-4. So I am having a ton of fun flying the F-14A for several air-to-air combat missions nearly every day with air-to-air refueling and carrier landings being part of the trip home. I am thoroughly enjoying every minute spend flying this aircraft in DCS World. I can't wait for the final F-14A with the older RWR to become available.

WinWing for the win. While it is a Hornet replica, what is wrong with that? I have used Saitek X-36/X-45/X-52 Pro and Warthog throttles. The WinWing Hornet throttle is by far my favorite. But it is not a desktop throttle. Apparently, WinWing wants in on the desktop stick and throttle markets, because they are about to release new Orion products based on the Hornet stick grip and throttle grips but with desktop bases similar to the Warthog. The problem with WinWing at this point is that they can't keep up with demand. As soon as they restock a product, it is sold out.

That is a crazy number of buttons. How do you ever keep all of the key assignments straight? I can use muscle memory to find controls while flying VR, but that set up would be insane for me. Stick extensions are a very nice upgrade. They improve both the precision and feel of any stick, especially when you have a good base. My warthog was a lot better with the extension. But the VKB is just plain perfection with an extension. I have all of the VKB stuff. I have both the original MCG Pro grip AND the MCG Ultimate. The original Pro is a great grip, but the Ultimate was worth the cost of duplication for me. The MCG Pro was my go-to grip for multiplayer and now the Ultimate is the best grip for adapting to any aircraft. The best part about the MCG series is the analog brake axis. I like to fly MiGs quite a bit and most Russian aircraft had the brake lever on the stick rather than toe brakes. The brake lever makes the MCG a good fit for the Spitfire. The other benefits to the MCG grips is that there are so many switches available, that you can map everything that is supposed to be there on the real aircraft's grip and still have switches free for custom controls. I got the twist rudder axis upgrade and configured it to provide button inputs, which I use for paging through the kneeboard. It is hands down the best grip available for DCS World, though the Virpil equivalent with nearly identical controls should be just as good in theory. I have been flying the F-14A almost exclusively for a few weeks now, so I have had the F-14 grip installed the whole time. I love the F-14 grip. The only limitation is that it is only practical on older aircraft that have fewer stick controls. The similarity between the standard B-8 grip found in many US/allied aircraft and the F-14 grip make it a good stand-in for all of those aircraft. F-86, F-5, and UH-1 are all aircraft fit very well with the F-14 grip. Of course, all WW2 aircraft have no problem being mapped to the F-14 grip. Again, I used the twist axis to generate extra buttons and typically map them to kneeboard paging functions.

The server listing wreaks havoc with VR, especially the G2 but to a lesser extent with the Oculus Rift S and Quest 2. If I don't manually put a text based search filter in quick enough, it can be a long ride before it settles down enough to use the mouse or keyboard to do anything. So, I would love it if I could save any filter I have selected and have that filter used by default every time I start multiplayer.

I understand the work involved in making a D out of an E. I also understand that because of the work involved, the profitability of selling more than one variant is a huge economic barrier to overcome. Fortunately for me, the E is the better variant of the two as I thoroughly enjoy carrier operations. But please provide a decent paint template so the modders can paint the D If at all possible, please provide one or more of the most common/famous/popular D skins so that they can be seen in multiplayer without everyone on the server having to download a custom skin. But if you made a D, I would buy it, too. Even if you had to sell it at full price.

That is very nice. I have been flying the F-14A quite a bit in the past couple of weeks and could use a nice simpit like that

I want a 1960-70s Vietnam/Israel era F-4 Phantom to fly in historical air-to-air missions more than anything. I would settle for any variant despite having strong preferences for certain models/production blocks. But in the absence of the F-4, I would settle for the F-15C in Flaming Cliffs being upgraded to a full-fidelity module. I would be prefer an F-15A, but any F-15 variant up to the Flaming Cliffs F-15C would be good enough. In the interim, the F-14A is the closest I can get to what I want. It turns out that the F-14A is a really great approximation of an F-4S, albeit with better maneuverability and a dramatically better radar. The power-to-weight is very similar with modest improvements in acceleration and climb due to better aerodynamics including the swing-wing. Having an older style radar with a backseat RIO makes it the only aircraft even close to simulating an F-4 in DCS World. I am very disappointed by ED's delay and then cancellation of Belsimtek's F-4E. It was a little newer than I wanted, but would have simulated a 1972 Vietnam era slatted F-4E very well for air-to-air purposes. My one hope is that Heatblur will pick up the slack since they already have the RIO logic in the F-14A. If ED isn't ever going to give me an F-4 to go with the MiG-21, at least give me an F-15.

I would love an F-84F, especially if it came with accurate Thunderbirds paint schemes.

The A-4E-C is very special. In some ways it is already better than some payware modules despite not having official ED support and access to the SDK. I greatly appreciate f410 supporting this mod as I spend a lot of time in the A-4 and hate to fly without my seat vibrating.

I am also a former Rift CV1/Rift S user. There is no comparison in image quality. With a G2 I can read most cockpit panel labels and instruments without leaning closer or zooming in, very close to the quality of a 4K 2D display. The Rift CV1 required zooming to read anything. The Rift S was much better than the CV1 but the G2 is far better than the Rift S. I agree that the Oculus software setup and sweet spot are easier/better. My G2 has failed and has been sent back for a warranty replacement, but they are out of stock, so I am left waiting. In the mean time, I have used the Rift S again. Going back to the Rift S really showed me how much better the G2 looks. But at this point, I am using my son's Quest 2. Like the G2, it pretty much eliminates screen door effect, but all of the image data has to be compressed to go over the USB 3 link cable. After raising the frame rate to 90 fps so that I would see 45 fps in DCS and then maxing out the resolution to be as close to 1:1 with the native resolution, it looks pretty good, but is blurry compared to the G2. i.e. some gauges are still too hard to read without leaning in close. So, if you don't like the G2 for any reason, the Quest 2 is about halfway between the Rift S and the G2. But because the Quest 2 isn't native to the PC, it is a hassle having to get it linked up and making sure the mic works before starting DCS. The Quest 2 audio and mic are ok. I think the G2 is better.

I should also mention that my G2 is out for warranty replacement. It started failing regularly (going blue screen and disconnecting from the PC) after just 1.5 to 2 months of use. Because they are out of stock, the estimated replacement date is March 12, a full 1.5 months from the day they received it. It was nice that they didn't hesitate to replace it after a very short tech support chat session, but not so nice that they can't replace it anytime soon. In the mean time, I have been bouncing back and forth between my old Rift S and the Quest 2 I bought my son for Christmas. The Rift S is reliable, but the mic never worked (it would stop working fairly quickly when used with Vaicom/SRS after getting it to work by pulling the usb connection out and putting it back in) and the audio was crap, so I wear a headset with a mic to use it with Vaicom/SRS/Discord. The Quest 2 was a little more difficult to get set up, but after getting the link speed maxed out and the graphics quality settings where they need to be, it has far superior image quality and slightly higher frame rates (back to the 90/45 fps of the CV1 vs the 80/40 fps of the S). But it is more difficult to use. Every time I put it on, I have to use a controller to link to the PC. At which point, the mic doesn't work. Then I have to pull out the usb cable, plug it back in, and connect to the computer again to get the mic operational. Unlike the Rift S, the mic stays operational until I shut down my PC. Sometimes it disconnects in the middle of playing DCS and you have to shut down DCS using the task manager to get back in. While the image quality is far superior to the Rift S with higher resolution and no screen door, it is quite inferior to the G2. The image is being compressed for transport over the USB link cable and it shows. Even with the image quality maxed out, there is a slight blurry compressed jpg look to the image, which actually acts a bit like anti-aliasing. But the cockpit indications suffer. It has nowhere near the sharpness/clarity of the G2, yet still looks substantially better than the Rift S. So, I would score the Quest 2 as being about halfway between the Rift S and G2 in image quality/resolution. When you use the Quest 2 as a standalone, the image quality is much better... no blurry compression effects. The clarity is much more comparable to the G2. I still have nearly a month before I am supposed to get my G2 back... and that date was just an estimate

The thing about the Winwing Hornet throttle is that the range of motion/functionality is essentially identical to the real thing. I size my stick extensions to get a realistic range of motion in the pitch axis (measured by linear displacement of the top of the stick). So, in theory, I shouldn't need curves on many aircraft and any problems caused by the throttle range of motion should be close to what real pilots face in terms of sensitivity.

My biggest complaint about the G2 is having to use both WMR and SteamVR. I much prefer the Oculus software in terms of stability/performance/ease of use. Since the Index also uses SteamVR, that's not really a penalty when comparing the two. While I very much want a wider field of view, lower resolution stretched over a wider view is a loss in image quality. Going from a Rift S, the G2 dramatically increases the resolution and slightly improves the field of view. I would still like to try a Valve Index, but I am not going to buy one when I already have and love the image quality and performance of the G2.

The MiG-15 and F-86 have very similar performance, yet have distinct advantages/disadvantages and fly very differently. I find it easy to fly the F-86 whereas I have to get used to the MiG-15 if I haven't flown it regularly. The MiG-15's ability to climb while turning compared to the F-86 means that it can generally engage and disengage at will, too. With equal pilots, it is a close match. But if a MiG pilot knows how to use his superior specific excess power correctly at the right time, then the Sabre will never have a chance to land rounds, only the opportunity to make a mistake that gives the MiG-15 a shot. This was what F-86 pilots experienced in Korea when facing ace MiG pilots and lead to the F-104 being designed as a pure speed/energy fighter to have superior acceleration, speed, and vertical performance. I enjoy flying both aircraft and love the contrast in their handling qualities and tactics despite only relatively small differences in performance.

The MiG-19S is actually what I wanted more than the P. I am interested in recreating historical combat missions, particularly Korea, Vietnam, and Israel. The MiG-19S and/or its Chinese equivalent were more historically significant than the P. In the absence of the S, the P will do. But I would still rather have the S and was glad to hear Razbam was planning on doing it. I hope the MiG-19P gets cleaned up and the MiG-19S is developed. But having the VEAO Hawk and having prepaid for their P-40, I know things don't always go the way I hope

ED should make the F-5E a dual variant aggressor/combat aircraft module similar to the C-101 and L-39. i.e. two slightly different aircraft for the price of one. But it is probably not cost effective for them to do it for free and it may not sell well enough as an upgrade to justify the cost. I don't understand why Belsimtek or ED would deviate from reality when they could have just as easily chose and made a single 100% accurate version that had the gameplay features they wanted?

Besides the WW2 fighters needing easy comms option to work, this is one of the more annoying aspects of using Vaicom.

For me, this remains true in all of the WW2 fighters. All I have to do to test it is start an instant action mission with a WW2 fighter and try to talk to my wingman: "Two, engage bandits." If I don't have easy comms on, there is no response. With easy comms on, the wingman responds immediately.

I had to spend some time adjusting the software to get the Quest 2 to look good. But the difference between the Quest 2 and Rift S is significant when you get the settings right. There are three aspects I look at to judge the difference: 1. Screen door effect. The Rift S was a step up from the CV1, but I can still clearly see the pixels. 2. Displays/instruments. Again, the Rift S was a step up from the CV1, but the Quest 2 is another step up. 3. Virtual desktop. The virtual desktop is much more legible, in fact almost perfectly smooth fonts, compared to the Rift S. The G2 is still better, but in the absence of the G2, the Quest 2 is a far better substitute than the Rift S in terms of graphics quality. I agree that the stock head strap is uncomfortable. Even with the "pro" headstrap, I don't like the pressure the headset puts on my face. The Rift S and G2 are far more comfortable out of the box. But the Quest 2 has three things on the G2: 1. Unbeatable price for the quality of the hardware (though the need to buy a good link cable and addon head strap partially cancel this advantage). 2. It is readily available, not out of stock with deliveries delayed by a month or more. 3. I haven't had any problems with the hardware and haven't had to do any kind of warranty return.

From a pure visual quality point, there is no comparison. The G2 looks dramatically better than the Rift S. I also found that my PC was able to run the G2 at comparable frame rates despite the higher resolution/visual clarity. Having said that, my G2 had to be sent back to HP for a warranty replacement after it started disconnecting from the PC when I moved my head. Support claimed it would be a quick turn around, but apparently they are out of stock, so I am without my G2 until an estimated shipping date of March 12... a full month and a half after being shipped to them. I also don't care for the Windows Mixed Reality/SteamVR combo required to use the G2. That's more overhead and a greater chance of software issues. Meanwhile, my Rift S is working as well as it ever did after countless hours of use, but they really want you to link it to a Facebook account. I bought my son a Quest 2 for Christmas, so I have borrowed it for now. Using the Quest 2 has its issues because it is not natively a PC VR headset. You have to give it permission to connect to the PC, then choose to use the link every time you start it up. When you take it off, it very quickly goes into a standby mode. When I have left it off too long, it has kicked me out of link mode while still in DCS and will not reconnect with DCS without restarting DCS. Sometimes I have had disconnect issues similar to the G2, perhaps because I have saturated the USB 3 connection with max frame rate and high visual quality. But it may have been the Oculus software and/or the video driver? After going to the latest Oculus beta and nVidia updates, it hasn't disconnected yet. The Quest 2 cannot match the clarity of the G2, but it looks a lot better than the Rift S. The image quality, cost effectiveness, and stand alone capability make the Quest 2 a credible choice over the G2. There are two other consideration for the Quest 2: the battery and the head strap. The headset battery does get depleted while in use despite being connected to the PC via USB 3. It is a slow bleed, but it does discharge. If you were going to use the Quest 2 extensively, it might be wise to get the external battery pack. The head strap that comes with the Quest 2 isn't the most comfortable. There are many choices for upgrading it to be comparable to other VR headsets, including Oculus own "pro" strap. It may be best to buy Oculus combined battery/pro strap package to address both problems at the same time. I didn't bother with the battery, but supposedly it provides better balance by adding weight to the back. Even with the pro strap, the Quest 2 doesn't fit my face quite as comfortably as the Rift S and G2. Perhaps because it was made with kids in mind? If I wasn't going to go back to the G2 in a month or so, I might invest in one of the aftermarket facial interfaces to go for better comfort.