Fri13

Because the idea that someone could be performing it easier should be hated? Because it allows some people to feel elite by categorizing people who can't do it to some lower category and it shouldn't be changed? Because if X would be developed, then Y can't happen as X took the time and effort?

So, what are more important feature coding and bug fixing for the ED employees? Why should he make a mod of it as a community project?

But isn't it great that at old age people could continue with their abilities to do something they enjoy? To find a new hobbies and experiences? Example some countries has a law that you can't anymore fly in military when you are 45 years old, so they just need to forget that experience while still serve in the air force. But some has found a loophole how they have managed to stay in service and have permission to fly, but that is possible because they have friends in high places and their experience is valuable so they can extend it to age of 55. After that they can be walled again from flying, and there might be a another loophole by promotion or special duty assigments etc. But eventually age will have its price, and no matter of your physical condition etc you might be just forced to forget ever flying military aircraft. So how great it is that at this time we can have VR and DCS World to give some of that experience back? For many it is a hard part in their life when they need to give up a driving as it is a way to be free to go somewhere else at their own time and will. Some people enjoy that they don't need to worry about it as they can always just call a taxi etc. We live in a great times (compared to history as 20-30 years back).

So are you questioning that why does people take into account other people differences, and help them to be able do normal things? Or are you moving the goalposts with: "Morale demands" "everyone has to be enabled to do everything" "Declaration of human rights" "All people have to be able" "prolonged virtual combat flights involving aerial refuels" "The reason why real pilots ever fly as much as 2 different planes throughout their carrier tells a thing or two about learning curves, flying every plane makes you jack of all trades but master of none." If you are unfamiliar with the fallacy, it goes this way: So he made a simple fallacy: "No real pilots fly ever fly more than 2 planes through their career...." And what was your reply? Yes.... Strong argument there about the topic:

La pubblicazione di collegamenti Facebook Razbam richiede un account Facebook, impossibile fare clic su "Non ora" nei collegamenti. Mozilla Firefox Microsoft Edge Google Chrome

So.... Test pilots and many other pilots are not a real pilots who have experience with tens, if not hundreds of aircraft, with mastery to tens of aircraft, while just experience with most for comparisons etc, accumulating together thousands (10000-20000) flight hours? Should someone who meets a pilot who has career as such to tell them that they are not a real pilots but just "jack of all trades"? If the learning curve is so huge, why it would take just a few months from a non-pilot to be able manage air refueling, carrier landings etc? Like how many hours should a virtual pilot put to learn those relative to real pilots?

Totally agree. Unlimited fuel does not consume fuel. It means that player can have: - a full afterburner as long as wanted. = Unrealistic + doesn't teach to control the fuel consumption - a steady weight because constant fuel amount = Unrealistic + doesn't teach different flight characteristics - no requirement to even consider location on map as no need to reach tanker = Unrealistic + doesn't teach the situational awareness in mission planning - no requirement to connect to tanker = no requirement to even consider whole tanker + no requirement for the air refueling procedure. Unlimited fuel is not compensation for the easy air refueling that would: - Require player to mind fuel consumption = know how to control the throttle for speed, time and range. - Require player to know how a amount of fuel changes flight characteristics = PIlot doesn't go dog fighting with full fuel and bags. - Require player to be aware of the mission objectives and utilities = Need to know how to find the tanker and when to get there. - Require to connect to tanker = When successful then mission continues, if failed (and failure is possibility) then proceed to airbase for conventional refueling. Only thing compared to non-assisted air refueling is that it is just assisted refueling, helping player to make a connection and fly in formation with the tanker. Everything else in the mission is as usual. If we would make the simplest possible assisting element, it would be that player needs to fly inside a invisible box/area that is behind the tanker and as long the player stays there the aircraft is refueled at constant rate. But it would be just like flying inside a 50 x 50 x 50 meter box and get fuel, and it feels more cheating than a nice assisting feature that helps player to make a connection and at least try to make a connection.

I have a non-centering extended joystick, that is really problematic to be set on center without very careful visual indicators. The real aircraft controls are in all simulators impossible be modeled unless your physical controls are exactly like the real deal, why we have various axis controls and so on to get closer to them. In a simulator we still should be able to enable the autopilot modes (altitude hold etc) like in real one, without trying to emulate the real control device, like the above problem. If you have any input from the joystick it will disable the autopilot. What I wish is that we could simply easily enable the autopilot and it would do its task regardless the small gaming device inputs, like give a +/- 5-10% range from the joystick/throttle axis position it is when the autopilot is enabled. So example if the joystick center is 50/50% in Y and X axis, then autopilot is enabled when the joystick is at 42/53% position and autopilot would work and ignore the joystick inputs in 37-47/48-58% position. If the input would go past that then it would be reacted to but smoothly (so not jumping to it but changing from the autopilot control position to the joystick position in 1-2 second period so player can compensate for it). This would as well fix problems with a gaming devices that has ghosting input like 1-2% random jumps, as the system would not disable autopilot for those.

Let's see few games like: - Project Cars - Asseto Corsa - Dirt Rally - Grand Turismo You are entitled to have what opinions ever you have.... But you should always be able to explain them to others that how you have such opinions, as you need to be able to clarify them to yourself as well. Like why is this kind idea so terrible, that ED is already supporting? Like, have a "GAME MODE" and then have a "SIMULATOR MODE" and "CUSTOM MODE" where player itself can select all kind functions between two ends of the learning curve. Is that so terrible and bad thing?

This was discussed maybe year or two ago as well, many are against the idea of "easy mode" for something that is requiring skill to do, so either it is just a principle that DCS World should not offer any assistance features for the pilots for any reason, example: - Physical conditions like hand shaking or ADHS for staying stationary for so long periods or what ever) - Technical conditions like non-extended joystick, joystick input ghosting - Skill level (not yet capable to perform such close-formation flying but wants to be able do the air refueling) Or it can even be just a attitude of "git good boy!" to tell others first to learn something - what is the challenge. Anyways, a feature that would assist players for performing air refueling more easier manner is not away from any other player. Just like we do have "EASY RADAR" or "EASY FLIGHT MODELING" or "CENTER TRIMMER" etc. They are totally optional. If someone doesn't like those, then do not enable them. I suggested in the older thread this: That RED FUNNEL is the automatic guidance zone. It would have a few parameters to it in special settings. Funnel distance from the basket or boom (ie. 50-700 meters) Funnel width from its center line (directly behind the position of the basket/boom where connection is required to be done) Funnel automatic "magnet" strength. The third option is the key feature really, as the idea is that red funnel zone is like a magnet, a "tractor beam" that will "grab" the aircraft and start to pull it to center of the line and toward the basket/boom. Closer you get then more controlled it becomes, but it has only specific aircraft speed/angle authority. So example if the tanker is flying 350 knots, then it can be example that it can only work on aircraft that flies +/- 5-50 knots from it. It can as well example only work for aircraft that has +/- 2-15 degree per second turn rate (from the axis). So various settings would allow to make it very subtle assistance, or very strong one. So depending the settings, player needs to still learn to perform approach, handle the throttle and the stick. The funnel would be "per aircraft" option, where a aircraft that has requested the position will get it, while others don't. At any given moment the player could just slam throttle up/down or brake away and player has full control of aircraft. Such a feature would allow any new player to begin learning to perform the missions with air refueling option in mind, so they can learn to manage fuel, flying and times. They as well can learn easily the process of approaching the tanker as well aligning with it, the refueling procedure and then detaching. Feature would be server-client side, so server can enforce it Off for everyone, and then client can enable/disable it from their side if server allows it. So those who doesn't need it, can just keep it off and they will never be assisted by any means if not wanted, while those who needs it, can have it when server allows it. If nicely implemented, it could be even a tanker specific so mission designer can enable it for a specific tanker while others are without it. That way everyone has what they want. Everyone can learn or practice their skills in a manner they need it.

The Harrier TAC NATOPS has the answer for that. You should have a two separate zones for various ordinance loadouts types (fuel tank and large bombs like GBU-16 etc, and then for some other smaller ones). The NATOPS is about Litening II 1st gen (1996), and we have now 4th gen (2009, the 5th gen is from 2015) in our harrier. The NATOPS talks about capability to have a visible masking line for the targeting pod so that you should be able avoid the masking by keeping the "crescent" away the outer side of it. And there are other features as well example automatic laser shut off if laser is firing 5 degree from the masking line. There are graphics for the TPOD masking degrees horizontally (left and right) and vertically (forward and aft) that where they happen. I have not read that the TPOD has it for the center station, but it talks only about station 5 position (center right wing) IIRC. But I think I am wrong about that (please correct) and belly station is mentioned. But if you have a belly station mount, then you should basically have a about 120-140 degree downward angle (+/- 60-70) to anywhere except 40° from the aft axis as the TPOD body blocks the view. If you have it as wing mounted, you got much smaller depending do you have a fuel tank or equivalent or not. But basically you should be able fly circles easily on the target at 10 nmi range as long you don't let target get 135-225° cone area behind you or you roll too much like 30° or something.

Interesting points. I had feeling that something is off in the map but couldn't at all notice that it doesn't make sense those airfields builds! And I thought that the map is somewhat based to be usable as in WW2 as modern time, what would have explained the reported buildings etc as compromise? I would love to see DCS to receive some camouflage nets for covering aircraft, vehicle or other various positions. It could be nice to have those aircraft parked in forest under such net, or other vehicles, as well have vehicles with covered such ones.

You find good explanation by general benefits of the Vulkan just with youtube search and checking AMD videos. What it does for DCS is unknown, and everyone is waiting either miracle or then just accepting that there can come some improvements and hold to see it...

The F-16 doesn't have either any connection to the rockets. Some of the rocket pods has two imbicial cable connectors, the round crew can choose to use either rear or front ones, and at the front there is second where front one is for the rocket warheads programming like proximity and delayed fuzes etc. But that is about the warhead programming. So you have FCS with information that what warheads you have on rockets, IIRC it is mainly for the helicopters where you have more options for warheads like fletchette where you have multiple rockets in one pod, and you can select are you using inner, inner circle or outer circle grouping. What the rocket pods are named is question of the system how wanted. Like is it a AGR-20A or 68S/68R for just generic pod name. So what comes to Harrier capability to have rockets individually set, it likely is that names are just those by pod instead warheads types. But how many different types does the USMC use for Harrier?

There is no connection between rocket and the pod to tell anything between rocket and the aircraft. As well there is nothing in the pod to be programmed for the rocket that what type there is. The pods has only a one switch to be set by a ground crew that is pod a Single or Ripple fire (hence S or R set for the system), and a safety pin to arm the pod by completing the electronic firing circuit from the pod solenoid to each rocket (why last thing the ground crew does before taxiing is to remove the safety pin, and first thing to do after parking is to insert the safety pin to those rocket pods). Regardless the cockpit Master Arm switch position, there can generate a electronic current elsewhere in the aircraft that can be transmitted to the rocket and get ignited, why the safety pin is critical as it physically separates rocket launch pins from the rest of the pods (and aircraft). The system is programmed by the ground crew to have a proper pod and its mod (example is it a 7 rocket or 19 rocket pod, is it set to single or ripple fire). As the system does not know anything about what is in the station itself. Each time the pilot pulls a trigger, the weapons system sends a signal to the correct pylon(s), the pylon itself receive the electronic signal and converts it to corresponding trigger signal by the count is it single or is it ripple by the switch position (the solenoid in pod sends corresponding amount of signals) and to corresponding tubes (counts correctly in pod tube count) why loading each pod in correct order is critical (like if you load only 2 rockets, then you need to set rockets to correct tubes), as well why if there is a misfire the pod doesn't know it and will just jump to next tube to be fired on next signal. The pod itself doesn't tell anything back is it empty or is there rockets left or how many etc. The aircraft system needs to itself know how many signals it is going to send to rocket pylon before it marks it "empty" and counts down from programmed number. The system should allow programming each station separately by ground crew so pilot knows what is where and then have all set as different types.

Again something that I didn't see here and only at their facebook page (really, all these should be pinned for the proper time in the module forum itself and clean all already old and irrelevant threads from it). So if someone can put the correct link here if this doesn't work: https://www.facebook.com/balticdragonDCS/posts/1381725045560571 Baltic Dragon March 13 at 2:57 AM Hey guys, I am about to start re-building all the stock quick action missions for the Harrier on different maps and I thought I'd ask you what is it that you'd like to see added there? Granted, these won't be long sorties with custom VOs, but easy tasks allowing you to easily practice something or just have some fun. All ideas / suggestions are welcome!

Yes it is standalone unit. So DCS World sees it just as another new device.

Yes, that aircraft is still in operational in 2021 as is. Nothing has changed in it. It is very clear that ED just wants to stick to the very specific date (like 27th of May 2005) and they do not want to any missions to be flown out of that date, nor that Hornet would be facing any other aircraft that is not modeled circa that date. It is very clear that ED has a dilemma, either they should model the aircraft accurately in the technical specifications they have chosen, or they can go for a fantasy model that only flies in the specific year they just finds it to be fitting. When ED started to develop their Hornet, they didn't know that their modeled Hornet is receiving in the future the APKWS rockets. So all they can do is just try to have double standards to avoid making Hornet a realistically capable as it is by claiming "but it didn't fly in the future but in 2005 only as is". Adding APKWS II to Hornet would undermine A-10C, and they don't want that. Razbam at least was smart in this case that they added APKWS II rockets to AV-8B N/A because technically it is capable to do so, and does so. Just like any aircraft that can launch any 2.75" rockets. If the APKWS II would be requiring additional changes and would have only been implemented to example F/A-18E, then it would be technically impossible use them in C. Either a technical capabilities matter, or then double standards are used. It is very clear later is chosen for the Hornet. End of discussion.

The APKWS rockets do not have a information to target range, why they can not loft. They are dummy rockets with a guidance module that operate in manner where it points itself on target. It doesn't glide or guide itself any other means. Guidance module just turns so laser spot is at the center of the seekers FOV. At longer ranges the rockets energy is depleted and it will lose an altitude, the guidance section just try to keep rocket pointing at the laser spot so eventually loss of energy means low speed, and it means no more lift toward target and rocket drops on ground.

I believe that ED has solved problems to make Apache. A dual cockpit, a A-G radar and many others that was not challenge to Black Shark.

Sorry but didn't know that base was cancelled from entertainment sector after the was showing it with a thrustmaster threads. So it was compatible with everything you for for warthog, and so on Virpil too. The inventor clearly went to far more profitable industry sector where feedback is more important and you can make big money there. But, I don't know either is it true, but I read somewhere that you can use normal garden hose adapters with the warthog threads to make extensions to it. As anyways you can find the the proper threads to it as it can't be so special. Meaning, you can certainly modify any base to attach those warthog grips then, as you can always have base and grip buttons work separately. So there is hope to find a Force Feedback base and make grips go through arduino or something.

There is a such base, but it is expensive, $1000 IIRC.

That is cheap, costs only 250€... You get not just four engines throttles, you get trim wheel and two additional levers for something else, bunch of two-mode switches and couple potentiometers and of course gears up levers etc. That would find more use as well in some WW2 aircraft as well ones like Yak-52.

I agree. From a 100 features we have 60 and 30 of those are broken. And we should be happy when they add 5 new features that 3 are broken to begin with? We still do not have properly working INS or DMT. Our targeting pod is broken, and so is even our TDC control broken that is required to use all those! "But hey, look at this hand - see this fancy stuff in my hand? Do you see it? Puff... It's gone! Magic!" (and no one noticed the elephant in a room).

Roll back 20 years in time, and HOTAS was not even a word among simulator players The VR really makes some shooting games far more interesting. But as anyone can guess, one can sit down for hours and play a shooter game, but one can only have so much strength to kneel, raise and turn around constantly until it becomes a exercise instead fun. People are lazy, the fun needs to be comfortable etc. The greatest innovations are made by lazy people. Otherwise we would still be carrying everything as no one would had required to invent a wheel to ease his workload. Why to run, jump, crouch etc, when you can do all that just with flick of the fingers on gamepad - while laying on the couch? This is why the flight simulations and driving simulations are the key for VR success, as naturally you are sitting in a chair, you have physical controls in your hand where to rest your arms. You just need to look around etc. And there is no G forces and nothing like that to suffer from. Ultimate piloting...