Sharpe_95

Hi there, Thanks for the reply, I have attempted the fix suggested, which has left me with a different issue (that I have seen before but not been able to fix). I cant say if it fixed the initial problem as now there is a different viewing angle. The issue now is that my 'head' position in the pit feels like it is too far forward and also tilted about 10-20 degrees down - please see supporting pics. This issue (and the original) persists even with TIR off, so I am ruling that out as an option. Also, it seems to be an issue specific to the A10c as my other high fidelity modules (Mustang and Sabre) seem to have the correct head position. Can anyone offer help/advice? -Sharpe

Hi all, So coming back to it after a while off and I am getting some really annoying issues with my HUD in the A10c (all fine in the F15). Issue: The HUD appears to be too 'long' and positioned in the wrong place. By this I mean I can see the information in the bottom of the HUD, but nothing at or above the horizon line. Impact: I cant see any HUD data above the horizon line (if level) which means I cant identify my climb angle from the HUD. Also, I cant use my guns as the gun retical is always 'above' the top of the HUD glass and thus not in sight. I have attached some pics to show what I mean: Pic 1: The HUD in level flight. Pic 2: My head position relative to the 9 o clock view (seems correct). Pic 3: Supporting evidence for pic 4, setting up for a 10 degree dive angle. Pic 4: 10 degree dive, not the gun sight is not visible as it should be. Happy to provide config/lua files if someone can point me in the direction of what is needed. Testing: This is NOT an issue with my TIR (it works fine in F15, BMS etc). Using the shortcuts to re-position the viewing angle in game (and resetting it) is also not working. Tried a repair - no joy. Tried a reinstall - no joy. Can anyone PLEASE help? :doh:

Hi everyone, As title really, are there any good recommendations (or brands/models to steer clear of) for a wireless headset (with microphone boom) that is compatible with the track IR5 pro clip Many thanks, - Sharpe

Good news. I recon I might be around and may even visit the QinetiQ tent. Maybe. -Sharpe

I am an accomplished AAR user and love the complexity and the learning curve. I see no reason not to have a simpler (game) level AAR, not so long as it doesn't effect the sim/current way AAR works. -Sharpe

Well its a basic answer at the highest level but becomes more and more technical the further you go into the weeds. Some BASIC points to consider: -While all aircraft might be designed as a 'fighter plane' or 'bomber' - bear in mind these are top level requirements and each country that designs a 'fighter aircraft' will still have many other top, middle, lower and macro requirements - all of which creates variance in design. - No one country has access to all the same technology - this again creates variance in design. - No aircraft are designed at the same time, this effects access to technology. - You can make an aircraft do broadly the same thing in many different ways that effect it's cost, service costs, through life costs etc (remember that the acquisition cost is ALWAYS much lower than the through life cost thus designing aircraft that reduce through life costs can be a major priority in aircraft design. - Evolution of potential threats. If a country decides it needs the next generation of shiny shiny, it's generally because it's old design is running out of service life and/or because there is a perceived capability gap (in the near to long term future) that the aircraft is trying to fill. - Evolution of enemy aircraft mean you have to design something to counter it. This applies to design of radar, wings, power etc etc. A good example is the A10c. An aircraft that was admittedly designed around its gun, with engines that were highly efficient to meet a need for longer loiter times over the target with straight wings to allow better stability at low speeds, well armoured against ground threats and with a large ordnance capacity. - Cost, it governs all things. - Imagine all aircraft were all the same, wars would be a really unhealthy place to be. Ask any military tactician what he prefers: a noble honourable fight or the ability to sneak up behind someone and shoot them in the back without being seen or in range and they will normally take the latter. The modern aircraft that resembles this metaphor is the B2 Spirit Stealth bomber. The price of which makes F35 look like a basement bargain. - Everything is about trade off and balance. Otherwise you would be in a situation similar to the one noted above where everything is the same - which is not a desirable military situation. War, and the evolution of military kit and doctrine is evolutionary not revolutionary (to use the academic use of the terms not the military terms). One thing counters another that is then countered by something else and so on. Or something new pops up and you have to figure out how to fight the new threat. An example here is the evolution of stealth tech which (in Russia) has (allegedly) been countered by the SA20/21/23 system. Now something will need to be designed to defeat those SAM systems and so on. These are just some minor high level points tapped out on my mobile. But if you read up on the development of a selection of aircraft on say Wikipedia (quick and easy place to start from) you will start to see common themes in how aircraft are designed that will help answer your question of why all aircraft are not a like. Taking the example you give (F15 vs flanker) some basic points to ponder: a) Soviet Strategy was to fly many cheap(er) solutions at less numerous technologically superior enemy (by doctrinal design without getting into the classic and childishly oversimplified bun fight over which aircraft is best). b) US doctrine relied heavily on the promise of BVR radar guided combat. Soviet design relied slightly less on BVR combat and where it did it was often achieved through thermal not radar guidance (although both were possible IRST leaves no RWR trace, like TWS). c) Soviet tech was often less efficient but more rugged than US tech. (Slightly off topic but have you ever noticed how Russian aircraft wings have a tendency to sag a lot more than other non Russian designs of similar size?). It's a good question that will continue to plague people like me and other people that work in defence acquisition from now until the end of time. Regards, -Sharpe

While I don't want to start with the JSF bashing (it's always the same with new airframes, I remember it with F 22, Typhoon and probably all the way back to the Spitfire). That said one can assume that as JSF is showing up the tickets for the show have doubled, and will inflate at a rate of 1% per week until the show date. -Sharpe

Sorry P*Funk, I don't really know. What I can say is that for at least RIAT there is 1 JSF flying under the RAF banner and 2 under the USMC banner this is listed in the confirmed aircraft list listed as 'F' (flying). -Sharpe

As title :) http://www.airtattoo.com/news/2014/apr/17/f-35-lightning-strikes-the-air-tattoo-this-summer http://www.farnborough.com/Public/page.cfm/action=library/libID=5/libEntryID=5/listID=1 -Sharpe

Love the Phantom, it's one of my favourite aircraft and looks amazing. Would be great to see them all the way to E/G variants and the UK K/M variants. @ Leatherneck Sims (or any other Dev in the know): would you be able to fly it as a single pilot doing all that pilot stuff (flying/dropping bombs/targeting ground/air targets etc or would you 'need' someone(thing) in the back seat whether that is Ai or a real pilot? Would love to see it but only if I can fly it on my own (it's mine all mine I tell you!!). Get the A4 Skyhawk, A7 Corsair II and the F101 Voodoo with the F4 and that's pretty much all my favourite US aircraft of the pre 3.5/4th gen era :) -Sharpe

What your saying could ring true. The guy from my vfs said saitek asked him to send his back. Maybe I just got a duff one or one that the post guy dropped or whatever - time will tell as I only sent the ticket today. Tell me does your software allow the 'SDR' button (I assume it's a slider like on the X52) map as bands or as a button? In general, yes the comments above about buying a new product etc may be true - forgive me if I get a little excited about these things ;) It may well be ironed out as as someone above said - I really can't see it being so very different from the X52. Maybe mine (and my mates) was just a duff batch. I'll post more details when the ticket comes back. -Sharpe PS: I am telling you the facts from mine and my mates perspectives. It may be that we have a duff batch but the fact is I am merely pointing out my experience so far.

Hi Guys, I know I am not flying DCSW atm having got fed up and gone over to BMS (which has restored my faith in combat sims/humanity btw) but I thought I would provide a heads up on the Saitek X55. Below is a copy of the ticket I just had to submit to Saitek for the brand new X55 I pre ordered 3 months ago: I would like to place a ticket regarding my X55 HOTAS, as I have encountered a number of serious problems with the HOTAS. 1) None of the buttons function as 'press and hold'. This is not acceptable in a modern gaming environment where: a) Certain functions of combat flight siming require press and hold functionality (speed brake positioning, press and hold release for NATO stores etc). b) Interaction with teamspeak/other comms . 2) The throttle of does not appear to be mapping to any of my flight sims (DCS World and Falcon BMS). 3) The advert says the HOTAS is meant to automatically sync with Falcon BMS and DCS World products - it does not. In the case of both BMS and DCSW, the throttle is not mapping correctly. Also, in the case of BMS, one of the rotary switches on the throttle base is not mapped to allow it to be used as it should be and I suspect the mouse wheel on the left of the throttle unit is not going to work as it should as it does not appear to be mapping to the zoom/look closer function the way the X52's did. 4) The 'SLD' 'slider' (I presume/really hope it's a slider) is acting as a button, not a slider with no options for assigning bands etc. - I am making the assumption that this IS a slider - because if it is not then it represents a major loss of functionality in the controller. From a more general perspective, there is a lot of lateral movement in the toggle switches on the throttle unit, the guards protecting the 3 toggle switches at the base of the throttle unit do not actually cover the switches. Why on earth are there not any front and back throttle indents (as with the X52) - this to me represents a major step backwards in the design of the throttle as you can no longer tell what position your throttle is in before you advance to afterburner or back to idle. This product COULD have been one of the best on the market and arguably a better (and much cheaper) alternative to the TMWH or the X65. However, while the intent for this HOTAS seems to have been good, there is a real feel that this stick has been designed and tested by people who dont actually fly combat flight sims. I would add that it is still early doors yet and there is (hopefully) time to resolve most of these 'functionality' issues, if not some defects in design (or to be more fair, omissions in design). I have submitted this exact post as a ticket to Saitek/MADCATZ and will have to see what comes of it. I hope it does not end up being the same as the STRIKE 7 keyboard that I ended up sending back for a refund based on poor functionality. Regards, Sharpe PS: It would seem that this is not a one off, looking at their unsuppressed/bad comments welcome Facebook page - others have issues with it, and VFS mates have had similar problems. Again, it might be worth waiting for the kinks on get sorted out on this one before you take the plunge.

It really depends on the drone type, it's role and it's profile. MQ19 Reaper has something like a 14 hour loaded endurance with a 170 knt endurance (maybe 350 kmph) and a suggested operational range of about 1000nm (2000k). MQ/RQ4 Global Hawk (an ISTAR asset so no ordnance) has a suggested endurance of 28 hours with a cruise speed of about 310knts (570kph) so has a dramatically enhanced capability in terms of range (7500nm). However, first recognise that the global hawk is a strategic ISTAR asset and is designed long endurance flights and/or transitions whereas Reaper is anot operational assest with a blend of ISTAR and strike capability. There are trade offs in cost and capability (mission types as well as technical capability) that are reflected in price. Also, bear in mind that there are fundamental differences between the way these two aircraft perform their tasks and the required infrastructure for them to do so - but I am not sure how much of this I can go into in a public forum. Suffice to say it also effects their range and how they are used. -Cost/Benefit trade off effects every military capability and is much more complex than a 'top trump' of vehicle specs and goes more to politics, budget, capability gaps and mission support/other assets. But it a comes down to a balancing act. I believe there is already a lot of interest in the use of drones at sea but it's a question of launch/recovery atm. Let us not forget the Americans have already performed a touch and go on a carrier with an autonomous drone. I think what it comes down to atm is the current generation of ships and aircraft are being built. As far as I know the next (6th) generation aircraft are barely on the drawing boards in the US let alone Europe. I suspect the type of capability you are talking about will have to wait for the 7th or maybe 8th generation of aircraft and the ships that fit into that era. also bear in mind that much of the world has very tight controls on where drones can and can't fly. The world is coming closer to a resolution but that too may be a way off in the future. But it is interesting to note the current case study of drones in high threat piracy areas. Really tho its a question of survivability. Subs are excellent at that - in 1981 a British sub took out an Argentinian cruiser then hid UNDER one of its escorting destroyers for a few hours before it slipped off. That was more than 30 years ago - but that kind of capability and survivability comes at a price. Back in the days of Arquela and Rondfeld the idea of 'swarming' lots of cheap, networked units (including drones) was the hight of military interest. I suspect (as I have said above) we will need to see a few more cycles of aircraft to allow the tech to evolve and become cheaper and more reliable before politicians have the confidence to sign off on them for the kind of role you have on mind. There are other alternatives as to why a nation needs a navy but I won't go into that as Tharos has already touched on it and my wrist hurts from typing all this on my phone :-S Time will tell but it makes for an interesting future. -Sharpe

Just wanted to say for those that missed it the Red Arrows display at VFAT that it was an absolutely fantastic display (as normal). I've seen the Reds in real life at multiple air shows and the display is just as good (perhaps lacks the 'resonance' - but then I don't have a good enough sound system :smilewink:) A fantastic ambassador not only for the VRA but also for the soon to be released VEAO Hawk - then we can all try and replicate this fantastic teams great efforts. Solid flight guys :) -Sharpe PS: Will post a link here for the vid as soon as I find one! http://www.livestream.com/virtualairshows/video?clipId=pla_3042b601-1bc0-4fab-9e49-4109531275d4

Sadly the kickstarter failed and the producing company seemed to lack support in a lot of directions. For what it's worth I'd still LOVE to see it in game. Enjoy the next hundred pages of people ranting about how the F35 can't possibly be made at HiFi for this sim...... -Sharpe

If we set aside the idea of an accurate estimate the following multi roles are expected in the next 3 months: -None. Mig21 BIS is expected at the end of March but isn't really a 'true' multi role in the classic sense but has got some air to ground capability. VEAO 's Hawk is due out in a similar time frame but is a fast jet trainer with some limited air to air and air to ground capability. ED has already said not to expected anything on F/A18c before summer 14 but even then it will only be news (IMHO dont count on anything let alone an aircraft to fly before 2015, probably later). Many 3rd parties are either working on or planning 3rd and 4th (dare I use the 4.5 suffix) gen multi roles. F/A18E by Cortex Designs is likely to be first out the gate as the others (VEAO's Typhoon and Razbam's Harrier) are predicated on the release of a training aircraft first - clearly VEAO is ahead of the game here but Typhoon will be a monster to build - not that Harrier (with the need to program VTOL) could be considered easy by any means. ATM ED are working on 'the core product' for that read making the game stable and playable (patches like 1.2.7 and onwards), EDGE, and mopping up the LoFi niff naff to a similar standard (a lot of this work is considered prep for the future with AFM coding etc). All the while (or as a separate project) they are presumably working hard with all 3rd parties to help prep the core product (DCSW) for multiple 3rd party mods (IMHO - the true future of this sim). They have already said that F/A18c will be off the table till EDGE, LoFi and stability is sorted. In short, expect nothing. I like to tell myself something will be in open beta between summer and winter 2014 but I suspect this is a pipe dream. 2015 'may' be an exciting year but even then who knows. Again, IMHO either we will see 3rd party expansion and new ED HiFi modules by summer/winter 2015 at the latest or things could go bad for this product. That said, there is no competition so maybe not. -Sharpe

Something that works...............:music_whistling: Oh and working radios might help too.....:doh: -Sharpe

Yes I have this issue too (have had it since 1.2.6). Press the wrong button and it goes nuts, breaks and can't be used for the rest of the flight. -Sharpe

Still doesn't work for me :(

I have this problem also. I get an error message regarding no scripts being present. I've not been able to find a resolution and TACVIEW did not auto install any scripts. -Sharpe

Quite right - could a mod please make the necessary alteration for me? -Sharpe. PS: Newy - you appear to have an Electric Lightning sticking out your ear.......

EDGE Update I would just like to point out (as one of the resident 'ED haters/antagonists') that I am not surprised ED have overshot their original estimated release date. That being said I think all those of my persuasion (those that think ED are too slow, don't focus on Hi Fi fast air multi roles, get distracted or have otherwise lost there way somehow) should strongly consider this: 1) Wags is right, they never promised a pre 2014 release they said they hoped to achieve it, they haven't quite made it (alright that's probably due to the many many reliability issues seen with this year's patches) but that's life. An estimate/goal/hope sometimes slides right with the best of intentions. 2) Over the last couple of months ED/Wags has provided us with lots of info on the progress of EDGE and are now providing sensible and mature situation reports. This is to be encouraged not lambasted for 'failure to deliver etc'. 3) It shows that ED have been working towards their goal. From Wags post it is fair to assume that work might be completed in Q1, maybe even early Q1. So courage folks, it's coming. ED/Wags have (at least in the last couple of months and regarding EDGE in particular), started to treat the community a little more like grownups - this is good and should be encouraged. So before anyone like me chooses to criticise ED for a perceived 'failure to deliver' please think twice - ED may not treat us with such respect if we flame them. So thanks ED/Wags, I am sure EDGE won't be long now even if it's not in time for the New Year -Sharpe PS: Yes I know this is a case of poacher turned game keeper. I accept the hypocrisy, and no - my account has not been hacked ;)

^ hope you guys are right. It's my dirty little quiet hope that ED are still working on their F/A18 with a view to a rapid delivery sometime in 14 (sooner the better) just as soon as EDGE comes out. In fact, if I am being honest I once kinda hoped they would release EDGE and announce the imminent release of F/A18 in the near future. -Ah to dream and hope ;) one way or the other I am a cantankerous impatient soul and just want some Hi Fi, modern, fixed wing and multi role ASAP. -When did life get so short? -Sharpe

:megalol:

While I certainly would not say 'OMG you bought a Thrust Master Warthog (TMWH) you must be crazy', I would urge you to (anyone) to reflect on the following before you buy: - Not only must you buy the TMWH (c. £350) but you must also buy peddles (another £50-150). - The TMWH is great and moulds perfectly to the A10c BUT when flying at advanced multi player levels you will need additional keystrokes (on your hotas) for team speak, TARS, re-centre/hold track IR etc etc. - There are (I believe) issues with using the mic switch on the stick as push to talk as it has other in game functions (there is a work around I think but involves moving the mic switch I think). - There is an issue with the TMWH and toe breaks on rudder peddles (again, fixable I think). - While the TMWH might be excellent for mapping and accurately simulating the A10c, if this is your main reason why you want it bear in mind the points above (again they rather ruin the ideal). - I have heard a lot of people say the stick is to rigid and tough on the wrist - which hurts especially for AAR, formation flying, if you have it for any of the helos and for other long duration but delicate work. - While it's great for the A10c bear in mind that the moment you fly any other aircraft in sim (there are already a small number of other aircraft and there will be more [hopefully, and some time soon]). The moment you use the TMWH with any other sim/module it just becomes a very very expensive generic hotas that needs to be programmed to suit the aircraft you are flying. - And trust me, if you think 'all I will ever fly is the A10' then you are wrong. We all said it and we all fly other aircraft (even the Russian helicopter we swore we would never get coz we hate helos and don't like Russian kit in general - ehem:music_whistling:. ......). - All that said it's a very good stick and I have never heard anyone say they regretted buying it. From personal experience I can highly recommend the Saitek X52 pro (the pro, mark you not the standard X52). I have used it for like 5/6 years it's never broken, is very easy to program how you want (a much under estimated and under valued feature). I always found writing my own profile was best as it suits my set up perfectly and it makes sense to me from the get go and I can tweak it as I need to. - and it only costs about £120 and doesn't need rudder peddles. Not only a great place to enter simming (even if it's only DCSW low fidelity) and it will be ready when you want a more advanced module (and plenty good at it too). IMHO the Saitek X52 pro is the first and last word in flight stick/hotas solutions atm. My own two cents, but if you are going to get into simming then I would recommend the X52 pro as a minimum entry level. -Sharpe PS: Yes I have used the TMWH and my opinion still stands. As an aside while everyone agrees it feels well made (especially compared to the TMWH I would add I've had one in 5/6 years. Many people I know that have had the TMWH over that kind of period have generally gone through 1 or 2 TMWH ' or at least had to send them back to be repaired serviced). More food for thought.