streakeagle

One thing to consider with RWRs is that in a game environment, they are extremely useful and it is hard to understand why anyone would not have added RWRs on any aircraft entering service from the mid 1960s and later. The reality is that even the relatively advanced ALR-67 has an incredibly high false alarm rate, which makes it more of a beeping/flashing distraction rather than the life-saving device it is in games. The modern world is crammed full of radio emitters that trigger false alarms during flights over 100% safe areas. Imagine what it looks like in an actual threat environment with both friendlies and enemies clogging the radio bands with all kinds of traffic and jamming. Robin Olds was forced to mount a RWR in his F-4C and quickly decided to turn it off. He knew he was surrounded by radars and that one or more were tracking him. So, what were the audio and visual indications really telling him? He knew he could only dodge a missile he could see. He already had too much audio information between the radios and back seater. He preferred to keep his eyes out of the cockpit to focus on spotting SAMs and MiGs as well as tracking his own flight to provide warnings, guidance, and congratulations on good kills. Of course, most pilots don't have Olds' legendary situational awareness and would certainly like to have at least a launch warning and a bearing to check. Consider the F/A-18 Hornet that was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 during the opening days of Desert Storm. In DCS he would have clearly seen the MiG-25 threat and been able to decide the appropriate course of action, but during a massive aerial attack in the dark, he probably suffered from information overload and his RWR was probably lit up like a Christmas tree. So, the MiG-25 was able to slip through AWACS and escorts undetected and snipe the F/A-18 without any evasive action. So, I can't really fault the F-1C for not having a piece of crap RWR that was comparable to the one in the MiG-21 with no digital display and a primitive form of threat prioritization/indication. Even in the magical world of DCS where RWRs behave ideally, I find the RWR in the F-1CE to be primarily the same kind of annoyance the Robin Olds despised. But having said all that, effective or not, I love having RWRs in flight sims even if my situational awareness and reflexes make them nearly useless for me. If all we are given are versions with RWRs, it is easy enough to leave it turned off if you want to simulate a version that doesn't have one. What I want the most is historical accuracy. If the version being modeled had a RWR, give it one. If a version is modeled that didn't have a RWR, then don't give it one. My preferred option is to have more than one versions to reflect the variety of aircraft available or at least an option check box to choose a cockpit with/without a RWR as required to match the desired version.

And so it is. I had not seen that before I had not though to look there.

The present gun trigger switch control mapping option automatically overrides both safeties. i.e. the trigger flips down and the safety flips out. I get the value of this option for people that have limited button counts on their sticks, but it would be nice if there was a realistic trigger mapping that only permitted firing the guns when both the trigger is flipped down and the safety is flipped out manually. Without this option, there is no safety beyond the master arm. Edit: Per post below, the option is already available on the Special Options tab for the Mirage F1.

Thread title plus your name as the last post, and I was caught hook, line, and sinker, too.

I had my G2 replaced under warranty after the first one failed. But when I built and AMD PC and needed the new cable, they said I was out of warranty. I ordered the new cable and paid the cost. What I should have done was catch a new headset on sale so that I would have had the new cable and a spare headset. But the old cable acts as a spare when used with a compatible USB port and my G2 is still working great with the cable I should not have had to pay for.

If they were smart, they would make one really good base and standardize production. But is seems most vendors need to have two price tiers to sustain business. I have the Supra Libra because at the time I ordered, the only option was the stick/throttle combo. But despite their promises that I would like the Super Libra more than the VKB Gunfighter Pro, I still prefer the VKB stick. If the Orion 2 is superior to the Supra Libra in every way, there would be no reason to continue producing it unless it can be sold at a lower price tier.

Not using key presses has a cost: broken track files. Track files log user inputs. VAICOM bypasses the inputs, so if you use voice to turn on ground power, the track does not record ground power being started and your aircraft never leaves its parking spot

VAICOM would work better by returning to emulating key presses. Ultimately, I was already considering using a VoiceAttack profile based purely on keypresses as I did before I had VoiceAttack or Vaicom. But not using VAICOM would cost the loss of many great features that cannot be implemented using a basic voice to keypress profile. The solution would be for ED to provide their own internal support for voice commands, similar to the way they are making an internal voice chat to compete with/replace SRS.

Recently, a friend with a 3090 finally got around to trying it and he couldn't believe the difference such a small change could make. It isn't like it doubles performance, but there are noticeable changes in smoothness/stability of frame rates and overall image quality. It wasn't like I jumped from 45 fps to 90 fps, but now I have enough overhead that I can use a lot of higher quality settings and maintain 45 fps better than I could before.

I already loved it, but OpenXR took it to the next level.

I have two HP G2 support stories: 1) my first generation G2 failed a couple of months after I got it (one of the original pre-ordered ones). Support was fast in agreeing to replace it, but I went without a G2 for a couple of months waiting for new stock as existing stock was already going out to others waiting for their first headset. 2) when I upgraded by PC to an AMD motherboard, my 1st generation cable exhibited the problems of so many others, not working with the USB ports on the motherboard. Most people got their 2nd gen replacement cable/power supply for free. I was told I was outside of warranty, and rather than argue over it, I spent another $200 to get the updated, compatible cable while retaining the original cable as a spare that I could also use for comparative trouble shooting. Despite the initial failure, slow replacement and problems with the 1st generation cable and the cost to replace it, the G2 has since performed really well for me. With a 6900XT and a 5800X, I get great image quality and acceptable frame rates (more or less 45 fps or better in many cases in multiplayer). If I had to buy a new headset right now, I would probably still go with the G2. I don't know of a petter price to quality/performance ratio.

This appears to have changed. I am still testing to confirm the issue, but it seems that when DCS Voice Chat and SRS are both enabled that SRS periodically disconnects and has to be manually reconnected every time it does so. As soon as I turned off DCS Voice Chat and executed a clean start up of DCS and supporting software (SRS, VAICOM, and Simshaker), the problem seems to have gone away.

I had noticed after the last two patches that I didn't have to go back and remove this file. That was a nice change

It seems that an ebay search for 12v 4000-5000 rpm vibrating motor turns up massage pad motors suitable for the seat? They are fairly cheap, but they all ship from China?

When Gametrix went out of business, I bought a second jet seat to be safe. My original one had at least one motor that was weak or stopped, rather than fixing it, I set it aside to provide spare parts. After all these years, I finally had two motors stop in the newer seat. Both had a broken wire, but only one worked after soldering the broken wires. I grabbed a spare motor from the original seat, now I the newer one is at 100%. I am interested in restoring the original seat, which needs at least one new motor to replace the one I used to fix the newer seat. I think somewhere in this forum are the motor specs. I want to get a new one if they are readily available in the USA.

I use the throttle, startup panel, combat panel, and takeoff panel. However, I primarily fly in VR. So, I don't normally use SimAppPro unless I want or need or firmware update. But it is nice to see someone may finally have found a solution to this problem. I intend to get the entire Hornet MFD/UFC front panel complete with displays, so it would be great to be able to run SimAppPro whenever I want to fly with a 2-d panel/TrackIR to enjoy the displays and lights without a major performance hit.

I can't wait to see the finished product.

I understand another non-payware director is going to eventually be provided to restore free use of the Flak-18. However, the release of the KS-19 with Firecan radar has partially negated the need. Most of the time, I was using Flak-18 as a stand-in for the KS-19.

The original poster talks a good game and has posted some great images over the years, but the only products he has ever sold are some 3d printed rudder pedals and stick grip stands. Even those have been out of stock forever. But if you want to see what could have been and might be if he ever follows through with his promises, there are some great preview images at his website/webstore: Home | Replika Gear

There are multiple ways to handle adding switches. Some of the Tekcreations panels have inputs for missing switches, which might help. When I was building my sim pit, I went with the plug-n-play Leobodnar BU036X USB boards. You just wire up the switches/axes you want and it shows up as a standard USB game controller visible to DCS World and most other games/sims. There is a button only version for those that don't want/need analog axes. Some people used mutliple boards of this type and ran into problems with Windows/DCS mixing them up after rebooting their PCs despite having unique ID numbers. I only had one board, so I never experience this issue. Arduino boards require programming, so they are a little harder to manage than the Leobodnar products, but that also makes them more flexible/capable. If you aren't afraid to get into programming, this is probably a good way to go, as it will give you more flexibility if and when you decide to expand your controls. I haven't had the need to go this route, yet. But it may be in my near future. I haven't used DCS Bios, because I haven't needed it with the hardware I have been using. Tekcreations products have far more functionality when connected via DCS Bios, so that may be a good route for you. I can't really say one way or the other since I haven't ever used it.

This was my only problem with the Jet Seat. I have the sim edition and I used recycled cotton fill from shipping boxes to help pad it out. The cotton fill reduces the feeling of sitting on rocks, but it would take custom cut memory foam to make it comfortable. My seat is a semi-replica of an F-4 Martin-Baker ejection seat using a wood frame with an actual survival kit/seat cushion and back pad. The real seat and back pad aren't much more comfortable than the jet seat sim edition, so pain/soreness is a realistic part of the simulation

Other aircraft are able to jettison their pylons, including the free A-4E-C mod. So, it is simply a matter of implementation.

I was flying the Nevada air-to-air combat tutorial and had expended all missiles. So, I was working on mapping some of the controls used in the mission to my USB panels. I was testing the normal jettison controls when I noticed that the 530D was lit up, while the fuel tank and Magic were not. I went to an external view to verify all of my pylons were empty. I thought maybe I can jettison the 530D pylons. So, I selected the 530D and pressed the trigger. I heard the "clunk" of a jettison release, but all the pylons were still there. Upon pressing the jettison button, the 530D light extinguished. So, for some reason the jettison logic acted as if I still had at least one 530D on a pylon allowing me to select and jettison the non-existent 530 pylons. I understand the mission is old and sometimes old missions cause bugs that wouldn't exist if the mission was opened in the editor and then saved or built from scratch. I assume that some aspects of the mission are out of date and that this one will be edited or replaced. That would be a good time to test and debug the jettison logic after expending all ordnance.

I would assume that the developers are aware, but just to be sure: When I run the new training missions, all of the text is in Russian, whereas all other aircraft use the correct English localization for my install.

VKB hasn't caused any problems for me with DCS. The only time I have had issues is configuring VRS TacPack. If I wanted that software to work, I had to go into the registry and manually alter the name to get rid of the spaces. But I haven't bothered with FSX/P3d/VRS for quite some time, so I haven't had any issues.