Bulldog_1

Bump

@Smashy I'll take a look at it. Thanks!

I agree with you; however, how many virtual button presses happen when you tap the trim button once? Thus, causing the porpoise effect or hunting, while trying to fly straight and level. IRL, I'll use the F-4, F-15, and T-38 as examples, when you tap the trim button on the control stick the flight controls stop moving as soon as you stop pressing the button. It would appear that in DCS one physical press of the trim button equals three virtual presses of the DCS trim button. Not unlike the scroll button on your mouse that is normally configured to move three clicks for each actual click and you can adjust for less.

I'm hoping for an in-game solution and not having to install and configure additional software. Thank you for your input.

Actually, I was referring to the action that is bound to a HOTAS. I've never tried the keyboard bindings. I've owned several HOTAS's, and the result is the same for all of them.

(This is an AI rewrite of our request). Introduction Currently, trim input in DCS—especially for pitch—is far too coarse for many aircraft. A single press can result in overly aggressive control surface movement, making it difficult to fine-tune level flight without excessive “hunting” through micro-adjustments. This behavior is frustrating and detracts from the overall realism and control fidelity. Why This Matters Enhances precision and aircraft handling for all modules, especially those lacking fly-by-wire or autopilot systems. Makes DCS more accessible to pilots with diverse control setups, including less sensitive HOTAS gear. Eliminates the need for workaround methods like .lua tweaks, which are reset by updates and require technical know-how. Aligns DCS more closely with professional-grade simulator standards. Proposed Solution Add an adjustable trim speed multiplier or step interval slider to the Controls > Miscellaneous tab or the Special tab for each module, allowing users to: Slow down the rate at which trim commands adjust control surfaces. Choose from preset trim rates or define custom values via a simple UI. Apply changes globally or per aircraft. Current Workarounds (and their drawbacks) Manual .lua Edits: Require technical knowledge, are not persistent through updates, and may break integrity checks. External Software Macros: Depend on specific hardware or software (e.g. TARGET, Virpil), adding complexity and limiting accessibility. Closing Statement Please consider implementing native trim speed adjustment in the Controls settings. It would significantly enhance the flight control experience and bring much-needed flexibility to pilots across all aircraft modules.

How do you check the devices for noise?

Patiently waiting for its release.

Is there a way to enforce an affinity setting through an autoexec.cfg?

Good point!

mkellytex was looking at the horizontal stabilators, not the tails. I used to find cracks at the base of the vertical tails due to tail flutter, and I'm sure they still do today.

Yes, I did.

I agree!

Interesting! Thank you for the input.

The information I have is for a post MSIP APG-63(v1) and I will correct the original statement to say "The AN/APG-63 (v1) radar, used in F-15C/D aircraft, has a detection range that varies depending on the target's radar cross-section (RCS) and other factors. For example, it can detect a target with a 5 square meter RCS at approximately 54 nautical miles in high pulse repetition frequency (HPRF) mode".

Below is an overview assembled from unclassified, open‐source literature and historical discussions. Please note: The discussion below is for informational and educational purposes only. The actual parameters and procedures used by military forces are classified and vary with mission requirements, threat environments, and evolving doctrine. The following is a generalized outline rather than a “how‐to” manual for operational use. 1. Formation Geometry and Aircraft Spacing Formation Concept: The “Wall of Eagles” envisions a long, horizontal line of F‑15Cs to maximize radar coverage and create overlapping fields of detection. This setup is designed to strike a balance between broad surveillance and mutual defensive support. Spacing Considerations: General Range: Open descriptions in unclassified sources sometimes mention spacing in the order of approximately 1–3 nautical miles between aircraft. Operational Factors: Radar Overlap: Aircraft must be separated enough to avoid mutual radar interference yet close enough for cooperative target tracking and rapid visual identification. Tactical Flexibility: In high-threat environments, spacing might be tightened or loosened based on the need for rapid reaction or to reduce the possibility of a single threat affecting multiple assets. Notes: Actual spacing would depend on factors like aircraft performance, mission specifics, situational dynamics, and command directives. The numbers above are indicative rather than prescriptive. 2. Radar Modes and Ranges F-15 Radar Capabilities: Modern F-15C models use advanced radars (such as variants of the APG-63/70 family) that offer multiple modes including: Track-While-Scan (TWS) Mode: Allows the radar to maintain tracks on multiple targets while simultaneously scanning for new ones. In formation operations, this mode supports an overarching common operating picture by providing continuous target updates. High-Resolution Modes: For detailed target analysis when a contact is identified, the radar can switch to modes that emphasize higher resolution but may narrow the scanning field. Range Details: Detection Range: The AN/APG-63 (v1) radar, used in F-15C/D aircraft, has a detection range that varies depending on the target's radar cross-section (RCS) and other factors. For example, it can detect a target with a 5 square meter RCS at approximately 54 nautical miles in high pulse repetition frequency (HPRF) mode. Operational Use: In a formation, the emphasis is generally on rapid update rates and track continuity rather than maximizing raw range. This means radar settings are optimized for frequency and stability rather than just maximum distance. 3. Communications Protocols and Data Link Integration Secure Communications: Frequency-Hopping Radios: Air-to-air communications in a formation like this use secure, frequency-hopping radios to reduce the risk of enemy interception. Encryption: Voice and data communications are encrypted to ensure operational security. Data Link Usage: Link 16 (and Similar Tactical Data Links): These are standardized systems that allow fighters to exchange real-time positional data, target tracks, and tactical commands. Common Operating Picture: The data link supports a digital “common picture” across the formation, meaning that each pilot (as well as supporting command assets like AWACS) receives a synthesized view of the battlespace. Rapid Updates: Continuous data sharing allows for immediate adjustments in the formation if one aircraft detects a threat or if a target is designated by a command center. 4. Contingency Procedures and Tactical Flexibility Dynamic Reconfiguration: Breaking Formation: If an individual aircraft is engaged or needs to acquire a target independently, prearranged procedures allow it to break off and later re-integrate into the formation. Sub-Formations: In some scenarios, the wall may split into smaller configurations (e.g., two or more “cells”) to handle multi-directional threats or to conduct search-and-engage operations. Support Integration: AWACS Coordination: While the F-15s provide a front-line “wall,” airborne early warning and control systems (AWACS) supplement their coverage with extended radar tracking and strategic coordination. Environmental Adaptation: External factors—like weather, terrain, or enemy electronic countermeasures—are constantly monitored. Adjustments in spacing, speed, and radar settings are made in real time based on these inputs. Summary and Caveats Public Information vs. Classified Doctrine: The details above are drawn from public sources and serve to illustrate the principles behind coordinated fighter formations. They are not exhaustive instructions, nor are they verified as current operational procedures. Operational Security: Specific parameters (exact spacing, radar configurations, encryption details, etc.) are tailored to mission specifics and are not published in open literature for reasons of security and tactical advantage. Training and Simulation: Much of what is known comes from pilot training simulations and historical accounts. Simulators like those found in professional training environments and advanced flight simulators (e.g., commercial aviation simulation software) attempt to replicate these dynamics without divulging sensitive operational methods. In Practice: In regard to communication and data link, will we be able to implement this tactic with AI wingman and real wingman? Will the communication menu be modified to support a "Wall of Eagles" formation? Note: No eagles were harmed in the research of this article.

Which current DCS aircraft radar system closely emulates the planned APG-63(v1) operation and capabilities?

Time to close this thread. It has become economics/political and recent posts have nothing to do about the F-15C Radar.

I once asked an old F-4E Fighter Pilot how do you dogfight at night. He said "You don't" circa 1982. I suppose that with NVG's it might be a different ball game.

Good to go Thanks for your help.

Darn. It didn't work. I'll just have to be a better fighter pilot and not let anybody get behind me.

I will try that. Thanks!

I did try both mod's, the first one worked well but it disabled the mirrors. I wasn't very satisfied with the second one. Thanks for the suggestions.

Regardless, I and others would like to have it brightened so that we can see it.

I don't believe that I mentioned flying into the sun. I was referring to the dimness of the HUD in normal daylight conditions no matter what direction you are flying. Also, the position of the HUD brightness switch as noted in the attached screen shot. Thanks for your input.