lunaticfringe

9900K RTX 2070S 32 GB 512 WD NVME M.2 w/32 GB fixed page. Preload radius has been adjusted to keep the VRAM allotment below the previously mentioned 6.8 GB threshold, and this is the only place I'm suffering from any nature of consistent, triggerable stuttering

In the F-14B Instant Action mission "Dancing With The Wolves", pop-in of tanker static objects when at low altitude causes immediate stuttering of DCS. This is more troublesome than normal as some of these objects aren't rendering until ranges less than two miles- and even then, they aren't consistently or fully rendered; a change of head position or aspect can make some of these tankers partially or fully disappear, when others at the same range or further remain fully rendered.

LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE.

Reupping the request from others. Many moons ago, in a thread that appears to have been subsequently deleted, it was stated that Deka's intent was to make these sorts of materials available to assist in validation. Fulfilling on that intention might go a long way to help cut these sorts of threads, and other challenges of the JF-17s pedigree, off at the pass. Any movement on this as such would be appreciated.

The one most applicable to the systems information you have available and are contractually permitted to recreate.

As a customer and supporter I'll also point to the fact that, as of today, two fundamental issues are degrading the Tomcat experience: those being damaged VR performance in 2.5.6, and broken MP carriers since the aborted Supercarrier release patch. The F-14B has far and away the best VR-native cockpit in DCS, and with some players noting a 30% drop in frames all around with the visor on, that is a significant blow to the Cat. Similarly, the visceral nature of carrier operations is a substantial selling point, and the inability to take a new pilot or RIO out to the boat damages the MP experience, and ultimately the ability to show value for the price. Cobra mentioned that last point as part of his explanation of why HB declined, and while some may not want to hear it, its true- perception, and return on value for both parties, matters. Third parties lose 30% off the top at a minimum playing in ED's sandbox. Taking a 50% haircut off retail before ED takes their slice now means they have to sell two copies on the DCS store to meet that single retail sale, and three over on Steam. Every one of those second or third customers required to make what they've defined as their break even point is a customer that they've now lost the opportunity to prove that the module is worth the price they've set. And that calculus is made even worse when the module isn't able to be presented in it's best light by the current status of 2.5.6. So as IronMike states- this gives everyone the opportunity to look at what ED and the other third parties have on offer. And ultimately, it gives ED the chance to get their ducks in order so that when the time is right for HB to let the Tomcat and Viggen have their free showings, they'll be at the top of their game. In doing so, everyone wins- HB with more sales, ED with better percentages, and players with the best opportunity to show it off, get their friends involved, and be confident in their purchase.

Narrator: "He thought wrong."

The old rule applies: Right hand is AoA. Left hand is G. Learn that, and you will learn the F-14.

The drive of the sweep handle is a stepper motor and DCS bios. Not an insurmountable problem. What is, however, difficult at the hobbyist level is the operation of the sweep handle with the spider gear incrementation. While one would think the sweep handle should work like an axis, it really doesn't; instead, the travel is broken down into roughly 4 degree sections, plus one for the oversweep setting. You pull the handle, select region, push in, and you push into that 4 degree area gating. Meanwhile, while we're limited to apply emergency settings with that method, the handle still sweeps in a linear fashion when controlled by the CADC. Now you're talking about the need to not only have a stepper to drive the handle in both directions, but the engineering of an arrangement that takes shape in two ways to perform the interaction- a latching method that the motor can still drive the handle across at each step, and a method of reporting that position back to DCS 1:1 when we're applying the emergency setting. None of it's insurmountable, and to be honest- at that price point I'd expect this to have at least been considered on the motor drive point, even if the recreation of the increments can't be achieved. But it's not going to be a weekend project, to be sure- and for easiest effect, would likely demand a special control implementation by HB to pull off banding with an axis, or a switch logic to define the regions of travel in a more controllable fashion. Not something I'd begin to expect anytime soon.

Because they were shoddy on their documentation and used F-14D materials for partial reference. Punk, you ever get handles for that quadrant? Might be able to help you in the not too distant future.

I think it's cute how they use the markings of the F-14D grip on an A/B throttle without the second and third four way switches. Their attention to detail is *chef's kiss*, right along with their $800 price tag.

Expected lack of Tomcat integration at EA release after the animations were already shown to work on the deck reaffirms my choice to save my money for the meantime. I appreciate the update. See you when it works.

You're not, because exceeding your radial velocity only matters to the missile if it's shot from within your circle. It's attacking from outside your circle- which means *you* have to beat the missile's ability to generate angles. It is the same principle that defines visual definitions of the fighter/bandit relationship in BFM. A missile shot within the circle against a turning bandit is seeing that target planform generate massive motion across it's canopy- or in this instance, the seeker FoV. If that rate exceeds what the missile can generate, it's a miss; if it doesn't, it's a hit. Now reverse the perspective- missile outside of the bandit circle. The bandit now generates much less relative movement against the seeker. All you've done by turning back into the weapon is go from a point where you're generating the maximum possible motion across the FoV to next to nothing. You solved the weapon's geometric problem for it, and think it's a problem with the weapon, not your technique- that's where the error resides. Your hypothetical is wrong because your perspective on the shot is wrong.

As an aside to the point about the pickle and NWS buttons being squishy, the grip is properly sized to a point actual Otto hardware will fit. The NWS was a bit tricky to desolder as I had to leave it plugged in based on how the lower controller board for the twist is very snug, but the replacement is easy, takes about half an hour, and bumps the feel of an already quality piece that much higher. At some point manufacturers are going to realize the buttons aren't long throw and soft, but instead very direct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV5nahASY3k He wants $1400? Yeah, okay. VKB has hinted, so expect to wait forever and a day. But honestly, $1400 for the Throttletek offering is a borderline scam.

As dalan illustrated, standing on the Ps curve shows the proper G relative to speed in accordance to the charts. This "special script test" claim smells like another temperature manipulation.

Make sure you are using the correct radio. The selections will be available even if you've keyed the wrong one.

PAL is your friend.

Speedbrakes don't deploy at all above 430 knots. Beyond that, yes- you're going to have to grunt it out by loading the airplane up.

Overriding the maneuvering flaps to close during ACM causes an incremental decrease in available lift, with a commiserate increase of induced drag compared to the same configuration with them deployed. Increasing the deployment amount gives you a little more lift but increases the jet's shape drag, so you're getting a bit more nose for a similar penalty. Best way to think of it is that overriding the CADC, which is doing its best to give you maximum Ps performance for a given speed, loading, and AoA is that you're going to get something in trade for a loss in speed- either nose position, or a boat anchor that amounts to less than getting the brakes out. You might also get a bit of help in slowing down above 400 knots (where the speedbrakes simply do not deploy), depending on where in the schedule you are. The only times I've frozen the slats was through intentionally putting the flap handle down with the maneuvering mode overridden, or passing through 350 knots with the handle down. These are things that were done to make sure things were working as they should, and are prohibited to make sure the airplane isn't damaged. Don't do these things, and the CADC limits *should* keep you safe.

I've posted in five topics in the last week. I'd ask where you've been, but it's not a concern of mine. If you know something is patently immaterial you should stop trying to defend your position with it. Because the documentation and SME feedback report that it wasn't there for the jet they're making. Naquaii is working with the intention of modeling the HUD and FCS functions of a specific time frame, with the documentary and SME support to back it up. This has been expressed repeatedly, and yet it's not acceptable to you because you once saw it in a game from 26 years ago, and it is the only argument you have to continue lodging complaints over it. You have a game manual. They have NAVAIR documentation and people that flew the jet. Instead of expecting they justify its absence to you, you should instead qualify why they should work on your assumption, rather than the confirmable material they have in hand. That, or find them better documentation.

They took it away because it didn't exist.

What's their relative proximity to one another?

Literally unplayable. ;) :D

You literally complained the F-14A isn't getting an IRST that was stricken the instant the TCS was available fleet wide- and for aircraft that never had it installed in the first place. Remove your pan from the burner and simmer down.