BlackLion213

I personally think that the F-4 Phantom will very likely be part of DCS world in the future - more a matter of "when" than "if". Different 3rd parties likely have different constraints in terms of what they can develop - varying by locale, size, nature of other contracts/relationships, business model, and aversion to risk. No guarantees of course, but if an high-quality FSX version exists then it probably is feasible. Since there are few full modern-ish modules in DCS, there are many, many iconic aircraft that remain undeveloped. At this point, the decision is based on the personal interest of a capable developer. I do have to disagree on the variant though. :) If it were to happen, the variant would probably be chosen based on what information could be found for each version. And actually found, not which should have available information. That said, I think it is best when the developer chooses the scenario or campaign(s) first, then the aircraft version and map that allows them to create their vision. Even better when a version allows for a wide-variety of scenarios. Case in point: the F/A-18C. With the Hornet one can create campaigns for both the USN and USMC, along with RCAF and other export customers. These different campaigns would offer a different operational experience and missions despite the same basic aircraft. The Phantom offers a similar opportunity, but perhaps even broader all within one map. The USAF, USN, and USMC all operated a nearly identical version of the Phantom during the early phases of Vietnam - the F-4B and F-4C. Also, one map could support unique operations from all three services: It would be a big map (~550 km x 550 km), but probably doable in a few years (SoH high detail area is 390 km x 390 km). This one map could support USAF F-4Cs out of Udorn AFB (marker on the map), USMC F-4Bs out of Da Nang, and USN F-4Bs from Yankee station. Not to mention the map would beautifully support a F-105D module (how can you say no!). :) The F-4B/C module with the above map probably offers the most "bang for your buck" for missions and paves the way for things like a F-105D, F-8E, A-4C/E, early A-7s, A-1 Skyraider, the list goes on. The F-4E would be awesome and work in several different scenarios, but the above would create more within one map and open the door for much more. :) Just my 2 cents, -Nick

I can understand your perspective. I prefer my glass half full approach, but I hope that the MiG-21 evolves into what you need. :) -Nick

I agree with you here, the 1.5.6 FM seems quite good to me. :) It's also worth mentioning that LNS themselves stated that the nav systems on the MiG-21 required work arounds since the implementation in DCS was not as complete as it is today (IIRC it was improved to support the L-39). Also, the MiG-21 was the first ASM Russian module for DCS, so not all of the supporting infrastructure was present and they were not in a position to create those components. For this 4 man team, creating the first EFM/ASM supersonic aircraft was ambitious enough. :) If they were to create the MiG-21 now (or a MiG-23 for that matter :music_whistling:), those systems would likely be more complete and accurate. The quality and completeness of the Viggen speaks to their capability, but the first project inevitably has more limitations than subsequent works (how else can you learn?). LNS still has a lot that they would like to do with the MiG-21 and there are lots of fixes and additions still planned (I have not heard anything about ARK or RSBN). Perhaps if they created another Russian module these improved functions would be back-ported? Maybe I'm lucky that I don't know as much about the systems as you do, but the MiG-21 is still one of my favorite aircraft to fly (even if I'm spending nearly all of my time in the Viggen these days) and these issues do not diminish my enjoyment of the aircraft. Still, I'm glad that fixes are still steadily flowing in. The only part I notice every flight is the ASP...but I don't doubt that a fix will come eventually. -Nick

That sounds right to me. :) -Nick

Looks like you found most of what you were looking for between Maverick and LunaticFringe, but to answer your question about failures there were other options depending on the nature of the failure. If the problem was the IMU, the nav computer could operate in a degraded mode based on the nature of the failure. If the IMU was giving unreliable data, other sources such as airspeed and altitude from the air-data computer could be substituted to offer continued, but less accurate nav. If the IMU is totally out (meaning no INS functions at all), the Nav computer can still give some dead-reckoning based on magnetic compass heading, estimated wind speed, and info from the air-data computer. The image below gives a nice overview of those functions: Also, it wasn't too common for F-14s to operate solo and completely out of range of the CV or other units (Hawkeye, other surface vessels). In most cases of INS failure, the default was to navigate with the assistance of the wingman or other accompanying aircraft, obtain vector data from the ship or Hawkeye, or use TACAN (either TACAN from other aircraft or ground based). Also, at least from my readings, losing the INS would often be criteria for downing the aircraft from a mission and launching a spare if the mission involved possible combat and need to limit emissions. -Nick

:shocking: Yes please! With the DCS F-14A/B set in the 1980s-90s, it would be awesome to have SoH adjust a bit for the earlier eras (or 1960s-70s for the Mirage III!). From what I've seen, backdating SoH would mostly involve removing the huge unique buildings from Dubai (and Bandar Abbas to a much lesser extent) and shrinking the urban areas a bit. The architecture of the region was pretty stable from the 60s onward, excluding the development of mega skyscrapers in the late-90s. In any case, Ed might decide to make smaller changes than this, but the idea sounds really great and I'm glad it's being considered. Thanks for the insight! -Nick PS - new Normandy screen shots are beautiful, even in "vanilla" form. :)

I would love to hear as well, but it seems that ED is thinking about this issue based on one of their prior weekend updates: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2936445&postcount=55 With more and more pictures of Normandy posted recently, I'm hoping their is an update on these changes for 2.5 including the new lighting system. -Nick

So the pilot gets virtual shivering and the Viggen gets virtual leprosy...? :P -Nick (Soon to be cured :))

True, though building on your post it's worth mentioning that the asymmetric sweep tests required disconnecting the sweep interlock (that ensures symmetry) and the actuator to one wing. The disconnected wing is kept at 20 degrees while the other swing is swept back with it's actuator for testing. There have been rare instances of an actuator and the interlock failing in the fleet and leading to a small asymmetry (few degrees), but the dramatic pictures of one wing at 20 deg and the other at 68 deg was just for testing....including LNS: Otherwise, pilots kept the system in "automatic" ~90% of the time and only selected manual mode for a few specific reasons (generally to improve precision): aerial refueling, aerial gunnery practice, parade formations, and the SHB. https://fightersweep.com/837/the-ultimate-carrier-break/ Most pilots manually swept their wings for the break, ostensibly since the delta effect allowed them to bleed speed better since most F-14s entered the break around 400 knots (sometimes higher as the above article mentions :D). Keeping the wings swept till around 280 knots allowed more rapid bleeding of airspeed, though they had to watch their AOA carefully since it could really build up at low speeds and lead to some yaw instability with the wings swept. Probably the more accurate reason is that an F-14 in the break without swept wings doesn't look cool....but they found some justifications nonetheless. :music_whistling: -Nick

Awesome, sounds great! :) Though I wouldn't necessarily take it as a sign of imminent release (Spitfire soundtrack was up a few months ago IIRC). Still, one can hope! :thumbup: -Nick

Just to confirm - you're flying the 1.5.6 OpenBeta with the silent update from 2/3/17 - correct? The engine isn't stalling at high AOA, it's stalling due to low airspeed (which has been present since I started flying the MiG-21 in early 2015). The difference is that at full burner and pegged AOA, the previous MiG-21 FM could maintain speed and even climb. With the update, it cannot. Airspeed is steadily lost and the engine flames out. The roll rate of that lancer doesn't seem too different from what I'm seeing IMHO. I need to use coordinated rudder and neutralize AOA, but under those conditions with airspeed above 600 km/h indicated the roll seems very reasonable. Just my 2 cents, Nick

:D -Nick

Hmmm...my haircut does bear a certain resemblance from that picture (debate whether thats good or bad)....:music_whistling: But it is most certainly not me! :) If only I were so lucky, but 2017 seems to be the year so I'll count us all as VERY fortunate if things continue as predicted. :thumbup: -Nick

With the coming of the Tomcat and Hornet, many of us will need to learn a lot more about carrier ops as many of the basic launch and recovery processes are quite intricate once you get a few aircraft in the air. These references are handy starting points for understanding basic operations, including emergency procedures: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/pat-pubs/P-816.pdf http://www.navyair.com/CV_NATOPS_Manual.pdf The LSO NATOPS also discusses the basics of shore operations, aircrew qualifications, and how FLOLS, IFLOLS, MOVLAS, and other equipment function: http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf A lot of the stuff in these manuals won't be relevant, but it's a thorough starting point. -Nick

I'm not hoping to move away from reprojection since it looks fine to my eyes at the 45 FPS threshold. The game is not terribly underperforming, but when I fly near most populated ares the buildings stutter by a bit. When it looks smooth (on occasion) it looks amazing with the 3D effects, but most of the time its not too smooth (but not terrible). My goal isn't to max things out at 90 - it's really just to get my current settings to a place where FPS is 45 where my current system is getting an FPS in the high 20s. If I get that level of performance improvement, I'd be happy. If I can also get the PD to 1.7 and turn the water up to "high", then I'd be really happy. :) I agree than DCS seems to be running surprisingly well in VR even with my less than optimal system. As for the frequency of buying new computers - I just returned to flight sims in December 2014 after a 12 year hiatus. So I haven't bought a computer for recreation in a really long time before getting my current one. That said, I expected it to last me about 2 years so I'm on target for my expectations at least. I appreciate the input! :) -Nick

Hello, I have been using my Rift for just over a month now and have been amazed by how it transformed my DCS experience. However, my current system is around the original minimum specs for the Rift (prior to lower the minimums with the release of ASW) - i5 4790 @3.6 GHz, GTX 970, 16 MB of RAM, and 1 TB SATA drive. I figured that upgrade would be in my future, but have managed to really enjoy my Rift with this machine. I currently use the standard VR preset tab with adding MSAA 4X and Pixel Density of 1.2. I really like how things look at this setting (very nearly as good as my monitor with the res limits) and performance is quite decent for most missions. On the Spitfire NTTR instant action take-off, I'm running in the high 30s-low 40s with a few dips into the high 20s low over buildings. I thought the FPS was better before checking since my experience is decent at this level, but things look way better when FPS is at 45 (with ASW). My plan is to upgrade all portions of the machine: i7 6700 vs 7700 @~4.4 GHz, GTX 1080, 32 MB RAM, and 512 MB SSD. The question is will these upgrades give a noticeable improvement in performance? I have read some people comment that they saw negligible improvements upgrading from a 970 to 1080 (though most of those posts are from early 2016). With the upgrades listed above, would I be able to maintain 45 FPS at my current settings in nearly all portions of the map (best guess - I understand that)? Would I be able do things like turn up the water to high or increase pixel density to ~1.7 while maintaining better performance? Thank you for the inputs. I just want to make sure that my expectations are reasonable before taking the plunge. -Nick

This video gives a nice look at the F-14A's HUD during some ACM practice on deployment against another F-14. The rest of the video is nice as well, with footage of launch, tanking, ACM, and recovery. The HUD was acting up during this video (due to a loose connection), but it shows the symbology and general functionality well. Also, the HUD lag isn't too noticeable during roll and pitch, it is the velocity vector that was particularly laggy - which is why it was deactivated for most in-flight HUD modes (a practical solution! :P). Also, Bio's youtube channel has some other period videos (shot on VHS!). Nothing unprecedented, but generally fun to watch. -Nick

I'm using PD 1.2 and MSAA 4x, appearance is way better than PD 1.6 and no MSAA that I used to run. Performance is better too. I don't do much A-G, but A-A spotting has been really good with this set-up. In some ways its been easier than when I used a monitor. I find that spotting F-15 sized targets against the sky is quite feasible at 10 nm and missiles at 4 nm. Its more variable spotting against the ground, but still very doable. -Nick

Something must have happened as performance has changed again. Things seem to be much better. I was initially way fast on all of my approaches since the MiG-21 holds onto speed better than before (doesn't require full mil-thrust to maintain speed in the approach config any longer). Also, I can't sustain flight with pegged AOA any longer (not for long that is), the aircraft bleeds off speed or the engine flames out. The overall feel sort of reminds of the MiG-21 in early 2016, but with more inertia (roll inertia feels good) and much better departure characteristics. Anyone else tried her out yet? -Nick

There must be something wrong. I have a i5 4790 @3.6 with a GTX970 and my system seems to be running better. I don't know much about troubleshooting computers, but there is hope because others seem to be getting much more out of it. Even with 1.5.5, your system should be able to generate good apparent performance (with ATW/ASW) at reasonably high settings. My system lost about 30% FPS transitioning from a single 1080P monitor to VR running the default VR graphics settings. You inability to go above 45 FPS is built into the Oculus run time with ASW and just means that your system is not quite getting to 90 FPS. Unless you can get above 90 FPS, ASW will lower it to 45 and hold it there. My system is generally getting less than 45 in built up areas, but it is still quite livable. Adding in a bit of MSAA (2x-4x) makes a really big difference on appearance and really reduces the "shimmering", especially with distant objects such as buildings. Due to the lower res, images will never look quite as clear as a monitor with any current HMD (though the future will almost certainly deliver it), but my current settings look as nice as DCS did on the monitor with the addition of MSAA to default VR settings and a pixel density of 1.2. Higher PD really helps with gauge legibility (though certain modules are quite clear at lower PD, like the Spitfire, Viggen, and MiG-21). PD probably has the biggest performance impact though, so recently I've shifted towards higher graphics settings with lower PD and I'm happier. The key is to experiment and find the right combination. Even for my machine, the right balance has led to great appearance and good performance (though I will likely upgrade soon to have better FPS and somewhat higher PD). In the meantime, check your drivers, make sure your oculus runtime is up to date, and maybe check the oculus compatibility tool. It really should get better and VR is an awesome experience. -Nick

For me, the Viggen and Spitfire are the best modules in VR and the overall experience is simply fantastic. I've been spending a lot of time in the Viggen recently and the legibility of gauges in VR with the Viggen is really good compared to earlier modules. Also, the detail level of the cockpit and sense of realism is perhaps a new high for DCS (IMHO). Some of the recent stutter issues seem much better since yesterdays 1.5.6 update. Like others I saw the system bog down during zoom functions or rapid head movements - that now seems to be gone and performance has been quite good (better for me than the MiG-21 - which I still fly quite often). Overall, it's simply outstanding work and I doubt you would be disappointed. I had high expectations and all of them were still exceeded. :thumbup: -Nick

I agree, but suspect that there won't be more than one static model for parked F-14s. My hope is to have the flexibility to configure "unloaded" F-14s the way they often flew (which does vary by locale, squadron, and era); which means having the option for a broad array of configurations. However, concerning the static model I simply wanted to point out the the most common, deployed configuration for F-14s included pallets and tanks even when the aircraft was empty. Med deployments did favor sparrow/sidewinder load-outs (including the Gulf of Sidra incident in 1989), though there are still perhaps as many photos of Med deployments (if not more) of them with pallets than not - at least perusing cruise books and archives. :) I didn't mean to imply that F-14s were always configured this way, but a review of numerous photos from the 1980s to 2000s did show that they were usually configured that way. That said, I hardly complain if LNS' static model does not have phoenix pallets....as long as it at least has tanks. :P -Nick

I meant the static/parked models (I adjusted the first post again). In addition to AI aircraft there are also static models for parked aircraft. These will be important for completing the appearance of the DCS CVNs/CVs. I believe these are placed in the mission editor as static objects instead of AI aircraft. Thats what I meant. I agree that regular AI aircraft follow the same rules and could be similarly equipped through the mission editor. -Nick

Sorry for the confusing post, I made some necessary adjustments. :) I didn't realize that the A-10C has this feature (or something like it). Yes, that would do it from the standpoint of player aircraft. In my post edit, I also mentioned the benefit of having the static aircraft equipped realistically as well. Even for a training deployment to Nellis, the F-14s would sit on the tarmac with pallets and tanks, only removing them for ACM training (some of the time). Thank you for the feedback and I'm hoping my new post makes more sense. :) -Nick

Dear Leatherneck simulations, EDITED While looking through pictures recently, I realized that there are two well-defined (more or less) configurations for the F-14 from the 1980s onward: shore configuration and CV configuration. The ask is for two things: - The ability to configure the DCS F-14 as it was seen around the boat (or work-ups) with tanks and pylons even if no weapons are loaded and/or no fuel in the drop tanks. - Have the static/parked F-14s equipped with pallets and tanks since thats how they would be seen >80% of the time when away from their home base (Miramar or Oceana) The benefit is that it allows users to operate the aircraft in a realistic manner around the boat even when not carrying ordnance and it depicts the AI F-14s in their most common configuration. The clean configuration is only seen at Miramar or Oceana, exception being a DACT Det to Key West or maybe El Centro. However, F-14s deployed on carriers and during work-ups (CVW training at Fallon or training deployments on the boat) were almost always configured with forward phoenix pallets and the 280 gallon fuel tanks. I suspect that this was chosen to maximize operational flexibility and minimize the need to store ancillary equipment. This setup seems to persist even when no weapons were hung. It seems that the phoenix pallets are removed just when needed for weapons placement (such as 4x4 load-outs). There were exceptions of course, but something like 80% of deployed F-14s (at least in photos) are configured this way. It may not be a feasible request, but I figured it would be a realistic feature for the F-14 so it's worth a mention. Best, Nick PS - I fear that I may have mentioned something like this before....so if this is a repeat I apologize...bound to happen after 2 years of posting. :)