Bearfoot

What do you mean by "out turn"? Better instantaneous turn rate? Better sustained turn rate? Better turn radius? And under what conditions?: what altitude? what loadout? And under what constraints? Maximum allowable G on paper? Or actual? All of these matter. And depending on what your answers are, it might be either the F-16 or the F-18.

The OP may have been referring to my post in another thread, which indicated that thus far HB has only definitely committed to an AI A-6. Flyable A-6 is subject to very many conditionals of uncertain timelines and probabilities of fruition, including securing licensing. If you have been around DCS for long, you probably are bit a too wise to reduce that to the "WE ARE GETTING AN A-6!" end of the spectrum, even if the "A-6 is off the table" end of the reduction spectrum is not really accurate either. Though, again if you have been around DCS for long, you might actually find yourself looking there. IMHO, until HB declares development, it's just hypeware. YMMV. Now, I am going to slip into my promised AH-64 and see what things look like from there ...

Thanks, Bankler! Would it be possible to add more detailed information in the summary at the end? Specifically, it would be nice to see a recap of the all the benchmark targets vs actual. I know this is reported while we pass them (e.g., too high, target = xxx, actual = xxx), but let's just say I'm usually focused on other things during this time ( :) !) and it would be nice to see them at the end. The final summary will say, for e.g., I am too low, but it would be great to know exactly what that was. If this will clutter the summary at the end, maybe a radio option for a more detailed milestone-by-milestone summary?

Thanks for the clarification, Miles!

This is unfortunate. And cheap. And unethical. Have you contacted them and asked to at least change the name to something more different?

Interesting. Hopefully Miles might chime in with details on why the covering of the Rift S sensor does not effect tracking.

On the one hand, I completely get what you mean. Except I think the list could be shorter. We have (medium) lifts covered on both sides. We don't really need heavy lifts. We don't really need scouts (at least, until DCS radically changes as the scouting mission really does not work too well in DCS currently). What we really need is a western (heavy) attack helo. On the other hand, there is something to be said for wanting a particular aircraft because of some intrinsic appeal it has, even if its role is redundant. E.g., we have the Viggen. Yet, I would love to have an F-111 or an A-6. We have the Hornet. But my life would be incomplete if we didn't have the Tomcat. And I'm looking forward to the F-4 and F-8 as well. So, along these lines, I would love to see ANY Black Hawk variant. It's iconic to me as much as the Huey. And while we're at it: Chinook and MH-53. When it comes down to it, I'll take all the helos I can get!

There are two "Just Dogfight" servers. The "Just Dogfight New" or something like that has no labels (even though the info says labels = dot only). The other one has labels. I love a no-label fight as much as the next person, but when (1) you have the same type of aircraft in both sides and (2) everyone jumps into an ongoing furball (as opposed to two teams approaching each other in an agreed pattern), it is frankly an exercise is pointless chaos. You cannot really practice BFM under those circumstances. So I just avoid the no-labels version.

Interesting. Any info or pointers to info? In particular: why does covering of the Rift S sensor not interfere with its (the Rift S) functioning?

BTW, IIRC the below is also discussed in the Fighter Pilot Podcast F-14 episode.

For all intents and purposes: F-14A+ <==> F-14B The F-14A with upgraded engines was the F-14A+. But at some point the USN acquired a logistics software that for some reason or another freaked out or otherwise could not handle "+" part of the label. This would create a logistics nightmare as wrong engine parts would end up in wrong places in the supply chain from factories to depots to ships. So they renamed the model the "F-14B". What makes it even more confusing is that there was an even earlier version actually called the F-14B as well, but this was a short-lived dead-end experimental variant, that had nothing to do with the F-14A => F-14A+ => F-14D lineage.

I (and a gazillion others), like you, would love a Black Hawk. Day 0.0001 purchase. I'd buy two, in fact. I think the issue is licensing from Sikorsky. I've heard/read that they can be difficult. It may actually be more productive to lobby Sikorsky to open up to allowing ED to work on the Black Hawk than asking ED! Anyone know anyone who knows someone?

Looks good. I currently use a trackball velcroed to the side of the throttle quadrant. Works well enough, but in VR have to turn my head to make sure to look directly at the switch/dial to interact. Presume the same issue with this mouse. I just ordered PointCTRL. For VR, this seems to be most immersive solution yet.

Pretty sure HB has categorically said that they just do not have, and will not have, access to sufficient info to do the D. HB did say they would work on an A-6, but I'm almost certain their commitment was for an AI model. Which means that a player A-6 is just as hypeware as any of our other wishful wantings. And, in fact, some of those wishful wantings have probably got a better chance of coming sooner than either the A-6 or F-14D, simply because ED or some 3rd party developer has indicated in the past interest in working on it (e.g., AH-64, F-4)

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" There is no doubt that DCS does not simulate everything. For e.g., how hot/cold in the cockpit when a particular aircraft's environmental controls do not work properly. Or the neck and backache you develop from pulling G's, Or yes, stochastic effects of a real, real, highly-complex atmosphere (the " burbles, updrafts, downdrafts, shear, crosswinds" etc as described by jimmywa3). Or the wear of engines resulting in uneven performance from two-engine birds. Or lightning strikes. Or a careless mechanic leaving a bolt in the air intake. Or FOD on the runway. Or budget cuts / supply chain issues resulting in not all weapons availablle. Or .. any of other of a million things. Nobody is denying that. Nobody is defending that. It's just a question of reasonable expectations. What comes across to you as "defending DCS" is just people telling you to temper your expectations to reality. If your expectations are absurd or naive for what a $70 game can do on a $1-3K home desktop computer, you are going to be disappointed with lots of things in life, not just DCS.

YES. It's like an inner glow that you carry around for days!

So, I've now got it down where I can consistently and confidently refuel from the KC-130 as long as it is flying straight and level. I can from the KC-135, but it usually takes a few attempts to plug --- the dihedral wing angle is disorienting, made worse that because you are so far out on the wing there is much less to reference (most of your view is sky). The Viking is absolutely the most challenging! I've done it, but it took several attempts to plug and even then I dropped off the basket a few times. I found Red Kite's video AMAZINGLY useful, and the most important advice he gave is: form up on the tanker and then trim, trim, trim, trim till you are absolutely stable. I stabilize just behind the basket and hold and then rock the throttle to edge into the basket for contact. Here's a question though --- no matter what the tanker is, as soon as I plug, no matter how gentle, I suddenly find myself climbing up relative to the tanker. I have learned to anticipate and control this, so it is not a problem. What I am wondering is ... why? Sometimes I literally drift into the basket so there is hardly any momentum at all and certainly I am flying level. Yet, inevitably, right after contact, I rapidly start climbing. Is it something to do with the aerodynamics? By the way, I can, without hyperbole say this: the most satisfying accomplishment I've had in ANY virtual world, and the most satisfying non-professional skill I have ever learned, is A2A refueling. The first time I tanked successfully --- I'll remember that for a LONG time to come!

These are not mutually exclusive. It's more of a maintenance labor hour per flight hour thing. As well as correlated cost per flight hour. The high FMC rates speaks much more to the incredible "above and beyond" effort, commitment, dedication, skill, as well as training and organization, of the maintenance crews than the engineering of the F-14. The love-her-but-wow-she's-a-lot-of-work comes across in a number of personal accounts (e.g., some of the stories in Bye-Bye Baby). The early days especially are collection of maintenance horror stories told with deep passionate affection: """ It was a constant challenge. But the rewards could bring tears to your eyes. I've been stabbed, cut, bruised, shocked, pinched, burned, and worse. Smashed finger. ... But let some non-Tomcat sailor say a disparaging word about my jet, and I'd rip him to pieces." """

Agreed. The WinWing throttle does seem to be the new bar so far, though, for the extended throw if nothing else. Also, a good frontier to push in stick development: FFB. Patents have expired. Hint, hint, VKB!

For better or worse, I think the only real answer here is you have to try it yourself (so get a unit from a place with a good return policy). The thing is, the hard object specs only tell 50% of the story. The other 50% is how YOU feel about the performance balance. E.g., what is your minimum FPS before you feel it is not worth it? How much ghosting are you OK with? What is your low-FPS-nausea threshold? Two people can sit down on the exact machine and same mission and come away with opposite impressions. That being said, I have a very similar machine to yours: i7-4790K @ 4Ghz, 16GB RAM, and 1080Ti. I tried the Reverb. LOVED the resolution. But had to reluctantly admit that I could not run it at that resolution happily. So I went with the Rift S. I wrote about the comparison in more detail here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4099195&postcount=4204 You might fare a bit better because of your higher memory, but I think our CPU's are the bottleneck. But again, you really have to try it yourself. Also make sure you try it in the most complex conditions you usually fly. E.g., no point checking it out while flying over the sea. Fly through downtown Dubai, look to the left/right as you zip past buildings. Use a fast jet. Also get into some BFM and see if you can track the bandit through the ghosting. Get online on a busy server and fly a mission. etc.

Huh. I like the Hornet too, but honestly between the charlie and the F-16, I'm Ok with all this beep-beep-boop-boop-deedle-deedle go mobile jets. Looking foward to the F-8 and the F-4. But what I would really like would the F-14's sister-in-arms, the A-6.

I have been seriously considering getting one those seat thingys to get a literal butt kicking. Just been hemming and hawing till I find one that works well without too much hassle and is affordable.

Keep in mind that many of us also fly warbirds, where the HUD is quite a bit more basic. "Iron HUD" ... LOL. And most DCS folks are also reasonably familiar with the F-86/Mig-19/F-5/Mig-21, and many have flown thse quite a bit as well. So the F-8 is not really going to be shocking. it's just a question of expectations. The warbirds/F-86 etc. generally are flown against opponents that also have the same level of "HUD" tech. The F-14 goes toe-to-toe with Su-27's/Mig-29's/F-18's/F-16's ... and can hold its own. Love it!

No doubt, it was cutting edge revolutionary for its time! Everything about it --- avioinics, airframe, aerodynamics, etc. E.g., I was listening to a talk about the aerodynamic design and it is absolutely genius how things mechanically work autonomously to keep the wing profiles (like airbags inflating automatically to seal gaps etc.). It's like a pre-microchip computer FLCS almost. As for the HUD, I've read/heard folks say that the HUD was a weapon delivery system and not a flying aid. That may be so, but what a difference having just two extra numbers (IAS and altitude) would make! Throw in rate of climb (already there in landing mode) and AoA and it's like you are now in luxury mode. Coming from the Hornet it was a cold shock. Going back to the Hornet seems like I am stepping into an arcade toy. One other thing that real world Tomcat drivers had to deal with that we (or at least I) don't: the relatively poorly designed HOTAS, e.g. the locaitons of the PLM/PAL High/PAL low switches. Still nothing compared to the jump in ergonomics is IFF: from pressing a button on the stick in virtually every 4th gen to what the RIO has to go through!

1. How to fly. At least vritually. Balance lift and speed and G and AoA and all the dynamic interplay between all of that. I used to think helo flying was the ultimate balancing act. Till I learned to aerial refuel in a Tomcat. Even more difficult than my previous benchmark of a challenge --- the pick up into a hover in rotary wing. And even more satisfying to get it down. 2. How much of a difference a good -- or even a (less) basic -- HUD makes for maintaining SA. Speed and angels, man. And AoA too. Not being able to see that info while still looking out of the cockpit makes a world of difference. Especially when there is no computer flying for you. 3. I thought it should be flown like an energy boom+zoom fighter in BFM. It can, and can probably hold its own again some, but really it loves turning and squirming slowly in the weeds as well. 4. The amount of workload the human RIO had to put up just to IFF, let alone manage the system the entire bird was designed around, i.e. the AWG-9. 20 years of Moore's law later, and everything shows up nice and pretty on wonderfully ergonomic display one person can manage and fly at the same time, while IFF is just a button press.