Dino Might

Forgive me, dont have it in front of me right now, but the rubber plug I see is on the wrong side for the offset. I didnt take a great pic last night, but is the white dot counterclockwise what you are referring to instead? Either of those are pretty far from the center position and would be a fairly extreme offset angle especially compared to the MCG allowable offset, which feels just right. Seems like the straight extension is the only option. Can the straight extension be canted and then linked to the curved extension, with the curved extension being straight relative to the seat (i.e., can the extensions be daisy-chained offset to each other at their interface)?

Got the grip today. Love everything about it except one glaring problem. The alignment hole in the bottom isnt arced out like on the MCG, so I cant offset the stick angle for a center mounted stick. Am i missing something? This seems like an oversight.

Well, looks like I get shafted on a technicality. Whatever. I'm sure I will enjoy the grip.

I think it was $10 not 10%, but either way, not a huge deal. You can do what I'm doing and use the module discount instead to gift someone an F14.

Yeah, too difficult. In the end, I'm going to just order the grip and use the resulting discount on another F14 license for my brother. Same savings, less hassle. Thanks for the response. Looking forward to trying this piece of kit out. My only problem will be figuring out what to do with my MCG pro...

How do we find our coupon code? I ordered off the heatblur website, no code from heatblur store or sendowl. I checked orders page on DCS world site, and it just says "keyless." Where do we get the coupon key code?

I have the 14, 16, 18, and almost all the others. I'm biased in that I think the 14 is the most beautiful aircraft ever built. That being said, the 14 is a pure joy to simply fly around. The first time loading it up with another person in back, and I turn around to see him, and he sees me, i just about lost myself in giggling glee. Details like the pilot models moving their shoulders and heads in a realistic manner, the cockpit shake with AoA, speed, and g variation, the absolutely amazing flight model...it all comes together in a module that is like no other currently in the game. The 14 is fun. That's my reason for getting it, flying it, and building my simpit around it.

I would be surprised if it's not one of the top selling modules in DCS to-date. The livestream trailer numbers were pretty darn high. If even a fraction of those that watched it ended up buying, then yes, they sold like hotcakes. I'm also sure that some, like me, ended up buying two :pilotfly: No doubt an A-6 would be a very popular airframe as well. When you consider that a lot of the folks playing this game are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, the 60s/70s era airframes hold a lot of nostalgia. I'd love an early A-6, but if they went more modern, it could be used in a wider range of scenarios with proper weapon restrictions put in place. If they end up making any flyable version, I'm getting two of 'em.

1. Flying the cross 2. Departure from controlled flight and recovery 3. Proper Case 1 pattern 4. RWR limitations 5. Phoenix details (great whitepaper!) 6. I wish every module had HBs pilot body animation. What a game changer in terms of immersion. As for wishlist, not really interested in the D. Give me that A-6 and I can preplan my free time schedule for the next 5 years.

This plus TECS would be marvelous, but I havent heard anything on the latter for over a year. Also, there doesnt seem to be an easy way to make your own extension, so if the sizes offered (when in stock) dont fit your setup, I'm wondering if something else can be done.

Winter time is almost here, so I'll finally have some time to get back to this project. I got some Saab 9-5 seats for the core of the build (which means I'm going to be forced to make a set of interchangeable cockpit pieces for the Viggen after this is done). I'm going to start cutting plywood for the center column with the VDI/HSI screens. Once that is done and they are mounted, then I plan on building the ACM panel. I've started doing some work in SketchUp, which I plan to transfer over the SolidWorks once I learn how to use it. I've got two version of the panel, one built to my estimates of actual dimensions (8.25" x 3") and one built for use of a 7" touch screen behind the face ("8.25 x 4"). I looked up multi-led push button switches, and I think I found some very similar to those used, but they probably cost an arm and a leg, considering the only way to get a price is to request a quote. With some shifting of the cutouts, I think I can fit a touchscreen LCD behind the front face, and if the ACM panel has an export view, I could make all the push buttons work off the touchscreen (I think?). Anybody have any other solutions?

All I want is: Bug fixes Updated textures Refueling probe optional loadout Anything more is gravy. Even as is, the F5 is still one of my favorite modules.

I wish they'd be able to stop vehicles crossing destroyed bridges, and once the vehicles have been stopped for some set time, then and only then do a new route calc. This would prevent the possible do-loop. Effectively, ground AI could do this: 1. Calc route 2. Proceed on route until hit unavoidable obstacle. Stop. 3. After stopped for x minutes, calc new route. If no new route possible, stop movement AI.

If you can post a video example with control inputs shown (Right Ctrl + Enter), we can help sort out what's going on. The answer as to why the FM is this way is that it's striving to be as accurate as possible. There is no arbitrary making it easier or harder to fly in mind for these devs. It's all about getting it as close to reality as possible.

Agreed - you can use and abuse however you like. If die roll damage to the stab is realistic, then by all means put it in, but don't put any kind of restriction based on "historical operational use." Just because the tactics say to not fly 5 feet off the deck doesn't mean the sim should not allow for such a possibility.

Fly in accordance with doctrine if you want, but the point is to have a sandbox. If someone wants to taxiway takeoff, they can. If someone wants to low level buzz Las Vegas at Mach 1.5, they can. That's one important capability of simulation, to do things that are physically possible, but would never be allowed due to hazard or other criteria. The line should be drawn at: did the aircraft ever carry it? If yes, then its allowed. Individual servers can add restrictions if they wish to mandate some kind of doctrinal adherence. Dont overly restrict just because it fits your idea of what should be done. The basic game should be simply restricted by what can be simulated to some verifiable standard of accuracy.

Exhaust plug may damage stab? How about you just take out the exhaust plug before you take off? It's not like we care about the cost of missiles in this game. If you want to play logistics, you can, but I wouldnt go crying foul when there are seemingly reasonable alternatives that would make a questionable decision possible. DCS is all about creating an environment of what is possible. YOU as the user need to decide what level of realism you want to achieve. If it was ever certified for carry, it should be included. The mission designer can choose to exclude it in a particular scenario. This is NOT advocating adding weapons or systems that were not certified for carry by a particular platform. This is merely saying that the dev's should not limit the developed assets by "operational doctrine."

Jester without voice attack is clunky menu navigating. Jester with voice attack (with a good profile) is a proper stand in for a human counterpart. Not as good, but definitely closes the gap considerably. It took me 20 minutes to set everything up. Just make sure all of your commands start with *jester menu command* twice. That drives it from the contextual to the main menu every time, so that your command will never be messed up based on variation in what contextual menu is active. I'm disappointed I waited until this month to set up voice attack. It makes a world of difference.

@IronMike and the HB team - I appreciate the perspectives and the decisions you have/will make. At the end of the day, I don't think I've ever liked playing anything more than I do the DCS F-14. I think Jester is top notch. Yes, quite limited, but such a far cry from the older AI helpers I have seen in other digital venues. That you are continuing to improve him is remarkable, admirable, and necessary at the same time. Know that any of my dissatisfaction pales in comparison with my enjoyment of this module. If there's one thing I could ask - if it does end up such that there are certain things that can only be done well with two people, could you please pen a letter to Mrs. Dino confirming my continued affirmations that it is indeed the best use of her time to learn how to RIO? SME input is always appreciated.

Using Jester with voice attack is much easier. I personally dont use this mod, having tried it and realized it's just more difficult to deal with than the current setup, but I see it being useful without voice attack. Two man crew will be much more effective, assuming comparable skill levels in the 1 w/ mid vs 2.

Pretty outrageous comparison. Anyone flying any of the helicopters other than Ka50 is doing the exact same thing, and FC3 planes are far worse offenders in terms of "game mode" features. So without any knowledge of how it works, you are passing judgement comparing it to exploitive "esports" practices in arcade games. Give me a bleepin' break.

I mostly pilot and let anyone in the back with me. If you see me online, usually on blue flag, hop on in!

I'm sad to see this change coming down the pike. Nonetheless, it will remain my favorite module to-date. I think Jester is absolutely necessary for single crew ops, regardless of how much reach through control is allowed. To all who are saying this shouldnt be allowed, how much of these capabilities using reach through control have you tried? Any experience with it in single or multiplayer? Or just assumptions on how it adversely affects gameplay?

There is a point, for those that want options, dont have voice attack, etc. Just because something isnt the easiest way to do it doesn't mean there isnt any reason to do it. At the end of the day, no pilot control of RIO pit will ever be better than a competent human RIO controlling that seat. So long as the mod doesn't give the aircraft capabilities it didnt have and doesn't make it more effective than a fully crewed aircraft, I dont see a problem with it, from either the realism sense (because we make far greater realism sacrifices for sake of gameplay) or from an "exploit" perspective. Trying to compare these mods with exploits and cheating is outright ridiculous. Just like the crybabies who call everything "assault." If everything is assault, then assault starts to not be very significant. If this is an exploit, then exploits start to not be considered much of a problem.

That's different than the realism argument. Now let's talk advantage. Theres a potential coordination advantage, but theres a much, much bigger disadvantage in that the pilot doesn't see the DDD. That could be put on an export view though, so the pilot (to effectively use the radar) needs all the controls and displays to go with it at his disposal. You are now looking at task saturation, and my guess is that this is more of a liability than anything in multiplayer. Seriously, go try it. It's not going to work out well trying to play both seats at once. I've tried this in SP because I have two computers/accounts/modules. It was a nightmare trying to donsimple stuff. Voice attack with Jester is much much better. Someone in an F-15 will have a far easier time of A2A because that plane was designed with single seat operation in mind.