Ranma13

Don't you have to hold down the button until the tune light goes out?

Personally, I find the discussions around realism to be rather silly considering we're playing a "sim" where you can repair an aircraft in 4 minutes, refuel and reload in 1 minute, operate aircraft in theaters they never flew in, fight against AI that uses UFO physics and dive towards you as their only BVR tactic and do infinite vertical loops as their only WVR tactic and crash into terrain whenever they defend, play on MP servers where ground units never move, fire missiles that have highly unrealistic guidance and countermeasure resistance, take highly unrealistic loadouts, attack SAM sites where their radars are on all the time and have no sense of self preservation, attack ground units that have the morale of the Terminator and the accuracy of James Bond and the damage model of a 1970's arcade game, use A2G weapons that have highly unrealistic damage, use cockpit and avionics translations that never existed in real life, take off from airports where ATC might as well not exist, and fly in a game that has no built-in support for data cartridges or flight packages. But when it comes to whether the Igla should be added to the Ka-50, a very plausible addition if Russia had continued to use the Ka-50, it's 7 pages of discussing whether this is "realistic" or not. Just add the damn thing in. If you don't want to use it because it rubs against your sensibilities of what's realistic despite the other much bigger, much more glaring issues, then just don't use it or buy the upgrade and you get to keep your "realistic" Ka-50.

I'll echo what others have said, it works best for FBW aircraft, but not so much for others. Its main advantage is that it's extremely accurate, particularly around the center point, and you can adjust the sensitivity on the fly to make things like A2A refueling significantly easier. You also don't have to deal with any stiction or extensions, and the software has a lot of settings and is quite flexible. The downside is that it's force-based, not displacement-based, so in order to hold a particular position, you have to apply a physical force on the stick and hold that force. Because we can't hold our hands completely still and due to the accuracy of the stick, you will naturally "jitter" as you try to hold the stick in a certain position. This is fine on FBW aircraft that smooths out your inputs, but for WWII aircraft it will throw off your aim. Holding the stick for a long time also gets really tiring; using the default pitch force I found that I really didn't want to exceed 5 G's for too long due to how much force I had to put on the stick. Also be aware that although it has the TM Warthog mounting pattern, realistically you can only use the TM Warthog stick and RealSimulator's F16SGRH stick with it. The plastic shell on the Virpil sticks will noticeably start to separate when you start applying force on it, and will likely crack over time.

I've abandoned this project due to the high estimated cost, the release of ViperGear's V2 version, the release of RealSimWorld's ICP, the release of the Elgato Stream Deck XL (which has enough buttons to replace the ICP and can be reconfigured for other aircraft), and how little I use the ICP in practice. To answer the questions though: Yes, it's the T4-CN211N, which is the panel mount version. There's also the T4-CN111N, which is used on the real aircraft (and also what the RealSimWorld ICP needs) and is a press fit (a.k.a. friction fit or requires something that can clamp it in place). You're on your own. The Hispapanel ICP kit only gives you the buttons and ICP frame, but you need to find your own PCB and backplate (which is what the potentiometers mount to in the real ICP). The PCB that the Hispapanel kit was designed for is no longer available.

For the price it's no better than the TrackHat Clip kit (which is essentially the same product): https://www.trackhat.org/product-page/trackhat-clip-head-tracking-kit or the DelanClip Gamer: https://delanengineering.com/products/head-tracking-delanclip-gamer/ or any of the other no-name head tracking kits that you can pick up on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Puck-Wireless-Head-Tracking-OpenTrack-Freetrack-TrackIR-alternative-SEE-VIDEO/164019395648?hash=item2630515c40:g:OTkAAOSwVYNeEB6u Not saying that it's worse, but there's also no reason to pick it over the other products and vice versa.

My bad, you're right.

I have this CAD drawing of the cyclic that shows its dimensions: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxrqPThWQpGLd3hxX1RyWVM0dDA

Start closing the cockpit, but click the handle one more time to seal before it's completely closed. The seal sound still plays even though the cockpit is half open.

There are bindings in DCS BIOS for the switch covers for the F/A-18. If it's anything like the Ka-50, you can bind to the switch itself and flip it twice (first time will raise the cover, second time will activate the switch), or you can simply send one action after the other without needing a delay. There's nothing built into the DCS BIOS Arduino library that can do this, but ultimately the library is just a wrapper that sends serial messages, so you can detect when the button state has changed, then send the message to raise the cover, then immediately send the message to activate the switch.

I have a desktop mic, a headset mic, and a lapel mic. The main determining factor to how good you sound is how close the mic is to your mouth. A desktop mic will have a larger and better microphone than a headset or lapel mic, but it's also further away from your mouth and will pick up echoes and background noise more easily, whereas a headset mic that's right up to your mouth and set to an appropriate gain level will basically eliminate any background noise and echoes (in addition to whatever the software is doing). The quality of the microphone does make a difference, but only up to a certain point. For online comms, unless your microphone is bargain bin quality, as long as people can understand what you're saying, it's not going to matter how good or bad your mic is. Some external apps like SRS will even filter your voice so that it sounds like it's being broadcast over radio.

This has been reported and is already fixed: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=258336

AeriaGloria is right, it's not about balance, it's about DCS not modeling rotor blade doppler reflections. The unintentional side effect is that a helicopter flying slow and low is almost invisible to radar because only the body of the aircraft is taken into account.

It's a little bright, but if the sun is directly behind you and the mirrors are directly reflecting the sun, it looks like how it would in real life. That said, based off the shadows, it looks like the sun is not in that position.

Also, the 4 dials on the UFC do not have key or axes bindings as well. Would it be possible to add in both key and axes bindings for the 4 dials so that cockpit builders can bind them to joystick axes?

I've encountered this as well. The problem is that despite the UFC showing the updated coordinates, internally the plane is still using the coordinates that it had when you spawned in the aircraft. You have to manually enter the coordinates on the UFC for it to actually change the INS coordinates internally.

I lean back, then zoom in. I'm guessing you're trying to lean forward to get closer to it, but if you're seated it's pretty hard to duck down to get under the UFC.

Thanks for clarifying, kingpinda. I had a VKB MCG Pro with the curved extension and found that with a racing chair, I still couldn't get it close enough. The problem is that the racing chair doesn't have the center cut-out for the ejection handle, so I either had to raise the curved portion of the extension above the chair, which made the joystick too high, or I had to position it further away from me so that I can pull the stick all the way back without touching my chair. It looks like the Virpil extension copies the shape of the VKB one, so it's something to be aware of. This eBay auction has a gooseneck style that I think would work great: https://www.ebay.com/itm/ALUMINIUM-EXTENSIONS-FOR-THRUSTMASTER-WARTHOG-COUGAR-H-O-T-A-S-JOYSTICKS/292123030904?hash=item4403e3b578:m:mKF38ZRTj44L6rogvJVfpQg but it's quite expensive for what it does and I haven't decided if I want to pick one up yet.

Don't tell NineLine, he'll tell you that it's your fault as a pilot: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4118604&postcount=16

This was reported as fixed previously: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257187 but is still an issue. The brightness knob still acts as an on/off switch rather than dimming the lights, and the day/night toggle will dim some of the annunciator lights, but not all of them.

It's unclear what you're asking. A hall sensor senses differences in magnetic fields in order to determine angular position. How many magnets used is dependent on the hall sensor; some only need 1, some need 4. There is no "best" just as there's no best number of tires for a vehicle; you could be riding a unicycle, bicycle, or car, all which need a different number of tires.

There's a fictional PLAAF livery. China uses metric. If you feel that we shouldn't have metric because the real JF-17 doesn't, then by equal logic we should demand that Deka remove the fictional PLAAF livery because it doesn't exist, and even if it did, it wouldn't be using Imperial. But if you're ok with having that livery, you'll also have to justify why you don't think it's ok to also have a metric option to use with that livery. Also, I already went over this: I don't care that the JF-17 in real life uses imperial units. The real JF-17 also does not use some random girl's voice or Chinese for its Bitchin' Betty, it doesn't have a PLAAF livery, and the JF-17 we have in-game now doesn't exist in real life (it's a Block 1 with some Block 2 features). But if you're ok with all of that and yet can't get over the idea of having the option of selecting metric, you really have to ask yourself what realism you're referring to, because you can't just selectively apply it to things you care about while giving a pass to the things you don't. If you're going to argue for absolute realism as a reason for not adding metric, then I also expect you to argue just as adamantly for Deka to remove the other things as well since they're equally unrealistic. And let's not use "laziness" as justification because it's subjective and makes you sound like an old grandpa who walked uphills both ways in snow. I don't want to multiply the airspeed by 1.8 and the altitude by 3 every time I look at the HUD when I'm trying to keep tally on a bandit while watching my AoA, checking that my weapons are ready, and manipulating my radar all at the same time. I don't want to do this conversion every time I want to share some simple information with my REDFOR buddies when they're using km, my map is using km, the AWACS is using km, but only my aircraft isn't. Yeah, anyone can get good at anything if they do it often enough, but do you memorize the relationship between altitude and speed and mentally calculate mach numbers on the fly, or do you just look at your HUD and read it off directly? I could give a dozen more examples of "just do it in your head, it's not that hard", but let's be honest here, just because we can, doesn't mean we want to. In any case, I think I've said all that I've needed to say so I'll vacate this thread and let you guys duke it out. If after these many words you're still not convinced one way or the other, then there's nothing additional that can be said to sway you. I will leave you with this though: as you've said, adding in a unit conversion option would affect you in absolutely zero ways because you would never use it, yet you're still against adding it in the first place due to "realism" reasons. If the end result makes absolutely no difference to you, and you still get to keep your realistic avionics while listening to an unrealistic Bitchin' Betty sitting in an unrealistic JF-17 configuration with a fictional livery, then why do you feel such a strong burning urge to dictate how others should play, if it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever?

I don't really like doing quote wars because it pretends that someone's argument can be broken down into individual sentences that each can be rebuffed, but since you covered a lot of stuff, I'll do it here to clarify which statements I'm responding to. Changing the unit of measure on an analog cockpit would require a bit of work. Changing the unit of measure on a glass cockpit is literally just multiplying the number by a certain value, then displaying that, so it is indeed trivial. Your example of not being able to follow a guide or manual falls too deeply into the realm of what-if-isms (crafting hypothetical what-if scenarios that are extremely unlikely). Anyone who deliberately changes their units is also going to be cognizant that they'll have to adapt to whatever guide they're reading, and this is a problem that already exists as-is; the quick start guide lists all distances in km while the aircraft uses nautical miles. On top of that, the A-10C allows the option to convert from Imperial to metric and despite it being out for 8 years now, I've never seen anyone complain that they were confused by it. Likewise, your point about communication falls under the same fallacy. We already have this issue even without the JF-17; servers usually give distances in nautical miles, which is unhelpful for Russian aircraft, and you can only pick nautical miles or kilometers for the F10 map regardless of which aircraft you're flying. If someone gives a distance/speed in meters, everyone using Imperial has to do the conversion anyway, and vice versa. And with a wingman, I would think that having voice chat and saying a brief 5-second sentence ("Hey, I'm using metric, you want me to switch to Imperial?") would clear it right up. I would say that not having metric as an option presents an even bigger problem with strict BLUFOR vs REDFOR scenarios, as the JF-17 would be the only aircraft on the red side that doesn't display distances in metric. In short, the situations you brought up are not realistic, and would only be issues if people were unthinking robots incapable of independent thought. It would be the exact same issue. If I'm using a Russian cockpit but the guide I'm using is text-only and says to flip some switch in English, I won't be able to find the switch. If my wingman tells me to press an English button but I'm using a Chinese cockpit, I likewise won't know what he's talking about. If the manual says to look for a certain Cyrillic character on the HUD but I'm using an English cockpit mod, I won't know which character to look for. This really highlights what I'm trying to get at. Allowing us to toggle the unit of measure is something that doesn't have an impact on others. You're trying to say that it would make reference materials harder to understand and online communications harder, but they're either non-issues or are problems that already exist without the JF-17. Yes, but there's an opportunity here to change that. BLUFOR aircraft all use Imperial so nobody is really asking for unit conversions, but the JF-17 is widely viewed as a REDFOR aircraft and it would be great if it used metric to match. On top of that, the glass cockpit means that no new textures or modeling needs to be done, and internally DCS uses metric, so all Deka has to do is not multiply by a conversion factor, then add in a toggle for it.

If you're going to quote me, at least quote me in the entirety instead of trying to belittle me by quoting one sentence. I wrote two posts and multiple paragraphs explaining why I put "realistic" and "realism" in quotes, but I guess reading comprehension is a chronic issue in your country. It's not just feet to meters, it's also nautical miles to km and knots to km/h (1.852 conversion). When I'm trying to keep eyes on a bandit in a dogfight while keeping a certain AoA and watching my speed and altitude, the last thing I want to be doing is mentally multiplying my speed by 1.8 and my altitude by 3 every time I look at the HUD. If you're going to continue on with "but it's not realistic!", then I also expect you to demand that Deka remove the unrealistic Bitchin' Betty, the fictional PLAAF skin (which by the way would use metric because that's what China uses), and the Block 2 features so that we don't have the hybrid "Block 1.5" aircraft that we have now, and also show me proof that you've never used a cockpit translation and have always kept the avionics language on native. I'll repeat it again since some people didn't seem to understand the first time around: doing a unit conversion on a glass cockpit is just about the most innocuous and plausible change that can be done and affects literally nobody except those that are interested in it, yet we have multiple people here whose jimmies are rustled because it's "not realistic" while ignoring the huge stampeding herd of elephants in the room. We're not asking to replace the cockpit with metric only, we're asking for the option to switch to one. If you don't like that, then don't use it. We all make concessions on realism for gameplay purposes and some of us are willing to make this concession to see numbers in a format that we're more used to. But getting triggered because you don't want a toggle added into the game that affects you in exactly zero ways if you don't use it, is just being an elitist gatekeeper.

It's a glass cockpit, there's nothing unrealistic or implausible about giving it a fictional firmware update that multiplies all the speeds and distances by 1.852. Arguing that only the hardware matters is silly; by that logic, it's also ok to have in-air rearming, instant in-air repairs, fly on a foreign planet, and shoot down UFOs because none of those "touch the realism of the hardware itself". This is what I mean by a selective definition of "realism". People are ok with cockpit translations, fictitious liveries, Bitchin' Betty voiceovers by someone's kid at Deka, unrealistic loadouts, taking off with no ATC clearance, highly unrealistic AMRAAM behavior, arcade-level ground damage, the omniscient F10 map, missiles that track through obstacles, unrealistic FLIR imagery, no proximity fuzes, resolution-dependent spotting abilities, and a host of other highly unrealistic things that have a major impact on gameplay. But when it comes to converting one measurement unit to another, something that has absolutely no effect on "the hardware" aside from displaying the same thing in a different format, suddenly it's "but muh realism!". It's nothing but bikeshedding, going around in circles for 10 pages talking about whether it's realistic or not to literally do a multiplication operation on a computer, when much more serious realism issues out there are given a free pass. In the end, all I want is the ability to toggle between nautical miles and km, even if the aircraft does not have this feature in real life. Just as people use labels, enable infinite weapons, turn on invincibility, and use cockpit translations, none of which are realistic, I want to be able to switch to km. If you don't like it because it interferes with your personal definition of "realism", then keep it on Imperial and you'll get that "as realistic as possible" cockpit that you want. But trying to block us from having the option to switch it to km is really just gatekeeping. We all make concessions on which parts of the game we're willing to compromise for the sake of gameplay and which parts we demand 100% realism from, I just happen to make one more concession than you.

I care about realism where it matters. I don't care about "realism" when it's used as a blanket excuse to not implement something that doesn't affect gameplay, could plausibly be done in real life, and is only converting from one unit to another. It's like saying all cockpit translations should not exist if the real-life aircraft didn't have one in that language. Hence why I put "realistic" and "realism" in quotes, because people don't want what's most realistic bar none, they just want certain things to be realistic while giving a pass for other things. If someone's ok with the 1-minute reloads, 4-minute repair times, and operating aircraft in areas that they've never flown in before, then why is it not ok to want a simple unit conversion that plausibly could be done to a fictional export aircraft?