Dino Might

Just did first cuts today. Conclusions: 1. I suck with a jigsaw. 2. Going to redo everything in 1/2" plywood. I got samples of 3/8 and 1/2 inch. The 1/2 inch is not quite twice as expensive, but is much sturdier. I plan on doing as much as I can with the 3/8 on hand, and I don't plan on redoing the sketchup files (yet), because my cutting accuracy is so bad it won't make much of a difference. I'm adding an extra 1/8" on every dimension and going to power-sand pieces down to fit, because of my wavy, jagged cuts. Still going to be working on the seat first. I'm going to make some notes with pictures when I'm done, having already found reason to adjust some dimensions while cutting.

Yea, verily!

Thanks for the info, Punk. I've updated the seat build and thrown the new file up on the Dropbox (GRU-7A V2). It's not complete - have completely left out the headrest area for now, but I've tried to add all the box joints and simplify the design. Because of the seat angle, there will be some fitup issues that I hope to fix with gratuitous sanding and a mounting board to which everything will attach. I'm going to check some seat dimensions against the Heatblur model, just to see that it's close enough, and then I plan to start cutting some pieces this weekend to see how difficult to manufacture it is. I checked over the full pit build dimensions, sans the seat, and everything is close enough - definitely not exact, as I squared off some panels and eliminated some recesses, but overall fitup is within a few inches and all the instrument panels fit within reasonable tolerances. My build order will be: 1. Seat 2. Center console stack -- at this point, I can mount things to baseboard and start flying again w/ temporary throttle stand -- 3. ACM panel 4. Front left and right instrument consoles w/ supports -- attach ACM and front panels 5. Side consoles -- The structure is complete, now can work on making it usable -- 6. Instrument panels 7. Drill mounting holes for instrument panels. 8. Drill cutouts for wiring behind instrument panels. 9. Wiring, tons of wiring, and even more wiring. 10. Software. -- Fully functional, now add frames and outer skin, paint, stencil name on side One major remaining feature to figure out is how to get in and out of it without breaking everything. I'm thinking of adding some railings outside the center consoles - some thick metal tubes, kind of the like the handles for old people to get in and out of bathtubs, but mounted to the baseboard, so I can put all of my weight on the railings when getting in and out. That, or I make an entire side of this thing hinged and just swing out the side, sit down, and swing it back, but that seems a bit more difficult to keep the hinge supported correctly.

So, why doesn't it match? I don't understand. Existing missiles incorporate fixed duration of thrust, and cutoff of booster animation. Why was Polychop prevented from incorporating these things appropriately? (i.e., what limits of the game environment are the cause of the aforementioned design decision?)

I never flew it during the official round because it was never the BEST tool for the job I needed to do at the time. I'm a try hard during official rounds. I'll do the best I absolutely can to win. That is a far cry from saying the Hornet is pointless and should have not been included in the scenario. Again, had circumstances been different, for example, if we had needed quick strike on ground targets far from home EVER as a priority when I was on, I'd have taken a Hornet. The fact is, many players only joined because the hornet was part of the scenario. I would much rather have them join in than be excluded because they only want to fly the Hornet. The downside is that most of them are new to Blue Flag, and stacking of experienced, coordinated players on the other team did not help the issue. You blame the Hornet as a newbie magnet for a bad matchup, whereas I blame the experienced players for not spreading their skills around for that matchup. If you removed the hornet, then what would you have had? 50% fewer players on Red and an even more one sided fight? And you'd also have missed a great opportunity to introduce new people to Blue Flag.

Pikey, I flew 0 hornet flights in the official round, because there was never a time when I needed to do rapid small scope A/G in lieu of CAP or full FARP or airfield strike. Now, I agree the F15 is better for CAP, and the A10 is better for strike, but if you think I don't know what I'm talking about because I can't use the hornet successfully, then ill be happy to fly a scrimmage round with only the hornet just for your edification. Hornet is better than Harrier when you need bombs on station quickly and the enemy may have an interceptor about. It's very situational in its current state, but had we not been outnumbered every time I was on, I might have used one to hit FARPs that were not fully repaired. The fact is that because of the overwhelming blue pressure, there was rarely a situation where the hornet was a preferred choice. That does NOT mean that the hornet should never be used in BF. Had the pressure been going the other way, there would have been plenty of times to use a hornet on some of the island bases and FARPs that needed bunkers and soft targets removed. I think some closer reading is in order. My point is that there are people who will only fly the hornet, fine. I'd rather have them play with us than not. But we need to have more balance with the experienced players, so that it's not a bunch of BF vets dominating new players all day long. As it stood, the hornets didn't even have enough time to learn anything before being shot down, because our entire team's life expectancy was probably less than a single sortie. We had guys who had no idea about where things were or how to capture objectives, or that there was even a discord and SRS. And the handful of us experienced players on red were pretty overwhelmed just trying to stem the tide. Not a lot of opportunity to help out the new guys. As for my "seal clubbing" a hornet with a J11 yesterday, I switched to Blue to help balance the server, as I normally do when I pick sides. See gadget for evidence.

I don't understand this, can you explain further? By the look of it, shouldn't it behave similar to a stinger? Those have finite burn times and don't stay over 1000 kts the whole travel.

Can be shut down by GCI. Also takes about 30 seconds to acquire a target and has a minimum range.

The Hornet in its current state has it's place in Blue Flag. It's great for fast ground attack and intercepting enemy strikers, but should not be used to go toe to toe with multiple enemy fighters in a busy airspace. The problem was people not knowing how and where to use it, mostly due to lack of experience. Red had more hornet drivers than any other aircraft much of the time, and that really hurt us when we didn't need Hornets. That's not a fault of the module or including it. We have F5s, too, but nobody was using F5s to try and fight Su27s because that matchup imbalance is more obvious. It just comes down to players' lack of experience in this scenario and maybe multiplayer in general leading to trying to use the wrong tool for the job. Most of the hornet drivers were relatively new to Blue Flag and don't know the normal flow of battle. The designers could have kept the hornet out of the mission, but then how many of those new players wouldn't have joined at all? I'd rather include more new players, help them learn the ropes, and greatly expand the pool of Blue Flag regulars so that we can eventually have a packed server 24/7. To do that, we need to do a better job of having an experience spread across both teams. The goal is to have enough experienced players and new players on each side, so that there is more knowledge sharing and teamwork with the new and old players. All of this is something that the experienced players need to take responsibility for doing. The buddy spike team has given us a great scenario, but it's up to us to manage it's long term success as a multiplayer hub. All that aside, it was a great round with incredible battles. Blue fought very well, maintained coordinated pressure, and deserves many kudos for their work. Reds put up a great fight, too. Ultimately, I think most had fun, which is the most important metric of success, and I really hope that we got many more people interested in DCS multiplayer and Blue Flag, in particular. If anybody reading this is ever interested in Blue Flag and wants some help or a wingman, and you see me in game, *in best Viper voice* give me a call. I'll fly with you.

It was quick, but action packed. Much fun, and great attendance. The amount of chat in discord over the last 3 days underlines the incredible interest and passion that the Blue Flag matches bring to DCS through the players. I daresay that Blue Flag is a staple of DCS multiplayer. It certainly brought me into this sim in full force and has kept me interested to the exclusion of all other games.

Be sure to DMD all the pron to make sure it's truly cleaned up for proper use of the 'Cat. :lol:

^ one one the all-time greats

Calling all Reds - get online. You ALL have tf-51s. Run repairs around the quadpack! Save the UAE!

GCI and Logistics (troops, repair, etc.) matter the most in BF. Everyone else is a cog in the machinery (as it should be). Unfortunately, the stats shown here don't show enough of who is really driving the fight - the GCIs and the logistics pilots.

Can't find any special subforum for MISTRAL variant, so hopefully this can be moved to appropriate location: Appears that Mistral missile accelerates for a long time and burns much longer than comparative video. Not sure if these are special variants of the missile, but recommend a check on the missile data vs flight performance in game. Video shows acceleration for extended time and then deceleration while still burning, so maybe part flight model and part graphics bug? Please advise.

Wow, nice! What build material did you use? I just picked up some 3/8" plywood today, but I'm a bit worried it won't be stiff enough. I was thinking about doing the seat in 1/2" MDF, but I'm not sure about whether the MDF would need stiffeners for some of the horizontal members (e.g., seat pan).

Definitely. I plan on taking photos and documenting my tools, methods, and progress - a little for vanity (in case it turns out nicely), but mostly for having good instructions lessons learned for future versions. My vision is a full set of templates that someone can download and use for cutting the wood, a set of STL files to load into a 3-D printer, and a set of Correl Draw or other image files that can be loaded directly into a laser cutter. Make it a one-stop shop for all the plans needed, and then have a build log showing how we did it.

Punk, sorry to hear about the ankle. Make sure you do a ton of physical therapy when the doc gives the go ahead. I had a mild ankle fracture that took more than a year to fully heal because I got lazy. Hoping you are back on your feet soon. And thanks for the measurements. I'm still using a lot of your reference pictures that you sent me a while ago. Cobra, Many thanks for the files, especially for taking time out of a no-doubt busy schedule to help our pit project. You and your team are an inspiration. V/R Dino

New version of "Full Build" uploaded. I added the rest of the instrument panels and put labels where I could. I also brought the side panels in a bit by shrinking the panels that mount the fuel gauges. I think the end result is pretty close to what it should be. I've decided on the B cockpit instead of the A. despite the fact that I really love the A, I do want the RWR up panel up front. I plan on using LCD screens for the fuel gauges. ETA: AGH, just saw I didn't move the panels with the console - will be fixed shortly.

Good for the naysayers to see that the F14 was designed with dogfighting in mind.

Way late to the party here, but any chance of all the Jester calls being categorized and allowing a user to set filter options (e.g., do not announce any RWR spikes)? Would be nice to have options in game to adjust on the fly, but a static Lua file that can be changed by user to set the filters would be more than satisfactory.

One fitup issue so far: I need to get the width (and height would be nice as well) of the ACM panel, above the center display. I'd also like to know what gauge size is used for the altimeter, airspeed indicator, etc. I spec'd them out as having 4"x4" rectangular mounting plates, but I see a lot of modern stuff uses 3" rounds with unspecified mounting plate size. With the 4x4 sizing, there isn't enough room to fit the AOA indicator on the left, and wing sweep indicator on the right, or either of the fuel shutoff handles. Either the ACM is sized too wide (currently much wider than the center display), or my center display and overall model width is too narrow. ETA: Just looked at some images. Some photos have the AOA/wing sweep indicators outside ACM panel portion of the glare shield, and some have them inside the ACM panel portion of the glare shield. Basically, the above model ACM panel is too wide, but can still be built as a single part - just need to add recesses on the side so that the indicators will fit onto that part correctly. Basically, the above markup is correct, but I don't actually need to change the overall width of that section, just make indicator section cutouts and adjust the glare shield design.

I don't think you can bind controls to operate the RIO seat when in the pilot seat. I'm going to transfer one of my licenses to a new account and run two computers for when I play with my kids, and if I'm on my own, I've been thinking of having an extra display, like an iPad, and a small keyboard up front that is hooked to the backseat computer so I could RIO for myself. ----- 10/16: I just started tearing down the model and fitting instrument panels. First goal is to get the MFCD screens incorporated into the center console. Based on the frame design I made, I'm needing to adjust dimensions a bit here and there (a few 1/16" or so). Still looks good so, far, but we will see once I have to put all the parts back together. For all parts, I'm going with 3/8" plywood again - more expensive than MDF, but I'm hoping the build process is easier with the ability to more easily screw panels and brackets into the plywood. 10/16: Added center console. Had to redo some of the ACM panel, but should fitup well now. I haven't made the exploded parts view, but is easy enough to do from the file. I'm going to try and add the rest of the front panel today. I still am not sure how I want to support the entire front panel, but I know it won't work well suspended by the center console. Many of the lines will be squared off for ease of manufacture, but I'll try to keep as much of the look of the original pit as possible. The designs you are building are amazing. I'm worried my physical build won't do them justice. Another idea I had was to size the ACM panel large enough so that I could replace it with an A-10C scratchpad - going to buy the pre-made one instead of trying to make another entire panel. This will be very useful for the A-10 and other aircraft. ------ 10/16: Added the rest of front console. I straightened out the panels, but am working on ways to get the angles right. The front side panels should be able to rotate inwards a bit without affecting the rest of the build, so that the right spacing can be achieved. I'll see how far I get on the side consoles tonight. Might be ready to put together with the seat pretty soon. ----- 10/16: Full Build.skp is up. This has everything for the front pit, with four of the panels added. Based on pit sizing, the original panel sizes were a bit small. I've adjusted them to fill the space available, so there will be much more room for the switches and buttons (this is good, because I was having trouble fitting labels on the panels). I will redesign the laser cutter design files for the panels with the revised sizes sometime in the near future.

So, who is going to be making the Turbo Kat skin?

Also, if you get the F5 up to about 600 kts, it can outturn most everything going slower without bleeding too much speed. Just be careful about the overshoot. I was flying vs my buddy who was learning the su27, and he couldn't keep a sustained turn rate to match me, though he was flying a bit slower. A lot of dogfighting comes down to speed. Speed is life.