Jetguy06

That document was perfect!! Exactly what I was looking for!! So, the seatback is 90 degrees from the seat pan, and the entire seat is tilted 30 degrees back. That makes sense now. Much appreciated!!

Thanks, mvsgas. That's the ACES II, but doesn't look like it's from inside an F-16. @Stang I understand it's tilted back 30 degrees, but is the whole seat tilted back, or just the seat back? If the whole seat is tilted back, what is the angle from the seat back to the cushion? There has to be a source of the data, because I've seen numerous sim pits built with a replica or scratch-built ACES II reclined as per the real one in the Viper.

Thanks. I found that picture a while back. It's one of the best. The only problem is that it only shows the ejection rails, and not the seat itself in the pit.

Hey guys, I'm curious what the angles are for the F-16's ACES II in-cockpit. I know the F-16 has a seat back tilt of 30 degrees, but 30 degrees from what? I've attached an image of an ACES II tilted as is in-cockpit, and added some angles I'd like to know the measurements of (please excuse my horrible Paint skills). The black 90 degree angle is meant to be measured from the aircraft's centerline to vertical. I'm looking for the angle measurements of the red-to-vertical angle (angle x), the green-to-vertical angle (angle y), and the blue angle (angle z). I've searched the net for info on this, but haven't been able to find the specifics I'm looking for. Can anyone help? Thanks!!

They're supposed to be that loud. The clicking with the blinking lights is the audio cue to add to the visual flashing cue that something is wrong. Think of the flashing light/clicking combination as the Mi-8 version of a Master Caution. You're flying along, you hear the clicking, you start looking for flashing lights in the cockpit. You find them, see what they say, and address the problem. It's the same as getting a beeping with an amber (or red) Master Caution light in a Mirage or A-10 or F-18, etc.

I can't speak for the other items, but ED has said many times that a later cockpit suite won't be a thing. I believe the biggest reason is that it would breach their contract with the USAF. I'd also like to add an item to that list; will the bugged HUD in VR be fixed in the overhaul? That's the main reason why I haven't flown the A-10 since I got the Rift. I can't see the top half of the HUD unless I'm scrunched down in my seat. And that's a pain (literally) when flying for long periods and/or conducting attacks.

I'm really hoping for some variant of the MiG-17 someday. The MiG-15 is great, but the Fresco is different enough to warrant a new module. It would also complete the Vietnam trifecta of MiGs... The MiG-21, -19 and -17. But we're here to talk about the Flogger. It'll be a while, but I'm looking forward to it as well. I'd say, don't expect it before 2020 at the very very soonest, though.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the TGP is loaded on 10 mainly because of the ECM pod on 1. You don't want all the bad stuff the ALQ is putting out to interfere with the electronics in the TGP, so you get the TGP as far away as possible from it (as far on the other wing as possible). If you're not carrying an ECM pod, then it probably doesn't matter so much, but I would guess that the biggest reason for always loading it on 10 would be consistency. Any pilot would know that 9/10 times he/she steps to the jet, the pod is going to be on 10, unless the crew chief says otherwise, or there is a problem. Being consistent in things like this can prevent confusion as well as saving time when seconds matter (friendlies are taking fire on the ground). One lapse in confusion, or an orbit in the wrong direction because you couldn't remember which wing it was on, and friendlies could be killed. That's the best reason I can think of. Consistency.

I bought mine just two months ago, in November. It's incredible!! About $400 should be right, and mine came with the Oculus Touch controllers as well. I got mine from Best Buy. If you get yours from online, you may be able to save some money by getting the headset without the controllers, but I wouldn't write off the Oculus Touch just yet. You can do some amazing and immersive things outside of flight simming with them. Also, if you but Oculus from Best Buy, or any similar store, you are automatically buying the most up-to-date headset. If you buy from online, make sure it's the "CV1" and not the DK1 or DK2. CV is Consumer Version and DK is Developer Version. I hope this helps!!

That's some great footage, Quinn. Thanks for sharing!! I'll try the uncontrolled aircraft option and see how that works for now. I'll report back later with results.

I'll have to give that a shot. I had no idea that was an option for non-static aircraft. Thanks!!

I'm certain they are effective, and some are still in use. But still, for the most part, they are WWII systems being used as stand-ins for modern high-caliber systems. I'm asking for authentic systems, not WWII stand-ins mimicking more modern Red AAA. Leadnap (US) Aircraft are not stored with fuel and munitions on them - and "loaded" aircraft with live ordinance are parked on the other side and not allowed on the unloaded side. I know there are technical terms but the only airfield I've been to was Bagram and I wasn't exactly trying to figure out the air field layout while there. Makes sense. Still, you could have one side of a base, say, Al Dhafra, with the default static aircraft on the ramp, and another side with statics that are armed for a mission that is about to be flown, but without actually having them as true AI aircraft.

Yeah, I wouldn't be into using the Bofors. To me, that'd be like slapping a dark green paint job and red circles on a Yak-52 and calling it a Zero. I just can't get past the fact that it isn't. The real static Red AAA is what I hope for, beyond the ZU-23 emplacements. We need authentic and realistic high-calibre AAA for the Red side.

On an active base in-theater, probably not all, but it would be nice to have some, as if they were scheduled for a Strike mission or something similar in the next hour or two.

These are some things I'd like to see in DCS eventually, in no [articular order, and I completely understand and appreciate how long it takes to develop these things. No rush. Rather than create a new post for each of these, I figured I'd lump them all into one post. I've been thinking about alot of these lately. My apologies if some of these have been mentioned before. Here goes... -- Ability to set loadouts for static aircraft. It just feels weird taxiing around an "active" airbase, rolling past static Strike Eagles, Vipers, Hornets, Harriers, etc. and none of them have any external stores. -- More "low-tech" air defense options, especially on the Red side. KS-19s and the like. 37mm, 57mm, 100mm AAA. And Fire Cans. Where are the Fire Can radars? These would be perfect for the Persian Gulf map and maybe an Iraqi map, if they eventually make one. -- NATO airbase equipment. You know, like fuel trucks (the small ones) and such. I know there are mods, but these things really need to be added to the base game. This would really be important on the NTTR map. -- More mission options for the ME. Like Stratos says here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=228592 A strike option would be just one great example of new mission types. These are all I could think of right now. There are more, but I should have written them down when I thought of them. Just some things I'd like to see, again in no particular order, and again, no rush.

There was Rogue System, but it hasn't had an update in quite a long time. Over a year, iirc. It was/is supposed to become a full space combat game with Newtonian physics.

I want to retract my statement about the Gazelle's flight model. I unticked the Force Feedback option in the Specials tab in settings. It flies as expected now, and is an absolute blast!!

They're only doing the USAF -E variant. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3193860&postcount=66

Wow. They've really kept a tight lid on things. I hope it really has been in development all this time and hasn't been on the back burner.

Just wanted to bump this back up and see if it's in the plans any time soon.

Thanks, Chuck!! I do have to say, though, this seems highly unlikely. Unless, of course, ED has been secretly working on the F-16 all this time and hasn't said anything, and it's actually over 50% ready to release as I type this, then I really don't have any confidence that we will see it in 2019. 2020? Still just as unlikely. 2021? Maybe. 2022+? That sounds more correct in my head. Of course, I'd be more than happy to eat my words right here of the forums if I'm proven wrong. But I just don't see any realistic way an F-16 2019 release will happen.

Link please?? I can't find anything anywhere that even suggests the Viper will be out in 2019.

Holy cow, those look amazing!! I can't thank you enough!!

Boy, the Tomcat releasing on the 21st would, hypothetically, be one hell of a birthday present. Happy early birthday, btw!!

I understand what you both are saying, but I don't think I was very clear in conveying the original context of my post. Please, let me clarify. I was simply saying that if Eagle Dynamics hypothetically, for one reason or another, gave the green light to develop an MQ-9 module, then I would fly it, even if it's not everyone else's cup of tea. I'm not demanding or even requesting that they develop a Reaper module. All I'm saying is that it would be cool if they did, and I would enjoy it. In the (hopefully) clarified context, I'll reiterate (paraphrase) my original statement; I would fly it even if most others wouldn't. My apologies for the lack of clarity. I'll sincerely work on translating my brain to the keyboard in future posts.