Cake

Exactly, but for those who want to take DCS literally.... The very idea that civilian airplanes shouldn’t be represented whatsoever is silly. It’s akin to saying there shouldn’t be civilian structures or natural trees in DCS. Every aircraft that exists in the world is in a sense part of the simulation, if you want to be realistic. Same goes for civilian white Toyota pickup trucks. There is no good reason someone shouldn’t be able to drive one, well, except maybe Toyota not granting the license. I’ve personally watched from the air F-15s intercept a civilian aircraft penetrating a TFR. Tragically, civilian aircraft were used as weapons on 9/11. During WWII, civilians flew recon missions in civilian aircraft against German U boats: https://www.maxwell.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/1024853/civil-air-patrol-a-story-of-unique-service-and-selfless-sacrifice/ The argument that civilian aircraft have no place in a combat simulation of the world should at best be characterized as UNREALISTIC.

Tell that to Apple, which sells phones and has a 1.65 trillion market cap.

Tacview breaks SRS and DCS to GPS?? Just bought and installed TacView advanced last night. Its seems the normal install process has completely overwritten my export.lua file and all of its entries, which has broken other add ons including SRS and DCS to GPS. Is this normal functionality?

Not sure about deleting files, but after the previous demo I had the same issue as you and was able to fix it by deleting the modules using the GUI and the module manager.

I agree with you lack of actual g forces makes it harder to interpret the G force the sim is experiencing. I’ve often thought sims should provide some visual or audible indication to compensate for that, although I am at a loss for what the correct answer is. What you’re suggesting I think is that the artificial feel for the stick force necessary is to deflect flight controls is a function of speed and is set very high at certain speeds to prevent the Tomcat from exceeding its design envelope... no idea if this is true or not. Guess I should read the manual... If HB let us easily over stress the airplane then I assume it is possible for a normal pilot to do the same? I’ve done a little bit of real g’s too on a few occasions but didn’t have any noticeable visual effects. So, maybe the answer is to give users some options to customize the g effects to their preferences, at least to some extent.

Sorry for taking so long to respond Tomeye.... Can’t get the switch command to be recognized, either. I do not want parallel broadcast in general, so this means the only way I can transmit over SRS with VAICOM running is to first use a valid VAICOM command and wait for the beep and then speak on SRS. If the VAICOM command isn’t accepted it will not allow me to transmit SRS. Instead, I have to try another VAICOM command. Grrrrr.... It seems to frequently not recognize my VAICOM command, probably because I am rushing it and didn’t really want to issue it in the first place, for example just to make a Fox call over SRS. While I have struggled some with certain commands, it has never followed switch, so I really have no idea how it is supposed to behave. The other thing I have an issue with is that I cannot figUse our how to turn off “chatter”. This is a cool idea I paid for, but in multiplayer it’s distracting for me and there doesn’t seem to be an option button for it.

Salute was working for me, but it has stopped... maybe since last week’s patch.

Ps..the reason I have 48 is because I got a deal on 32 that matched the 16 I had originally bought a couple years before, but I was not sure it would be compatible, so It was kind of a bonus. I don’t really see any reason for more than 32 now.

Not sure now, but it made a huge difference in multiplayer when I upgraded a year and a half ago. I think DCS is better now so I can’t say for sure. I’ve had one tiny stutter in supercarrier recently with my 48Gb. ..... way back had stutters everywhere.... and 48 helped but didn’t completely fix back then

Amazing area to fly airplanes ....

I'm glad you did because this is awesome and super helpful. I looked at the Monstertech website, and it looks like you have way more than the basic package with rudder extension. I like the idea of setting this up as an exclusive use system that is in an unused space and not part of a traditional desk. With my RIFT on the fritz, I have been doing more track IR while waiting for my reverb gen 2, but I guess I want a system that supports both Track IR and is VR friendly. Maybe a little more VR focused, so I likely won't have all of your other cool goodies. I think I am stuck at the stage of determining the seat first. I've been shopping online, and it strikes me as very odd that almost all cockpit / gaming chairs have side bolsters to make them look like race car seats. No lateral {yaw} g-force in a home cockpit so I think this is counter to good function. From real ejection seats to small airplane seats, side bolstering is minimal if non existent. I've looked online at possibly buying a surplus ejection seat for a base, but am kind of thinking I'm more concerned with comfort. Seems like the ultimate would be a fully adjustable pilot seat from a mid sized or larger business jet {or small airliner) but this stuff is hard to find. Maybe a Herman Miller chair...? I dunno. Can't make a decision. A couple of questions on your setup. 1. What exactly did you order as far as Monstertech stuff? Seems like you have a lot of extras from the pictures. 2. For the rudder pedals... a. Which pedals do you have? b. Where do you rest your heels? Seems like they should be on a flat floor but there is none in your setup? 3. Which seat are you using? Yours seems to have much less emphasized side bolsters (good) and how is the lumbar support? Your set up really stands out as functional to me. THANKS!

This is the bigger problem with Track IR for realism:

If the software is open source, than the code can be independently examined. Personally, I’d probably feel at least equally safe if it were. I’d just be very careful about what code I used and where it came from. I’m not necessarily recommending DCS turn into an open source project, but I agree wholeheartedly that having developer tools open to the community would likely dramatically increase the interest and appeal of DCS. We have all these interesting add ones to DCS, but as someone who is 95+% of the time on multiplayer servers I don’t see as much of the creativity that I know is out there. I tried the A4 community mod again recently and was just blown away by how awesome it is. This is a great example of what nosaMtrevoC is saying. While some of the mods aren’t there yet, I think there should be a procedure for it to become a more primary part of the game.

Ha, no worries. I fly part 91 only now. As pilots it’s not like we treat Vmo or Vne much differently, but there are difference in certifications for jets and turboprops vs pistons in terms of the difference between Vmo vs Vne as percentages of flight test speed requirements. I could be wrong but I recall something like testing to 110% of Vmo and 120% of Vne or something like that. With Vmo there is no Vno, HAHA.

The HUD doesn’t show anything, but there is a barber pole or red line on the standby airspeed indicator. Not sure if it is fixed or a function of altitude. Jets usually use Vmo / Mmo rather than Vne, and the Vmo can vary with altitude. I only fly civilian jets, so I really have no idea for published F16 limitations for if Jet fighters are like propeller driven cessnas and use Vne

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_limit

Sounds interesting, but I cannot see any of the pics.

All I had to do was manually delete the install directory and then download 1.8.0.6 and reinstall using the auto method. Worked fine. I had tried first to uninstall and then reinstall 1.8.0.6 and it wouldn’t open unless I deleted first. Problem is I lost my sever list but no biggie.

Wow! I wouldn’t expect it to cancel and INS alignment! My limited experiences with wake turbulence: I was in a Cessna 182 waiting for an intersection departure just short of a runway when 2-F16s took off together. Both Vipers were in afterburner and when they went by the entire airframe of the 182 was vibrating. Not loud with the headsets on but you could feel the energy. They hadn’t rotated yet so no big vortices. Also stood on foot at the edge of a runway, maybe 5 feet outside the edge lights when an MD-80 just began its flare to land. As it passed by about 30 feet above me, I could very clearly hear the vortices pass just overhead. Sounded likes whips swirling through the air. Did not feel anything, but you could hear them trailing the jet. I’ve also flown on a departure and our flight path went through Boeing 757 wake @ about 11,000 feet (when it shouldn’t be anywhere near as bad as when landing). I was flying a 50,000# jet and it rolled us to a nearly instantaneous 70 degree bank angle. Landing above and behind a 747, I think I’ve seen the wake of a 747 hit the water, but I have a powerful imagination so who knows? If an F-16 can cause your INS to not align I hope your not operating from the same fields as C5-Ms :pilotfly: Not me, but a friend was flying in a plane shooting photo or video of another smaller aircraft which flew into the larger lead’s wake. It rolled the smaller plane completely over and the subsequent loss of control ended up causing the two aircraft to have a midair collision. Fatal for the smaller plane. The bigger was able to land.

Bummer, you were so close to it becoming self aware. :robot:

Also, thinking back, I must have inadvertently selected chose beta updates on thinking that meant matching SRS versions to current DCS open beta versions which I use 98% of the time. Doh!

Thanks guys. Just FYI I had to delete the SRS directory manually as uninstall the beta and reinstall the release over it wouldn’t work otherwise.

Thanks

I wasn't in anyway suggesting that a RNAV departure procedure was required to be in the airplane's database for THIS example. Btw, might it actually be incorrect to think of the STOFF2 as TACAN procedure? Is TACAN equipment necessary to fly it? I think it could also be flown with VOR/DME, RNAV or a GPS. If we flew it in our civilian airplane, we'd simply dial in 113.0 into our CDU, set the course knob to the 137, fly the correct heading for the respective runway to intercept R137 from Silverbow and make the crossing restriction. Of course it would be better if it were available in our TERPS database, we'd simply load it into our CDU and use RNAV for the entire departure. My database question was less about this simple procedure anyway than a a more general question about airplanes in DCS. Certainly some of them would have TERPS that could be loaded into their the databases of their real world counterparts. As far as which actual modules would be able to do this, I just don't know, because having flown only flown one of the aircraft from DCS in RL my experience is limited. To clarify what I meant by full nav database - My meaning was a database that includes navaids, fixes, and TERPS relevant to the module's equipment. I think DCS should include at least all the procedures that apply to cover the superset of all the DCS modules that might utilize them them. So for example, modules that include the 430 GPS should likely have a database with all the fixes, approach procedures and arrivals for the equipment it was installed in at least including all the geographical areas in DCS (remember DCS also includes civilian flyable aircraft now). This means that DCS should have this info available and if the module could use it then why not? Not far away we have many civilian airports with a variety of procedures that could at a minimum be loaded in any of the modules that include the 430 GPS some of us paid for.

But how many virtual deaths to G-LOC will occur before they get it right!!!!