Goblin

The AJS37 variant, the one LNS is making for DCS, does not have terrain following autopilot. The radar provides terrain collision alerts though. It does not have BVR combat ability. It can carry 6 sidewinders or gun pods and even use a remote controlled missile on air targets (presumably large or slow, air targets).

It IS the 27th..! Just not the one that matters. ;)

Ah! :) Thought you had problems with it... But it's reassuring to hear developers think like that. Me, a user, wouldn't consider underclocking anything unless I had stability issues, or heat problems. ;)

Should be good for scaring the crap out of your opponent though..! ;)

Underclocking the 1080..? Why?

Yeah! Going to be fun learning how to deploy it! I'm going to use it air to air..! :)

The whole point of VR Head Mounted Displays are that they mimic your actual movements. To change this will lead to disorientation and possibly motion sickness. That said, I'm not entirely sure what you meant. Do you want your VR view to move more than your head actually does, like with TrackIR? Or does the VR view lag behind your head movements? The VR view should be able to keep up with your head movements. If it doesn't then soemething is wrong. To make the VR view move more than your head (like TrackIR) is as I mentioned, a bad idea.

Nice find! :) I have tried the Rb05 simulator, and I can imagine that it would be really hard to hit a offset target... I mean, you need to see the target, and the missile. Then you need to steer that missile onto the target. That's hard enough if you fly straight at the target. Imagine if the target is offset, and you are also moving sideways, in relation to it..! Can't wait to test the Rb05 in DCS! ;)

Well, they got the license for the module, just like any other developer. No developer get a blank license to produce whatever they want. It's on a license per module deal. So, in that respect they were just like any other external developer. But, since then, ED has narrowed down their selection of external or 3rd party developers, or whatever you want to call them, by a set of requirements that needs to be met. I don't believe these requirements are only about timeframes. Do you? ;) My point remains that the market for DCS module development isn't big enough for proper competition. I don't agree that direct competition automatically will lead to better products. Todays system, with licensing, ensures the developer are up to the task and will produce a module that meet certain requirements. In a direct competition environment the quality may actually be diminished because developers would be hesitant to allow enough resources due to fear of failure. If they would dare to compete at all... Now, it would of course be really cool if two developers went head to head and tried to deliver the best F-16 module first. I just don't think they would dare to invest their resources in such a manner. That's what I think, and I see no indication of evidence to the contrary...

I'm sorry that my arguments doesn't make sense to you. They do to me :) Let's have another go, shall we... :) The L-39 example. Just read Wags statement. EDs new requirements for 3rd party devs. meant that the L-39 wouldn't have gotten the license if they had applied for it at the time their project was cancelled. I don't know what you read into that, but I read that it didn't meet EDs requirements... This could of course be due to both quality and speed of development. And it's likely a combination of both since it's usually a matter of time to 'get things right' even if it means starting all over again. So yes, I still think this serves as an example that there's a quality threshold that ED requires 3rd party devs to reach. Another example of this is the Viggen module. ED recieved a test version weeks ago, tested it and found issues that needed fixing, even before pre-release. So of course ED maintains the quality control of the modules for DCS. They are getting better at it too. And the L-39 example also serves as a clear indication what would be the likely outcome of two developers making the same module, in competition. I totally understand your point about competition and product quality. But not in a one-on-one competition. If the market was larger, or development didn't require such amount of resources, competition would work. But I don't see this happening here. The only competition we will see is ED selecting who will do what, and that they meet their requirements.

I take it you agree on my other comments then, since you singled out the L-39 comment :) Let me explain what I meant. ED had a L-39 in the pipeline. An external developer want to make one and got a license to do so. ED put theirs on hold. They were not granted an exclusive license. Check Wags post that you linked. After a while, ED chose to finish their L-39 project after all. The external developer cancelled their project. So, no, the license wasn't revoked as such, but the effect was the same. The external developer could've finished their project and sold their L-39 module in direct competition with ED, but chose not to. Why? Because of the competition from ED? Because their module wasn't good enough? Needed too much time and effort to finish it? I don't know. But my guess is they cancelled it because their L-39 module would no longer be the only one on the market... I.e. they cancelled because of...competition. :)

The US have played their ace on a few occasions. One was when the Finns contemplated buying the Gripen. The US simply let them know that they would not get to buy the AMRAAMs for it. But they were welcome to buy the Hornet though :)

Well, they couldn't just announce the F-16. Not without the license from ED. Just look at the recent MiG-23 announcement from Razbam. And if someone would get the license for an F-16 module, ED would hold them to that license, and revoke it if the module doesn't live up to their expectations. Again, see the L-39 module that was first produced by a external developer. Competition always brings out the best in people and products. That's the general idea, anyway. But if two persons or products compete, one will win and the other will lose. That's a 50/50 risk of return on your investment. In a niche market like this, that would break a losing developer. We would soon be back to a monopoly again. The situation would be totally different if we had multiple companies like ED, who invested in development in high end flightsims like DCS. We don't.

The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) or "millan" as it is called in the Swedish Airforce does indeed deploy when the nose gear strut compresses. It houses several connections like hydraulic fluid, oxygen and compressed air for the radar. Ground crew also needs access in case of a starter motor fire. The RAT hatch closes hydraulically, and this function must be disabled when the aircraft is on ground, in order to protect the ground crew. It used to deploy with the landing gear, but the fan blades of the RAT could come loose and puncture the hydraulic reservoir, so it was modified to deploy with the nosegear compression.

That is actually a patch worn by members of the Viggen Order.

:megalol: Good find!!

Have a look at the right air intake of this prototype... And, 'vigg' or 'åskvigg' meaning lightning or thunderbolt is part of the swedish vocabulary, even if it's not commonly used today. http://sok.saol.se/pages/P1072_M.jpg I believe it was a wordplay. The canard plane that was fast as lightning and could shoot thunderbolts. :)

And the front wing is called a canard, from the french word for...duck! :)

And, if I may add, spotting targets IRL isn't easy either... :) Spotting targets on a high res LCD screen is easier than RL, and spotting them in VR is slightly harder than RL. Actually, it depends on the distance, and how the sim treats object sizing with distance. Once you have spotted the target in VR, it's much easier to instictively know where it is in relation to you.

NICE! Good job! I'd like to see more...

Asset, imagine your 1920x1080 resolution on a 50-60" screen... And then sit so close that it fills your entire view. It's not the resolution that's the problem per se, but the size of the screen and the close proximity of it.

No, that's the standard VKB extension for the VKB Black Mamba joystick.

Yes! https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2934886&postcount=27

I find combat flying is easier in VR. Resolution is good enough, but if you use high pixel density settings, small targets disappear until they are closer, or fill more pixels if you will. It's easier to maintain situational awareness in VR. But, I can't swap aircraft as often as before, and flying the FC3 aircraft is harder. I need to program the HOTAS with care, and remember every button. And having a clickable cockpit makes life a lot easier.