randomTOTEN

Another problem with the new view, in addition to blocking the view of the top row OSB, is that it blocks several cockpit lights for the pilot/player. GUN READY, STEERING ENGAGED, MARKER BEACON, and CANOPY UNLOCKED. I believe these should be visible to the pilot in the design head position (against the headrest). I'm going to experiment and see if I can find some "makeSnapView" values that I think will be an improvement. EDIT: The HUD pitch ladder appears to be correct. Puma, check the notes at the end of each line for the explanation

As a user of the Microsoft franchise, this data is incredibly familiar, and I feel I can make some "educated guesses" about it. The first 3 numbers relate to the location of the eye position in the aircraft. They should be in relation to the aircraft's datum point, wherever that happens to be defined. As this is a single seat, I assume that the 0.000 value is lateral (axis "z"). Since we've gone forward in the cockpit, my guess is "0.157" and "0.298" is longitudinal (thus "x"), and from "-0.008" to "-0.041" explains our lowering view, thus axis "y" is vertical (and the datum is high in the aircraft). The next question is units. Microsoft is an American company, and their documentation states these units are feet, so I assume they are meters for a UK/RU group? "ypr" is pretty obviously Yaw, Pitch, and Roll. And the appropriate values are 0 here. The subject of cockpit view (in both 2D and 3D) is actually quite old, and my limited knowledge comes from sources such as the Flight Simulation Control Interface Harmonisation Tutorial for MSFS2004:ACOF. The code and mechanics are obviously completely different, but the concepts are directly related. They even use combat aircraft as the example to better understand the (identical) issues in civilian airliners.

It would also be interesting to check the pitch ladder against the scenery.. i.e. the 5° down line coincides with objects 5° below the horizon. I think that could be a visual illusion. I think the panel sun shade was a lot shorter in the original cockpit, which allowed the OSB to be visible even with an excessively forward view.

Good catch Snake! EDIT: Here is what I consider to be proper eyepoint placement in the recent update: This meets all my view requirements. I can see the top row OSB's for the MFCDs. The bolts on the HUD frame appear to closely match as indicated by other users. The eyepoint is shifted farther back to more closely mimic the head against the headrest. And it complies with the other visual references I tried to deduce in this example: You can see the HUD elements are still partially obscured, but it is indeed an improvement I think. And Snake has provided good evidence (especially that fully visible water line) that we should expect even more HUD improvements! I'm still catching up on the last 5 pages of this thread so expect more replies...

Wow they actually physically rotate the seeker?

I believe it's also supposed to reveal the top row buttons on the MFD's. I think it needs to be farther back, but need to look at how that works with the HUD projection.

Yes, the aiming reticle is completely rendered on the bottom of the HUD. Also the IFFCC menu has been adjusted and is now visible. My initial impression was the the HUD font got smaller as well (or perhaps it is now correctly sized), and will need to experiment with the eyepoint to learn more.

I just verified it myself. (Top Menu)CUSTOMIZE > MAP OPTIONS > MGRS GRID.

Kind of funny how users have been very vocal that "APKWS doesn't require any changes to the jet to work!" and yet in the first implementation video released they have a custom weapon name in the DSMS for the A-10. Seems that a lot of what people think is "strap on" really isn't.

It's linked with one of the 2 grid overlay layers. Either Lat/Long or Grid.. can't remember which, would have to check. In your 2nd screenshot you can see both coordinate grids are displayed simultaneously.. my guess is it's linked with MGRS.

NavyAce, A DCS Producer made a video explaining some of the controls setup for DCS, he specifically talks about axis setup and adjustment at about 7 minutes in. You will also see a graphical depiction of the changes, which will allow you to visualize and test your changes in real time. They will have stronger hardware and shorter control deflections intended for non-desk mounting. Regarding the hardware discussion, as BuzzU explained, you face an exponentially increasing pricetag the closer you attempt to get to real aircraft controls. You can check out vendors such as "VKB Sim" and "Virpil" in addition to Thrustmaster for joystick options. They both sell gimbals (called "base") designed for extensions.. which they also sell.

GAIN

How about a short track?

I'm going to start collecting links to this same problem. Perhaps they can be merged into a super thread, to show what a problem this is. Even if there is no message sent, there should still IMO be a menu that pops up. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232593 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=222693 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=282931 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=280103 https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-f-a-18c-hornet/227854-communications-menu-not-opening-in-the-air funny, the post I saw which motivated me to make this reply appears to be a radio usage issue, not the missing comm menu itself.

Was it an intentional change to have the radio menu not display when pressing the default slash key in the air? Seems to be tripping a lot of people up since the change occurred.

Make sure you've disabled FFB in DCS. This is a very frequent problem for users. Then try the trim again.

Got it. So even though the system might not be installed, the BIT is still looking at the switch position. Interesting!

is this still true if our representative aircraft doesn't have TF, and thus no FLYUP program? I'm not any kind of expert, just asking. Thanks.

Early Access, PFLD still work in progress (i.e. INOP)

Why didn't we close this thread when the maximum number of HARM was still 2? Now you get what you want and it's time to end the discussion? I hope ED/TFC makes the best decision they can with the factual information they have, and I hope they can provide as much context as they feel able to. I was surprised when the limit was 2, but willing to accept that for a jet which was never originally designed for this role. Now, after a small public backlash by people who seem to barely care about questions on realism, there is a sudden reversal of the decision with barely any information provided. Nearly immediately after seeing the same sequence of events with the LAU-88 question. A complete reversal with minimum info. I would like more information.

Just tried it, from "New Mission" all the way to sitting in the Su-25A cockpit. I see you already tried a repair. Hope you get it sorted!

**laughs in Extreme ED Pro**

I want an option for a (non-functional) Pave Penny and TILS Panel, but if I still have an option to fly the old Hog (with the weathered cockpit?) I'll take that too....

Looks like the HUD has been adjusted for the new cockpit shape and eyepoint too...

I don't know. Seems you're the one making that claim. I would be interested in seeing the relevant post.... You're right of course, but not all cameras are the same! This is a promotional (propaganda) shoot, not a flight test. I presume this configuration already went through a flight test before getting to this point. There's no extra wiring required here, no software update... I presume command ordered the missiles to be hung and it was done so. Then it flew. The same can't be said for the F-16C LAU-88 or additional HARMS. It's not the same. I don't fully understand why the F-16C isn't set up for the triple Mav's (or slant-load double), but the point is a group of people got paid a lot of money to make that decision during the design, trials, or testing of this Block. But it wasn't. It sounds like we have an explanation for the lack of HARMs on 4/6. Meanwhile I post actual flight footage of an operational unit flying the configuration in question. That's solid evidence it was cleared to flight, and we know they're all functional.