Bearfoot

Do you have an issue with the server replay tracks (still) being wonky? With the F-14 at least?

Mike, Does this workaround still work? I installed the DCS server on the same machine (as per the instructions here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4383977#post4383977), launch a client DCS instance and joined the MP mission. Simple 1v1 over Caucasus. With the first "1" being me and the other "1" being AI (various others, from F-16 to F-18 to Mirage etc.) No ships, nothing else. Not ONE single track replayed correctly. Out of multiple runs. Is there something about the server needed to be on a different machine for this work?

Awesome! Thanks, Mike!

Nice! Thanks for sharing.

I, too, form up on left, refuel, and then go right. In the F-14. And that's what Jester tells me to do as well. Though I don't always listen to him. I actually had to shut him up when learning to tank as his calls were too distracting.

Yep, looks fixed! Jester's meds seem to be working out for him :thumbup:

Folks, experimenting with VoiceAttack or StreamDeck to issue a stream of keys to go to the RIO seat, hit "next launch" and then back again to the pilot seat works very well and seamlessly. Target sorting as well as multiple launches on the same target. Only problem, of course, is that this does not work in MP because you cannot switch seats. So a real solution has to come from HB.

1, If Heatblur had stated that the game was really designed from the outset for human-only RIO, and that the single-player experience was going to be substandard, sure. It is a stated goal, however, that the AI RIO experience is complete, if not perfect. 2. I don't care to play this game with a human RIO. Maybe I am antisocial. Maybe I just like my eggs boiled. 3. There is no satisfactory work around for not having a Next Launch Jester command not available. 4. A Next :Launch Jester command still will not be as flexible or as effective or as efficient as a human RIO. We still will not be able to do everything. But it gets us really, really, really, really, really, really, really far there. 5. Dude, you need to look up "false equivalence" sometime. And meditate on it. Virtual FBW and SparrowHawk HUD's are not the same as asking for an option for Jester to push a button. Which we already have for so many other things anyway (TWS, RWS, STT, Pulse mode , etc. etc. etc.). There is absolutely no spiritual difference between asking Jester to switch from PD to P STT or Radar Standby/Active, or a gazillion others things that HB in their infinite wisdom has decided to include, and "Next Launch". 6. Your "support for fixing things that are broken or missing" is surely appreciated and valued by everyone who appreciates and values your support for what they do with a game they have paid the same amount of money for to do with in the privacy of their home. You think "Next Launch" --- and existing feature on the aircraft that allows for the aircraft to be used in its full and correct capacity properly (target sorting in a busy place) --- is an OOL request so you do not support it? That's cool, too. We'll try to struggle on without your support. 7. There's no such thing as a free lunch. I have no doubt that if HB decides to implement this, it will take resources away from some other development. Only they know how much and the cost of this will be. I leave it to them to figure out if it is worth it or OOL.

(1) That's lovely that things work out as they are for you. It does not for many of us. (2) It's awesome that you think flying with a human RIO solves all our problems. For many of us flying with a human RIO is not an option we can (unpredictable work hours, kids, etc.) or care for (just like some like red wine and some like tequila). (3) That's cool that you do not think that spamming Phoenix's is a nice tactic. For what it's worth, I agree. The Next Launch also allows for a carefully considered second shot if the first looks like it might be missed. But either way, you play the game your way, and let others play it their way. (4) No, we do not want and F-15 with an F-14 skin on it. Thank you for your off-the-cuff psychoanalysis, but you should probably stick to your day job (or flying the virtual F-14). We want an F-14 that can be played well (enough) with a non-human RIO as advertised and intended by Heatblur's. Among other things, a "Next Launch" option will help bring us closer to that goal. (5) Thank you for your musings on all our potential ergonomic issues and woes with a cluttered Jester wheel etc. Very generous with your time and effort given that you seem to prefer to play with a human RIO anyway. Rest assured: (1) One way or another, it's our problem; (2) Plenty of room still on the Jester wheel ; (3) Many of us use programs that hook into the Jester wheel (VoiceAttack/StreamDeck), so we do not or rarely look at the wheel. So when you get the time to do deeper thinking about this, you might want to file this away in the "much-ado-about-nothing strawman problem that does not exist now and will not with even a dozen new features added and even after that if it is a problem it is something that does not concern me as I fly with human RIO's" category. (6) "There are so many other things that can be added and fixed." Sure. I'll bet you that we would agree on many of them, and on a few others we will go "meh?", and a few others that might be important to you I would list below "making the harness flutter to reflect the airflow in the cockpit". Right now, a "Next Launch" for me ranks below LANTIRN operability (which should not concern you in any way, either, given your preference for human RIO's) and (way) above the yaw string.

Headquarters is neat, and I am looking forward to its release. But it is mission generator, not a mission creator. It algorithmically builds a missions, with configurable parameters, as opposed to allowing an individual to creatively craft a mission (e.g., place assets, routes, trigger zones, etc.).

Agree 100%. Not to mention that mission creation requires a different interface than playing missions (e.g., no VR, different resolution) as well as weaker specs. Bad news is that in the long list of priorities, this is probably and arguably legitimately low on ED's list. However, the good --- in fact, GREAT --- news is that this should be quite doable as a community or even an individual hobby project! The mission file structure is easily discoverable, as it is just a bunch of plain text files wrapped up in a zip archive, and, furthermore, those plaintext files themselves all seem to be straightforward Lua dictionaries. Someone with the skills (and time and love and committment) to put together something like CombatFlite could probably pull this together very well without requiring SDK's etc.Plus gives the option to add lots of extras (e.g., generate nice external briefings, etc.).

LOL!

For me (very subjective opinion): P-51 is easier and far more competitive in dogfights P-47 is a little more tricky to fly (but honestly, NBD) and waaaaaaaaay more difficult to fight in. And, when it comes down to it, even in the hands of a good pilot, probably not as competitive as the P-51 under 20,000 feet where most of online dogifights take place . On the other hand, I'm find the P-47 far more fun, interesting, and fulfilling to fly, even if I get shot down all the time. It is also a lot more cooler (or is that meaner?) looking fighter!

Yes, but a Tomcat costs $19.2 million dollars. It would be shame to lose a 20 million dollar Tomcat to a $100K R-27 missile because we got all scroogey about launching a $500K AIM-154. Also, given the cost-per-hour of flying a tomcat, it would be shame to waste all of that money if we skimped on a missile and the Tomcat failed in its job. Especially if it means that the 37.3 BILLION dollar carrier ends up getting scratched in the mean time. Anyway, either way, when ED puts out "DCS: House Committee on Budget Appropriations" and "DCS: DoD Fiscal Year Planning", sure, we can start taking into account the cost of firing the ordnance vs the cost of not. Until then, I'm going to consider it a sad day if I come back to land with any weapons on the pylons ... Especially if the bandit gets away because I did not fire.

Thanks. I've asked Heatblur to give the poor lonely pilot-without-a-human-AI an option to command Jester to "Next Launch" here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4398690#post4398690

Heatblur, Would it be possible to command Jester to hit the "Next Launch" switch? Thanks!

I've only ever played with AI RIO (Jester). Listening to Bio, it seems that a pilot would never tell the RIO what to do with radar modes or whatever under any circumstances. But Jester, it seems, needs help. My "workflow" as an SP/MP pilot with AI: (1) RWS from the get go, range as far out as it needs be (100/200 if AWACS does not know of any contacts or if there are no contacts in "danger close" range, e.g., just getting up to go hunting) (2) Stick in RWS as the situation develops to build up an SA of what is going on (3) Swtich to TWS when I decide I need to focus in a sector . Generally, I try to stick with TWS as opposed to STT as long as possible to avoid losing SA about what else is happening around me in the sky and also not to give away to the target that they are being targetted. Back to RWS if/when the situation calms down or when I need to reestablish "global SA" (and can afford to lose the TWS picture -- i.e., nothing imminent). (4) STT only when I am forced to: (a) to fire Sparrows, or (b) if Jester refuses to IFF a contact in TWS and I just need to know now, or if © TWS keeps dropping a contact that I am very keen on keeping tabs on at the expense of everything else (5) VLS modes when it looks like I am getting into the merge. I used to go VLS low by default, but now I find I like the horizontal scan better at least inititally for its 15nm range. Anyway, read up on the "BVR timeline" for more info. Here are some good references I've found: (1) https://flyandwire.com/2020/03/08/f-14-bvr-part-i-sanitization-and-radar-mating/ (2) https://flyandwire.com/2020/03/16/f-14-bvr-part-ii-timeline-overview/ (3) https://flyandwire.com/2020/03/22/f-14-bvr-part-iii-timeline-in-detail/ If you find others, please share!

Miscommuncation/misunderstanding etc. all aside, I, too, agree that we need better IFF options from Jester. "Hop in the back seat and figure it out" -- OK, if you are flying straight and level on a nice sunny day at 20000 feet and the birds are singing and you have just ordered yourself a nice cuppa and are waiting for it to cool down a bit before taking a sip. But snaking down a valley at 500 ft?? Yeah, but that's a negative ghostrider. "Lock up the target and wait for Jester to tell you" --- OK if you want to scare the marks with a lock and give away your intentions and (far worse IMHO) lose all SA regarding the rest of the battlespace at the same time. Works fine against dumb AI or naive humans, but not something I care to do if it can be avoided in an MP environment with opponents who know what they are doing. "If you can't establish whether a contact is hostile, don't fire" --- ... um, OK? Don't know if this was ever in doubt. In fact, that's the point of this discussion, no? To figure out how to figure out whether the contact is hostile before (or at least, not too late after) the contact figures you out? The current set up works most of the time satisfactorily enough in some situations. In particular, it works fine enough in SP against a few hostiles and clean of too many friendlies/neutrakls. But there are many situations where it does not, and some of those where it critically does not. I get that not everyone flies in those situations all the time (or, judging from the comments, maybe any of the time?). But it is an issue for many of us who do fly in, let us say, maybe more challenging situations (either because the situation is itself more challenging or because the "meat" is more challenged due to our stupidity)? And some simple features added to Jester will really help. IIRC, Heatblur as indicated that they are, in fact, working on better IFF options for Jester due to exactly these concerns. I think an AWACS "declare" is authentic/realistic, immersion-increasing, etc. etc., and would love to have one. But I don't think it will happen soon due to other (legitimately more pressing) priorities on ED's side. "Jester: IFF" (either hooked target or all, with the consequent time penalty for either) would be not just be great, but needed for authenticity, completeness, immersion and fun.

Ah, I see. If Heatblur gave us a "Next Launch" Jester command, would this allow it the procedure to be executed in a self-contained way (i.e. no seat switching) by the pilot in either SP/MP? That is, is "Next :Launch" the only thing needed?

Thanks. Can this be done from the pilot seat if there is no human RIO (i.e., through Jester)?

No idea what this means. But if it takes 4 Phoenixes to take down a threat, then yes, I will use 4 Phoenixes rather than twaddle my thumbs meditating on the cliffs of Dover.

Thanks. The AWG-9/AIM-154/F-14 system was designed for many things. Dealing with the "Kamikaze Swarm" was certainly one of them. It is a common internet myth, however, that this was the only goal. From the very outset, air superiority --- in all its forms, against any and all hostiles --- was also an equally important goal. The F-14 was not just a dumb sledgehammer to by used to clumsily swat down clouds of flies. It could, and was designed to be, used as a surgical instrument as well, as well as everything in between.

So, is there something preventing this? Situation: Single bandit on TWS, in optimum firing zone for AIM-154 (flashing symbol on radar). OK, Fox 3 -- AIM-154 goes off the rail, and the countdown begins. After a bit, I see target maneuvering, and I figure I am going to give him another Phoenix to worry about (hey, virtual missiles are cheap). Still on TWS, clear contact, no issue. Press release and hold .... and nothing. Just cannot get the missile to launch. It appears that until the previous missile headed his way ends its run, I cannot send another Phoenix his way. Is this expected behavior? Is there any way around it? (Of course, I am sure I am going to get some advice about why I should not want to do this, and what I should do instead, and how it's probably better to etc. etc. Not going to say no to all of that, but I really would like to know if I am missing something about being able to launch multiple Phoenix at the same target a few mins apart).

Assuming that you are not joking, how much bigger do you a think a skin is going to add to your installation?

Right now "A", "A" gets you there ... unless for some reason the first "A" opens Jester already at the top level, in which case it closes. For programming voice- or other controller-activated macros,it would be nice to have a key-bind that, regardless of what is going on in DCS world (in dogfight, in BVR, just tootling along), always open Jester at the same place, i.e., the top-level menu.