aaron886

So you don't know, but you still answered the question?

It's buggy and or incomplete, like the rest of the radar. Undesignate switch should exit AACQ.

Sorry to hear about your trouble. My experience was great, although that was a few years ago now. My only complaint is that maybe they were a bit too expensive, but at the time there was only one place to get that sort of product.

Form follows function, min ven. These mock-ups always look the same because at this stage everything is about basic physics. I think the most interesting changes happen as aerodynamics are adjusted and compromises are made. There's something very characteristic of the difference between a mock-up and the final design. YF-17 and F/A-18, YF-22 and F-22, X-35 and F-35, all great examples of that fascinating transformation.

Well that looks terrible. Interesting concept but the motion looks imprecise and choppy.

Missiles in DCS are already wild guess-work. It's an oft-beaten dead horse, of course, but on many occasions the accuracy of missile performance simulation in DCS has been shown to be dubious at best. Most notably in the case of the AMRAAM as calculated by IASGATG et al. If you're interested in looking into that work, how missile performance can be reasonably estimated for simulators, and where DCS may need some work, here's some sources: http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf Of course, as GGTharos pointed out, this is only one small piece of guesswork in a large array of factors that must be simulated, and all missile simulations in flying games are a sandwich of guesswork slices.

This one might be a little too simple to warrant a forum post. Check the manual for EW HUD indications. 49 is the indication in DCS for the AN/SPY-49, on the frigates of the carrier battle group in your mission. Pretty sure AE is supposed to mean AEGIS in DCS, a seaborne air defense network primarily featuring the AN/SPY-1. Edit: beat to the punch. Silversmith: I think you're crossing some wires there, thinking of the British Type 45 perhaps. Never heard of a Type 49.

You should really stop plastering this thread with misinformation. You need to stop convincing yourself you know what you're talking about. I'm sure you have a copy of A-D NATOPS. Look up DEL/MECH. FBW jets don't have "force feedback" sticks. Maybe you mean force transduction. Unless you count the backup mechanical redundancy in the Legacy Hornet. In any case, in MECH, roll control is still provided by differential stab.

Reddit user u/wolffan69 created an ingenious 3d printed bracket to mount the original Rift headphones to the S. It works beautifully, with all the comfort/convenience of the original design. It's hard to beat those original speakers, just enough isolation for good audio, but not so much that you can't hear yourself speak. Here's the link to the 3d printed parts. The project requires a little soldering, but nothing difficult. I recommend using zip-ties on the wires to keep them from being pulled out of the housing, and a liberal application of hot glue for extra security. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3674713

Absolutely love my original RX Vipers. One of the finest pieces of individual craftsmanship I own! If these are even as good, they'll still be the best available.

That makes no sense. The stick in a real Hornet, for example, weighs about 35 pounds at max deflection. Your home PC joystick is probably no more than 2 or 3.

It's a bug. Obviously, the FCS should be trimming to 1G with flaps AUTO. Unfortunately there's "plausible deniability" because the programmers (or more commonly, other forum members) can simply point out that you're not supposed to take off with flaps AUTO per NATOPS.

Exciting stuff, congrats Miles. Thank you for your efforts and transparency with this project. All the guys who helped test and Firecat for managing the list, thank you also. Looking forward to seeing how this pairs with the Rift S soon!

The paragraph isn't very helpful. First of all, you have to have a target locked in order to provide ranging. That answers your 2-3 seconds question. In theory, the Director reticle is superior because it accounts for the target's current maneuver, but this results in jittering. The 1G cue shows where bullets would intercept the target at range if the target were maneuvering at 1G/unaccelerated flight in your plane of motion (POM.) The 9G cue is the other end of the spectrum, showing where bullets would hit the target if the target were maneuvering at 9G in your POM (ie. lift vector on, defensive break turn). In practical use, it helps with setting up a snapshot, since the jittery reticle could cause you to overcorrect as you or the target maneuver. If you aren't sure how hard the target is turning, you could pull the trigger and run the target from the 1G pipper to the 9G pipper. The last piece of the puzzle is the perpendicular line at the 1G pipper. This is the most useful feature, as it shows how far the target could displace with a 9G out of plane guns defense during one bullet time of flight. If the target were to make a 9G OOP maneuver, you would need to realign your POM roughly to the end of that perpendicular line to counter.

The buttons included are listed in other threads; Sokol1 is not suddenly taking a vacation from reality. From TM's prototypes it was quite clear they did not intend to lose functionality.

I’ve had a Leap Motion controller mounted in that configuration on my Rift, it’s a good setup.

My opinion is that it is absolutely critical the Rift S mount not obscure the top camera, even if testing produces no problems in DCS. People are likely to use their headset for more than just DCS.

I also occasionally get this. It's pretty disappointing. I usually have to recalibrate to fix it.

Layers of security. Lat/lon is cumbersome to transmit and would have to be encoded, too. The real answer is... whatever position data someone can obtain is what would get passed and used. A great example is Gen Goldfein's ejection over Serbia, in which his wingmen transmitted his position using radar track data, displayed to them as bearing/distance from bullseye.

Amazing stuff. It would be nice to see an installed part to hold the springs/bands, as I imagine PLA will wear and eventually break there first.

What kind of printer do you have, Huzar? The quality of that print is impressive.

If you've worn any of it you'll know: wearing real flight gear is not going to immerse you, it's just going to make you a disgusting, sweaty mess.

To amplify your post, which is totally correct but misses the LPRF piece of the picture: HPRF is better for resolving targets based on their closure (Doppler effect,) thereby reducing susceptibility to ground clutter. Targets at high Vc can be detected at higher range. However, range ambiguity is high and so an HPRF mode will give poor range information. (Think velocity search modes.) (Good Doppler resolution, poor range resolution.) LPRF gets a lot of sidelobe clutter and has poor Doppler resolution, but provides very accurate range resolution. LPRF modes need to be air to ground radar or look-up only, hence why they are rarely seen in fighter applications. (Poor Doppler resolution, good range resolution.) MPRF is a balance. It can handle ground clutter better than LPRF, and resolve range better than HPRF. Because there are ambiguities in both range and Doppler, it requires more advanced signal processing and automation. This is why you see more challenging manual functionality in older radar sets like the AWG-9 showing various depictions of velocity and range, whereas the Hornet's APG-65 is all an automated B-scope. The F-35 and other modern fighters, for further contrast, have a true "god's eye view" PPI display, without the distortion of the B-scope. Progress...

e9lC2X5dp8E

I don't get it. Rushed the initial design and shipped it without a mini stick. Now when they have a chance to make the throttle what it should have always been, they drop an essential feature in the detents? Design a new/better system if the old one was prone to excessive wear! (Pity for those of us who have the old version, knowing it has a design flaw found so soon.)