Kirk66

Anyone interested in where VR is going in flight sims should google USAF Pilot Next Training; they are going heavy into VR for flight training - and right now it's all pretty much gamer-level hardware. Vulture

A compass controller? What is this, the 90s? I want Suite 9, ADCP2, APG-82, JHMCS, SNIPER SE...oh, sorry, never mind... Vulture

Or you could just man up and fly something without a HUD; steam gauges build character. As far as bad vision - read up on Jabara during the Korean war; blind as a bat and almost more dangerous to his wingmen than the bad guys, but still an ace in the F-86. Seriously, real HUDs can be a real pain to use in changing backgrounds, and a helmet visor doesn't help that problem at all, it just makes everything darker. You learn to deal with it. As far as different colors, we are just now starting to see different colors used in the latest digital HMDs like the JHMCS2 - mainly to differentiate between friendly and hostile symbology - much like the reason color MPDs are absolutely necessary now. Would not be surprised to see the use of color extend to HUD in the future (although if the F-35 is any indication, the HUD may be on the way out...). But glad you finally broke down and picked up the Viper - just turn the stupid HUD off and go fly! Cheers, Vulture

Not usually true in military sims, the whole point is to be able to use the gucci stuff in a sim before trying to use it for real. Most fighter sims are classified at the same level as the jets. Vulture

Hmm. Fury, Panther, Cougar, Demon, Crusader, Skyhawk, Skyray, Corsair (both of them), Lightning. All have at least two things in common: Navy jets and one engine. As far as the F-15's engine being so close together as to not cause any asymmetrical issues; mostly true - except at high speeds (>m1.3 I think); an engine failure at those speeds can result in so much yaw as to result in loss of the jet. Check the Dash-1; the -229s have a feature to help prevent it (called ATDPS, i believe). Has to be checked after engine start, if fails it grounds the jet. Vulture

Same as on BoX. With Warthog throttle: left throttle for turbo wastegate, right throttle for throttle/MP, INCR/DECR lever for prop/RPM, and red China Hat for mixture (which you don't change much). Work fine. Vulture

This! Even old jets got their cockpits "refreshed" when they came out of depot maintenance; I remember collecting an F-4E from Hill AFB in the late 80's that looked brand new - and it had been built back in the early 70s and been to war! And OT - clean canopies, please! No self-respecting crew chief would let his jet fly with the filthy canopies we get in DCS... Vulture

Google "Pilot Training Next"; the US military (and the USAF in particular) is going into VR training for aircrews big-time. Same with companies like Varjo with their XR-1 MR headset and VR-2 Pro VR with hand tracking headset - which are deliberately aimed at flight training, among others. It will take a while (I wish I could afford what the military buys!) but the tech should trickle down pretty fast - think GPS or Lasers! What irritates me is that I'm about to retire from my (second) career in fighter flight simulation test and development just as the company I work for has finally realized VR is the future! I may have to hang on for a while as a part-timer just to play with the new toys! Vulture

Who cares! An F8F-2 would be awesome! Good match for the I-16..and just as relevant...

Those numbers pretty much match my experience in the centrifuge way back when it was first beginning to be used (mid-80s) due to F-16 GLOCs. My resting (in this context "resting" means twisting around checking 6 and talking on the radio or working the radar without any real anti-G straining) G was around 6; add a G suit and it was around 7, and I could function at 9 with a good AGSM - but it wasn't fun and you had to work at it! Of course, that was in an old-school F-4 Martin Baker "sit up and beg" seat; and I was a smokin' and drinkin' Field-Grade WSO, so pulling Gs wasn't a problem! It was fun watching the skinny marathon-running overachieving captains GLOC everytime - soon after the AF banned marathon-type exercising, instead stressing weight-lifting, etc... Yanking and banking is fun (especially in DCS), but IRL it's way better to let the skinny wingman do all the work, and save your strength for bat-hanging in the o-club after the flight! Vulture

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, too bad we can't do it over a beer after some acro in an ASK-21. While I agree that the warthog gimbal is not a good design, that is mainly because I really want different stick forces in pitch and roll, along with different stick deflection in pitch and roll. I'm keeping an eye on the Virpil stick bases for just that reason, but so far have not given them a try. And really, ACM with no stick forces? Even in the F-16 with a non-moving (OK, a little bit) stick you still get worn out yanking and banking! (and yes, I have flown the Viper IRL). I've read reports about P-51s that talk about 40-50 lbs stick force to maneuver - so two hands needed to fight! Just moving a floppy joystick around may be the best way to win online, but it really does not do justice to just how physical maneuvering a high performance airplane can be. But then again I have no interest in simming as a competitive game - I'm more into realism. But it's all fun! Cheers, Vulture

I'm amused about all the comments about the warthog spring being too strong - they obviously are not interested in realism, or have never flown a real fighter! My warthog has the Sahaj blue spring (stiffest one made) and a 15 cm extension, and it's still LIGHTER than any real jet I have ever flown - or the Pawnee tow plane I fly every weekend! As a reference, 5 to 7 lbs per G is considered the sweet spot for stick force in pitch (less in roll). Less and you will over-G the plane (and yourself!) way too easily; more and you are talking 2-handed stick pulling (read up on P-51 stick forces, for example; and my personal experience in F-4s supports that in a long fight...). I think my modded warthog is probably around 1.5-2 pounds per G at most; in real life it would be scary light and an over-G or GLOC would be a real concern! So yeah, for airquake "game" flying, the warthog may feel stiff, but if you are trying to replicate what a real fighter feels like, learn to trim and enjoy the burn! But to the original question - Warthog is great; get an extension and a spring and some Nyogel; do the cursor mod and the push-through AB detent, save up for Monstertech desk mounts, and you will be pretty close to the real thing. Especially with the TPR rudders. Absolutely worth it. Vulture

Along the same lines, it's possible to trick your inner ears (by using electrical currents) into thinking your are moving in pitch/roll/yaw when you are not actually moving. Developed to help cure motion sickness or something. If you combined that with a good VR system and a g-suit/g-seat you could get some real immersion! But god help you if the visual and inner ear cues got out of synch! Vulture

G-suits have been used in military simulators for a while time - I used to fly the TAC ACES sim at Luke AFB when I worked there after retiring from the AF (late 90s). It had interchangeable F-15 and F-16 cockpits that slid into full domes made up of pancake Fresnel lenses; early attempt at an 2-ship ACM sim. Cockpits had g-suits (modified real g-suits without the one-way valves) and buffet cues; it was pretty realistic - especially in the F-16 as you couldn't tell what your energy state was by how much you were pulling on the stick. If you were pulling and the g-suit was not inflating, it was time to unload cuz you was out of knots! I really liked the g-suit; it felt pretty realistic to me, but you had to be careful as without actual g-forces you could hurt yourself! The F-15E WST sim I was working on at the time (just down the hall in the same sim building) had a g-seat/suit system but it never worked and was removed pretty quickly. None of the USAF F-15 sims currently used (and I've flown all of them) - or any of the USAF and ANG F-16 sims that I got into and played with - have g-suit or g-seats. Much later (2013) I spent a year working on the Singapore M-346 sim at Cazaux AB in France and it had a really fancy G-suit/g-seat/simulated oxygen system and a nice hi-res Boeing CRVS full dome - when the Sing student pilots got in that sim they were fully kitted up - including immersion suits when the actual water temp required it! See: https://www.acme-worldwide.com/products/dynamic-motion-seats/fighters/g-suit-systems/ Funny about that old TAC ACES sim at Luke - I first flew it in 1976 when I was learning to be an F-4 WSO; back then it had hard wing pre-556 F-4 cockpits and the threat models were exactly that - wooden models of Mig-21s and Mig-23s that were suspended by wires and rotated in front of cameras, then projected onto the Fresnel lenses...crude but it worked! 20 years later I was back playing in it with different cockpits and better computer visuals replacing the models - which were now hung from wires in the briefing rooms. After hours I could bring in my glider buddies and try to teach them how to fly a Viper; the hardest thing was getting them to roll and PULL to turn! Vulture

As I said, not smart operationally. And sure, some systems might complain - but with the newer system (Sniper, etc) may not be as big a problem. Just cause your detail bit page is all lit up doesn't mean you can't fly! And let's face it, if you really had to do it (your WSO is drunk in a bar somewhere when you evacuate the base) you could start the right engine, get the gens on, then get the crew chief to power up the RCP systems before starting the left. But you are right of course that no sim totally duplicates all possible system interdependencies - after all, it is simulated (although a lot of the OFPs are actual aircraft OFPs...). The point is that with everything on and running, you can pretty much control it all from the front (or back) seat, very few systems/controls (other than engine/fuel/lights, etc) are pilot-only. Cheers, Kirk

Possible but unlikely, I routinely target 20 (5xBRU-61s) GBU-39s in an F-15E; all on individual targets. I think it's a typo ;^) Cheers, Kirk

My flights were in blk 30s and 40s and it was a while ago...don't remember much diff, but that doesn't mean much. I do remember in the F-16 sims that I was testing at the time (all blocks), that pitch seemed a bit heavy - mainly because without feeling Gs (energy) you just kept on pulling till you fell out of the sky! Definitely could not fly a Viper like a Phantom! One of the blk 40 flights was a night Lantirn low level to the range...that was interesting - especially the bird strike at low level in a canyon. Jet pretty much OK, bird no so much. Fun times. Kirk

Operationally, yes (not smart to arm the laser or CMD on ground, for example) but physically? No problem at all, you would have to secure the seat and set the command ejection to pilot only, but besides that it's easy. I do it all the time while testing in full up F-15E simulators - don't need no stinkin' WSO! Same with operating the rear cockpit functions; once airborne (gear up, etc), easy setup the pilot stuff (master mode and master arm, mainly) then jump in the back and do the rest of the mission/testing. Then there is "pilot catches a canadian goose in the face" scenario: blow down the gear and land from the pit, using the hook and emergency brakes to stop. Easy. The jet really doesn't care. Would you go to war that way? Only if you had run out of WSOs! Kirk

It's true that in the F-15E the pilot can do most of the A/A and A/G actions without the WSO (not RIO, please!); at the same time the WSO can equally do most of the A/A actions (and fly the jet, too, of course). But the HOTAS and some controls mean that the pilot's controls are optimized for A/A, while the WSOs for A/G. There are some very specialized functions (mainly A/G) that are uniquely available in the pit. But if before takeoff the pilot reaches into the rear cockpit and turns on the tpod, laser, TEWS, and CMD, then he can do pretty much all by himself. But it gets real busy! Seriously, there are so many sensors, radios, datalink, and weapons that a two-man crew is essential to really use the jet. And yes, I know this from many years of direct hands-on experience. Oh, by the way, those videos are really, really old! Cheers, Kirk

Well, no. In every actual aircraft that I have flown, pitch and roll forces are different; typically for "ideal" control harmony you want light roll, medium pitch, and heavy yaw - which makes sense if you think of the muscles involved, and the rate of motion you want to command - heavy roll makes a plane too stable (ok for transports) but light pitch makes an over-g really easy! In my glider (see sig pic), due to the long wings, it's the reverse: roll is slow (with lots of stick displacement needed - which gets heavy at speed), while pitch is very light and sensitive (two fingers and not much movement), especially at speed. But for the type of maneuvering you do in a glider, it's nicely harmonized (LS6s are known for nice flying qualities - and I totally agree!). The F-15 IRL does not have equal forces in roll and pitch. The few flights I had in real F-16s (long time ago) it felt to me that the roll was nice and light (but very dead-beat, once you figured out to use pressure and not displacement - and not to bring the stick back to center to stop the roll!) while pitch was surprisingly heavy, although the 25 lbf quoted above is pretty much the same as the mechanical F-15's. That is probably an AF required force (since with powered controls, you can make it whatever you want). My DCS setup is a Warthog, 15 cm extension, and the strongest Sahaj spring. Center mounted, it takes some muscle to move but feels like a plane (pretty close to a Pawnee, actually), unlike most other game sticks that are so light as to be ridiculous! Cheers, Kirk

18 is an odd number, considering GBU-39s are always carried by a BRU-61 rack, which can hold up to 4 GBU-39s (or GBU-53s pretty soon). So depending where you load the BRUs, with 5 loaded your SDB loadout would be 20 weapons; I doubt the weight of 2 extra SDBs (about 500lbs) would make a difference to the Hog... I'm lucky to have a lot of experience working with SDBs (in real military fighter sims, not IRL, unfortunately); fun to use and yes if you have the time and sensors it's easy to target everyone individually - but they are SLOOOW! Take forever to get to the target! Vulture

Cool - thanks! (sorry for late reply...) Cheers, Vulture

Just a though, could the up/down buttons be connected to the POV thumbswitch, using perhaps the 45 (up-right) contact for up and the 225 (down-left) contact for down? That way the coolie switch maintains full independent functionality, and you would be using POV contacts that are not used unless the POV switch is used as a POV (I use it as a 4-way + press, for example). Vulture

I always wondered about this. In the F-4 that I crewed the radar was in standby until takeoff (and after landing) and there was also a W-on-W switch; lots of safety briefings about not frying your crewchief, etc..., but, what about being in the lead of a 4-ship in fingertip formation? You look over your shoulder and there is a big radar on each side of you, happily putting out microwaves... Does the metal airframe provide protection? How about the canopy? Nomex? May explain why my kid is so strange... Vulture

FoxDelta, quick OT question: Is the gear handle something you made? I would really like one of those! Vulture