lunaticfringe

"And the Lord said 'SCREW YOU- YOU, RIGHT THERE, THE MORON WITH THE GOPRO!'" -from The Book of Don't Be a Dumbass in the Rain, Chapter 42, verse 42

Good point. And given that the same DoD image was used as the cover of a book on the man, it's not going to be a hard Google Images search.

I tend to keep shirts of that nature towards special occasions- air shows, gaming events, etc. Thus those in the know, know. And those not in the know are limited.

And while it's software, it's of the cotton-poly blend nature: http://teespring.com/Boyd-Original-Gangster

Watching this gorgeous representation roll out in an air to ground configuration, I'm honestly concerned with the challenge of fitting this into an air to air structure. Based on prior experience, I'm just not sure the logic is there within DCS' tools currently to direct it properly (as the Bis in any 80's scenario is going to be the second or third player to the engagement, hopefully unspotted); range limited, its going to need to be directed into the fight only short distances from the origin field, and hold low as long as it can to stay off opposing scopes (that should already be dealing with Su-27/MiG-29 or MiG-23). In lieu of that automated capability on the back end, it's going to be imperative that coordination is executed from the primary forces in the CAP in MP allowing the Fishbed to bide its time properly, only getting the call once Blue air has committed and is within striking distance.

How apropos that the keystroke is "F5", being that it was the MiG-21 simulator of choice... The mind boggles...:blink::suspect::wassat::joystick:

Yes.

Gene- since you have one in hand, I was wondering if you could possibly take a dead-on photo of the left throttle grip, from the outboard side? I've been looking for a good photo of the rotator to be able to count the indentations and estimate the size, and have been at a loss. If this is possible, I'd be much obliged.

That is the point you're not grasping; tactics are AIRFRAME SPECIFIC, based on their relative strengths. Comparing raw competition absent of that context is a worthless exercise when discussing how a simulation functions. This is not a balanced tilt with two competitors on horseback in the lane, with lances of the same length, shields the same size, armor of the same fashion, and horses of the same stud. This is dissimilar air combat. You will *not* find 1:1 balance within that context.

Yeah, and I can accelerate a mason block through the Mach versus a javelin- which do you actually think is going farther?

Not with induced drag. Inertia is nice. A clean profile counts more. And the AiM-120 in all variants is significantly cleaner.

Wait a tick- You defend against the R-27ER, a weapon that's RL counterpart, in either trim (R or ER) has never scored a combat kill, by diving against that SARH weapon into ground clutter, and you're wondering why they don't score? That's funny.

That's what it looks like on the oscilloscope/waveform return output. Form begets functional terminology. Thus, to the trained and knowledgeable ear, it is both an accurate and useful term. If that's lame, then whatever. Why are you simply turning back in? There is more than one way into the notch, and more than one way to stay there and redefine your course of action. Properly modeled, you do not. The notch window as modeled currently is overdone; maneuvering there demands more precision than normally accounts for it. However, to get there, all you actually need is to decelerate to a relative closure rate within the window of his radar's rejection programming. That is all the notch is- a change in apparent velocity. Descending, depending on how one does it, invokes two things: first, a decrease in the amount of energy lost in making the rapid turn in, thereby giving more immediate flexibility in continued maneuver. Secondly, it begins to involve ground clutter in the equation so long as your respective altitudes carry enough separation; a poorly performed turn to the notch that never actually makes it, with enough descent, can still cover your tracks. Conversely, a poorly performed turn to the notch without enough separation to leave you in the ground clutter on its own still leaves you on his scope. Unless a missile is decoyed essentially off the rail or sometime in it's flight, defeating one is not a fast process. Put the shooter on the gimbal limit and make the weapon work. The relative weapon position on the gimbal at 60 degrees is pretty much where you want it to be in the endgame defense. Depending on the weapon you're holding, you can still get an LA with a minor turn back, and put the opponent back on the gimbal before the opposing weapon goes active. Then you defend normally.

Grabbed a Nokia Icon the other day; felt like I'd exorcised the Devil himself absolving my person from Android after five years. When the EU is taking about a forced breakup of your firm (Google), you have gotten too big for your britches.

It only works one piece at a time. You are not instructed in the full gamut of BFM in the RTU before taking your first ACM hop. One cannot teach energy maneuvering to someone who doesn't yet grasp the dynamics of aspect change across their canopy. And going in with a head full of data without actual context will freeze you faster in the moment than if you had no idea whatsoever. 1v1. Guns only. Low aspect, offset right. Begin 9000' behind your opponent with visual. Do not start the scenario until you see him. Watch him break. Moderate the throttle to control close while only pulling pure on him to keep that rate in check. Ease into lag if things get too hot. Get snide of 3000' then kill him. Then reverse the process. Him in back, offset, but close. Survive. Keep your eyes on him. See what works and what doesn't. Gain confidence in stick and throttle without looking at the HUD. Reverse the situation. Then change aspect to a medium situation with larger offset. Work in. See the fight develop. Baby steps.

When I can pull pages out of the Dash-1, weapons employment manuals, and Fighter Weapons Review pre-classification, and they are still maintained in the jet based on the modeled timeframe, the access/permission excuse does. Not. Work. Stop repeating the same thing over and over. We read your argument the first time. It is not in play in this conversation.

I'm not saying buttons have anything to do with it. However, when specific functions of the radar are missing that are clearly capable of being discussed on the white world side of the house, with full descriptives and symbology available for public consumption, that argument doesn't hold water.

You've been locking targets with a mediocre representation of what the APG-63 can actually do. You've been "protected" by an even more mediocre representation of what the TEWS can do. Just because you've got a B-scope doesn't mean it is right, or even close to being effective.

Your contention puts the cart before those horse, as though a switch must be triggerable via mouse-click before the model can be built to use those functions. This is false. Check your OSB options in A-10C or BMS. Again, backwards. The ability to see the switch *actuated* is what is required for cockpit familiarization, not actually *clicking the switch with a mouse*. Don't confuse the issue; full radar and systems modelling can be done just fine without a clicky cockpit. It is a nicety, and nothing more.

I want the 45 seconds of my life I spent watching that video back.

Pretty much sums it up without too much depth. http://www.fastcolabs.com/3024789/can-we-all-just-admit-google-is-an-evil-empire

RE: click-pits. There has been significant research on the matter of analog/tactile feedback in the cockpit, and simulating it on the ground; given my own design work, it's a natural segue in development of rules and modelling. The consistent finding is simple: you can't trade analog for tactile, and vice versa, and generate an accordant level of workload. The workload increases exponentially at each level of change. When a pilot turns his head (if he needs to), reaches for a tactile switch, and actuates it, the feedback is immediate and specific to muscle memory. Switchology in the cockpit is designed (and in some instances, aircrew-modified- examples being taped over or flexible hose installed on top of specific toggles) to allow hands to differentiate on the fly without touch. Your keyboard, depending on the model, has at least two specific points to aid in this. Further, the length and shape of specific keys do the same; so does the arrangement of keys in home made or purchased panels. Array them in the static pattern of your choosing, and within a matter of a few short hours of consistent exposure, your brain makes the link as to how far forward the hand must go, which way the arm must move it, and how to activate the control. Clickable cockpits do not in any way represent this; each usage of the switch is different, based on view of the cockpit, and the starting position of the mouse, both the pointer on the screen, and its location on the mousepad/surface. You can never build the repetition and muscle memory that a combat pilot does over time. You can learn to remember specific patterns visually, but never actually gain the load; in fact, your brain is being forced to do MORE WORK than the pilot. You *can*, however, generate the consistency in workload in a comparable level of mental stress with a keyboard. The flipside of this the same reason that a keyboard is borderline masochism to fly a simulator after 1994; you cannot gain the recognition of movement and relative stick position in the hand by way of using the arrow keys. Hanging on a specific G limit is incredibly difficult, because of the "off-on" nature of the switch; as we know, stirring the stick is a much finer, granular operation. Clickable cockpits are useful for *visual* learning- not cockpit-workload learning. You are better off using the keyboard, or a set self/pre-made toggle panels for the actual function, because you will be generating an appropriate level of mental stress. Using a TrackIR to look at a panel in the virtual pit, and pressing the key combination by feel on your keyboard, is a more comparable experience. And as to "complex-key combinations", no one ever said you couldn't re-map. In fact, if ED thinks programmable HOTAS ownership is more prevalent than not, I'd suggest they reverse the order of operational priority- that is, the startup/system actuation be single keystrokes, whereas consistent in-flight combat operations be done with chorded keys and/or DX keys easily modeled on the throttle and stick.

It doesn't route-follow, because the F-15C doesn't have a route-following autopilot. It's not that it "doesn't work", it's that it doesn't exist.

See, this is why we can't have nice things...

No, because BFM is more closely tied to higher end levels of airmanship and handling of the fighter. All of the skills required to employ the jet tactically are taught as part of BFM; BVR only employs a subset, and all of those aspects are derived from BFM instruction. Teaching BVR would be counterproductive, when an individual isn't competent with visual search, flying by sight, and generating a competent level of SA. Thus BFM comes first. That's why they're called "Basic".