Andrew8604

If you have a twin throttle, you could maybe use one for throttle and one for brakes, and if there was a checkbox on the A-4E-C to allow option of nose wheel steering, then you could use stick twist for rudder/nose wheel steering. This would also work for the MiG-21, as the real thing only has a single brake lever on the stick, not toe-brakes on the rudder pedals. It does not have nose wheel steering but by applying rudder in combination with brakes, it gives differential braking...or at least that's the way it behaves in M3's MiG-21bis. I've sat in a real MiG-21U, I know it has no toe brakes and has a brake lever on the stick. Or, if you have a CH Throttle Quadrant with 6 analog levers, you could set one for throttle and two next to it for left and right brakes. Another option could be the Honeycomb Bravo Throttle Quadrant, which has 6 levers and 7 toggle switches and a landing gear lever and flaps switch. VKB stick doesn't have twist, does it? But the A-4E-C Community programmers can only do what they have time and knowledge to do. It used to have nose wheel steering. I hope they can add the coding for a checkbox option to have it either way.

I love the A-4 Skyhawk, and while this Community version isn't perfect, it's pretty damned good. I enjoy flying it every time! ...and it's probably the only A-4 Skyhawk we're going to get (I'd like an A-4B version, though). I would agree with 4eyes that an option box somewhere would be nice so that we can choose between powered nosewheel steering or the free-castering configuration. But I don't know how difficult it would be for the community to code that option. There DOES seem to be a problem with steering at low speeds, like less than 1-2kts. It seems like something to do with starting friction forces on the individual main tires. But I'm not sure. Differential braking seems non-existent below the 1-2 kts range. That, combined with having no feel of how much braking force we're applying to the left and right wheels. I'm not saying this is anyone's fault. It seems like you can't hold one brake, let's say the right, apply throttle and pivot around that right tire. But I would think there would be enough "feel" in the toe brakes to make very fine brake applications to turn and not go off the edge of the carrier deck. And I have tried setting control response curves for the brakes. Then again, I see videos of real aircraft handlers on the carriers with a tiller bar or steering bar connected to the A-4's nosewheel, apparently to steer it around the flight deck for the pilot and get it lined up exactly on the catapult. Maybe the real aircraft really is difficult to steer precisely. And if you were facing the edge of the flight deck, close to the edge with brakes applied, stopped, I'm pretty sure the deck crew would get about 6-8 guys to push the aircraft back from the edge. Or maybe shut it down and pull it with a tug by the arresting hook or main struts. Can't do that in DCS...at least not yet. Also, having powered nosewheel steering would sort of simulate that guy with the tiller bar steering the nosewheel around on the flight deck. On an airbase, the nosewheel steering isn't really needed, sure. You get used to using finesse on the toe brakes and throttle to taxi. Anyway, the handling just feels very vague at walking speeds. It seems to work okay if you stay up above about 2-3 kts. And then having no feel at all on the toe brakes (that's the fault of the simulator rudder pedal hardware designs--they need much stiffer springs with a short throw) makes it a little hard to apply fine differential braking. I won't quit flying the A-4, though. I love doing carrier ops with it. Just wish we had an angled-deck, Essex-class like the Hancock or Oriskany to operate off of, though. The Clemenceau is about the best substitute. Seems like the best work around is to keep some speed while taxiing...just above walking speed. Don't get too slow with the nose wheel hard over, or you'll be stuck in a turn until you have enough speed (and ramp space) to ease out of it with the opposite brake and straighten that nose wheel. I found this technique to work pretty well: Hold the brakes. Apply power up to about 1.4:1 EPR (or whatever %RPM that works out to). Then ease off the brakes to gain speed to ONLY about 2-3 kts...walking speed. Then, riding the brakes, maintain that speed and control direction with differential application of the brakes. (I use the Thrustmaster TPR pedals). To taxi a bit on an airfield, you can ease off the throttle a bunch and just maintain 7-10 kts or whatever, as normal. For fine steering on the carrier deck, use the power-on, ride-the-brakes technique above. Never mind that that power setting might blow guys off the carrier deck. It's like the caster of the nose wheel is overly dampened, maybe.

I know. Who wants another Jester in the Phantom...that's more like a back-seat driver than a RIO? They should give the "F-14 Jester" that nasal voice of Fran Drescher as "The Nanny". "You shouldn't get so close to the tanker! You're going to scratch the paint...again. Watch your speed! Oh, my gawd!" (Ok, maybe I exaggerate.)

Two F4's coming soonish, I hope. HB F-4E and Mag3/Leatherneck F4U-1D, which will be the first carrier-based prop plane in DCS, won't it? ...along with a WWII Essex-class carrier. But that F8U-2NE (F-8E) upgraded to -J would sure be nice with an angled-deck Essex-class carrier!! Maybe this time next year...I hope, I hope.

If "OP" is me... I WISH I had an F-105D. ...now watch, I'll be misunderstood and get a real F-105 delivered to my house that won't fit in my backyard. If I only get 3 wishes, that may have just used them up! Now I'll never get that E-1B Tracer or KA-3B Skywarrior I wanted. ...I'm trusting the F-4B Phantom II will be in-works one of these years. I've got a stack of wishes in one hand and virtual aircraft in the other.

I'm thinking those might be Mk-81's on that F-5A. Publicity shot. Like..."See, it carries a LOT of bombs! Buy it!" The F-5E chart seems to only mention MER under the Centerline Pylon and then only 5 Mk-82's on the BRU-27/A (MER)...in the bottom, right corner of the chart. And I suspect the limit of 5 is for clearance at takeoff rotation. All the other inboard and outboard pylons would appear to only be single munitions or stores, no multi-bomb rack units...and must be symmetrical loadings, too, for takeoff. In flight, you can apparently have some asymmetrical loading. I think there are more charts in the manual that talk about in-flight carriage and sequencing limitations. It looks like only a single M117 or Mk-82 on the INBD/OUTBD pylons, no Mk-83's or Mk-84's. If you can't carry a single 2000-lb Mk-83 or Mk-84 on an INBD pylon, how could you be allowed to carry an MER with 2 or more Mk-82's on it? Then again, how can you carry a 275-gal (1900+ lbs) fuel tank on the INBD pylons? Hmm... Is it possible that a loaded MER could put too much twisting forces/moments on the wing? That chart is confusing to interpret, though. BRU = Bomb Rack Unit MER = Multiple Ejector Rack ... I think they have ejector feet that kick the bomb or store off of the bomb rack lugs to ensure separation. It's mechanically linked with the rack lugs release. I believe those ejector "feet" are powered by an explosive ejector cartridge...something similar to a shotgun shell but probably more powerful. When I saw bombs released during a dive-bombing demonstration at a naval weapons station back in 1981, I could see small puffs of smoke from the bomb racks as bombs separated, followed by a "pop" sound (delayed due to the distance). DCS doesn't simulate this, does it? When the bombs, Mk-82, Mk-83, Mk-84's hit the ground, a few miles away, it was a seemingly ground-shaking BOOM...when the sound arrived. (I don't think it really shook the ground, just seemed like it because you could feel the shockwave in your chest or abdomen, just a bit.) Dropped from A-4's, A-6's and A-7E's. The A-7E fired its M61 20mm gun, too. That was like a ripping or belching sound, but at a powerful volume. It IS cool that DCS has that sound delay for distance.

Well, that was easy! Make a wish and get it answered in less than 60 days!! I'm going to make some more. (No, I would guess they were working on it long before I posted this wish.) Of course, it could be 1 or 2 years before Early Access. But at least it's on the design table!! Thanks, Grinnelli Designs!! I'll be flying this one in the Vietnam Map. Oh, wait..."DCS Wish List, may we have a Vietnam Map? " There, let's see if we get that promised within 60 days, now.

No, that's fine. If that's what it is, then that's what it is. Thanks for letting me know! I must not have observed what I thought I observed back in the 70s and 80s. I must have saw it wrong. Maybe the anti-collision lights over-powered the position lights in brightness to where I thought they were all flashing. At any rate, they don't look that great in DCS. Problems with rendering at various distances in limited pixel resolution, I'd imagine. But on the F-4 Phantom, I'm absolutely sure I saw all the lights flash in unison. We'll have to see what those NATOPS's say. Different aircraft, different manufacturer. But whatever NATOPS says. I suppose I could close this topic out, then. Or we just let it rest here?

I wonder if there might be a way to "mod" the F-14A so that switching on anti-collision lights won't disable the flashing of the nav/position lights. That way I could change my aircraft's function just for me. I suppose it would be too much to ask if HB could add an option to enable/disable the Nav/Pos Lights Flasher cut-out function. Well, maybe only if it can be proven the 70s-80's F-14As' lights function was that way. Thanks for your comments, guys. Just to be clear and sum it up: HB has it CORRECT for the time period of the modeled F-14A/B...which appears to be late 90s-2000s. It is, as per 2001 NATOPS manual, for example.

Alright, I see in a NATOPS F-14B Flight Manual - August 2001 that what you are saying is correct and how it works in the F-14A/B in DCS matches the NATOPS manual exactly. However, that does not explain why I saw what I saw so many, many times in the night sky near Miramar. Maybe something changed. Maybe the F-14s were reworked sometime in the late 80s or 90s to make it as described in this 2001 NATOPS manual. Maybe in the late 70s and early 80s, the Anti-Collision lights switch "ON" did NOT disable the flasher for the position lights. Or maybe there simply was no Anti-Collision Lights switch and all lights were considered POSITION lights. And POSITION lights to FLASH, flashed them all together. I'll have to try to get a 1981 or 1979 F-14A NATOPS manual and see what it says. I know this is very minor stuff. But having seen so many back in those days, how could I have seen it wrong? I have two animated GIF files attached. The one where all lights flash together is what I'm SURE I saw in those days. The other GIF shows what it should look like according to the NATOPS manual. (I added a picture to clarify which lights on the plane and the orientation I'm talking about. The orientation of lights when viewed from port side, abeam.) Yes, the left vertical fin white light has a red lens! I'm triggered!! That'll get fixed? That's about as minor as can get. But it may as well be fixed. Thanks, you all.

I remember observing many F-14A's at night around NAS Miramar (in San Diego) in the late-1970's through mid-1980's and the Position Lights and Anti-Collision Lights always flashed in unison. Can anyone confirm? Can anyone verify that maybe that was not the case anymore by the 1990's or 2000's? I don't think that turning on the Anti-Collision Lights should force the Position Lights to steady. Position Lights being the wingtip and wing-root navigation lights, as well as the left vertical tail's trailing-edge white position light. Anti-Collision Lights being the right vertical tail's trailing-edge red light, left vertical tail's leading-edge red light and the under-nose red light. The only change to make this so, in this DCS module, would be that when Position Lights are set to FLASH and Anti-Collision Lights are ON (which always flash when on) that they all flash in unison (together and at the same rate). All other behaviors of the Exterior Lighting should be fine, as is. The F-4N/S Phantom II had the same light behavior. All position and anti-collision lights could flash in unison, and that's usually how I observed them during the same time period...although it did not have wing root lights, as its wings didn't have variable sweep, of course. The F-4 did not have an under-nose red light but had a semi-flush mounted white "fuselage" light under each engine air intake body.

F-4B -- The original, classic Phantom II. 649 were built. Some were converted to F-4N in the 1970's. The first version we get is the last (US) land-based, fighter-bomber model, the F-4E (the F-4G being specialized to SEAD). I'd say the next should be a Naval version. I'll take any. But I'd hope for the "B". Although, I'm sure most people will want the "J" because they always seem to want the last model or most modernized model...and at that, many will want the F-4S (upgraded F-4J). And after that, back to a land-based model, again, and I'd say the F-4D, this time...or the F-4C. USAF in Vietnam: F-4C's shot down 40 MiGs. F-4D's shot down 42 MiGs. F-4E's only shot down 20 (although their deployment time was more limited). However, 370 USAF F-4 Phantoms were lost in combat in Vietnam, only 33 to MiGs (307 to AAA!!). The US Navy F-4B and J Phantoms shot down 40 MiGs and lost 73 Phantoms, but only 7 to air-to-air. The "big nosed" Phantoms did the bulk of the work in Vietnam. And if you give us the HMS Ark Royal (R09) along with it, I'll take the F-4K (or FG.1, I think it was).

Will the Forrestal be added to Supercarrier so that it can have animated deck crews? I would really like to see the Essex Class carriers added, too. Even though they are not supercarriers. Just the 6 Essex class carriers from the 1960's with angled flight deck and steam catapults: group A - Intrepid, Ticonderoga and Hancock; group B - Bon Homme Richard, Oriskany and Shangri-La. Each group could use the same 3D model with different hull numbers. The upcoming F-8J Crusader and A-7E Corsair II will utilize the Essex class ships, as well as the community A-4E Skyhawk.

It looks like the Nevada map covers an area of about 350nm x 350nm (650km x 650km), but not all of that is full detail and trees are sparse. However, there's a lot of detail in Las Vegas. A Vietnam map (I think) would need to cover about 660nm x 530nm, (1222km x 981km) and that excludes most of South Vietnam and Cambodia. But like Nevada, not all of that should be full detail. Only Hanoi would be the large, high detail city, but as it was in about 1972, not 2022. This would include most of Hainan Island, but not being a subject of the map, would only be satellite imagery over moderately detailed terrain...just so it would be seen from carriers at Yankee Station. High detail of a 200nm x 150nm area around Hanoi. (370km x 278km) About two high detailed 150nm x 150nm areas along the coast to the southeast, which should cover Da Nang and Chu Lai airbases. (278km x 278km) Much of the trees are solid tree canopy, 75-150 feet above the ground, I think. Maybe there's a way to model that without drawing thousands of individual trees and their trunks. In low-detail areas, it could be just flat satellite imagery over medium detail terrain, I guess. Vast areas you would normally fly over at high altitude. You would only be expected to fly low-level, jet, prop or helicopter over the high-detail areas. 50nm (93km) radius detailed area around Dien Bien Phu in the northwest...maybe? Not sure it's worth it, though. 30nm (55km) radius detail areas around each of the Thai airbases of: Udorn, Nakhon Phanom, Ubon, Korat and Takhli. The flight from Takhli AB to Thud Ridge (Hanoi) is about 500nm (925km) each way! ...and about 470nm from Korat AB. Those were the F-105 bases (and later F-4E bases, I believe). That should give plenty of room to tank-up with KC-135A's along the way. Could you fly F-16C's on such missions? Of course! ...and F-18C's and anything else that can make it...I wouldn't try it with the I-16, though. But carrier-based aircraft from Yankee Station only had to go about 260nm. I'd say only satellite photo details of Bangkok, if it's on the map at all. I think this might just work, without being bigger than Syria or South Atlantic on the hard drive. This image would be the approximate size of the map, however, only areas outlined by blue boxes and circles would be the high-detail areas. And this is just my quick estimate of it. Maybe some of the high-detail areas could be even smaller.

That was an awesome video. Would love to operate the A-4E from that. As well as the F-8J, when we get it. Even the A-7E could be made able to operate from it. (The A-7A&B operated from some Essex-class carriers.) I would suggest two versions of the angled-deck, steam catapult Essex-class ships of the 60's and 70's. There were only seven of them. First group: Intrepid CVA-11, Ticonderoga CVA-14, and Hancock CVA-19. These 3 had the starboard deck-edge elevator farther aft. Second group: Lexington CVA-16, Bon Homme Richard CVA-31, Oriskany CVA-34 & Shangri-La CVA-38. These 4 had the starboard deck-edge elevator more forward, close to the island. (There were more Essex-class ships that had angled flight decks, but they did not have steam catapults and heavier arresting gear for jets. They were called CVS for anti-submarine by the 1960's.) I think those were the major differences. So, two models in DCS should be sufficient with different hull numbers and names on the stern. And then AI versions of the KA-3B Skywarrior and A-4E with 2-300gal external tanks and a centerline buddy refueling store to serve as tankers. And an AI version of the E-1A Tracer (AEW in place of the E-2D) and the SH-2 Seasprite helicopter. Maybe a Farragut or Leahy-class guided missile destroyer and a FRAM modified Gearing or Sumner-class destroyer as escorts.

I guess you're saying AAA is near perfect in performance in DCS, when in reality it wouldn't seem to be so. I would agree with that. Even optically aimed, 12.7mm or 14.5mm machine guns on the top of a turret of a T-55 tank in DCS seems to always be aimed with the exact amount of lead and elevation to hit any aircraft within range that's on a steady flight path...even looking into the sun or being rattled by nearby exploding munitions. That does NOT seem very realistic. When you look at the tracers coming at you from one of these, it is a nice, clean arc right into you. Only if you are changing your flight path at the time do they miss. Seems like in reality, that stream of tracers should be quite dispersed and mostly off target. I have hand-aimed the M2, 50-cal machine gun mounted on a HMMWV in DCS and fired several thousand rounds at low-level aircraft making strafing runs nearby and have never been able to put even one round on an aircraft. Maybe I just suck at gunnery, or maybe that's reality. Or do the machine guns on the T-55 tank have precision, highly accurate range-finding, lead-computing sights? It seems like AI in DCS has no "human error" and electro-mechanical imperfection/lack-of-precision factored into it. When a Mk-82 detonates on the ground 100 meters away, and you have your upper body exposed, trying to aim and controllably fire a 12.7mm machine gun at a passing aircraft, do you think you might at least flinch a little and spoil your aim, if not be knocked aside by the pressure wave and forced to stop firing...and maybe not recover to fire any more for several seconds, if not minutes? If doing the same thing and then cluster munitions start popping off 100 meters away, are you going to hold your concentration and sustain accurate lead and elevation as you fire the machine gun at an aircraft? I think the reality is that 99% of people would stop firing and duck and cover. I think this needs to be factored into AI air defense. This would allow for effective air defense suppression. You don't have to kill them, just make them duck for a moment while your fellow pilots make their bomb runs. Now, radar-directed guns would be less likely to be "suppressed", unless the gun mounts are open and being hand loaded...in which case they should be forced to cease fire or reduce firing rate for a period of time. But how to "code" this human error and mechanical error in DCS without bogging down the computing power... Maybe the guns could have two levels of accuracy. One for normal operation, and a greatly reduced accuracy for when munitions are hitting the ground in an effective vicinity. And then a 3rd state where operation is suspended when damage or near damage is being taken by the gunners. Also, could there be a diagram released illustrating the "as simulated" blast and shrapnel effects range rings of various munitions in DCS. I'm not sure they're all realistic or consistent. For instance, I recently dropped M117, 750-lb GP bombs from the F-86F (latest DCS release version) and they left a "visual" crater that looked more like a small BBQ fire pit than a bomb crater. A single small "crater" from two bombs that hit together. I do realize visual effects and simulated impact on ground assets are two different things. But sometimes it seems like you can do more damage to your own plane with a dropped bomb than to an unarmored vehicle that's 10 times closer to the blast.

I think ED should produce this module. The F-100D is a development from the F-86 Sabre. It even uses a version of the same A-4 gunsight. I'm sure there are other commonalities, even though it is an entirely changed airframe and engine, of course. The F-100 was the world's first fighter capable of supersonic speed in level flight. The MiG-19 was a close second (I believe). We already have the MiG-19 module in DCS. How about the F-100? The F-100 flew combat missions over Vietnam from 1964 to 1971. I believe the type flew more missions over Vietnam than any other fighter, 360,283 combat sorties. More sorties than were flown by 15,000 P-51 Mustangs in WWII...and we have the P-51D in DCS. 1,274 F-100D's were built. Its four M39 20mm revolver cannons (like the pair in the F-5E) have a combined rate of fire close to that of the M61 Vulcan. It's a gun fighter, but like the F-86F, it can carry AIM-9 Sidewinders, too. Mostly, it's a fighter-bomber, though. It's similar to the F-86F and F-5E, sure, but it is a historical aircraft that played a larger role than the F-5E. But unlike the F-86F and F-5E, the F-100D can refuel in flight. And I think it would be fun to fly in DCS. I think the version to choose should be the same as that at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. North American F-100D Super Sabre | Smithsonian Institution (si.edu)

Zeno's Flight Shop Videos F-105 DVD has F-105D/F Flight Manual...or at least the Pilot's Handbook. There's quite a bit of info in there. But maybe not enough to accurately reconstruct the flight model. They'll just have to do the best they can with feedback from real F-105 pilots. Republic F-105 Thunderchiefs Go to War DVD: Three films with 858 page F-105 Flight Handbook (zenosflightshop.com) I'd like the F-105D single-seat version. Don't bother with the Wild Weasel "G" version, at least not initially.

While I would love to have a B-52, it is a long range aircraft. Most of the maps are kind of small for it. In the Nevada map, a typical mission might be to take off from Nellis, fly around the perimeter of the map 1 to 10 times and drop 66 M117 750-lb bombs on a target (B-52D), then 1 to 10 times more around the map and land back at Nellis. How do you put bombs on target? There's no optical bombsight, is there? I think it was done with a radar bombing system, right? Not real accurate, but you're going to lay down a line of destruction. You just have to have that line cross the target area. Well, there are quite a number of other missions and weapons loads for it, I know. The other thing is can you "single pilot" it? It would be awesome for multicrew, but could you get 4 to 7 crew to stay joined to a single aircraft for hours at a time? Although, it could probably have 1 to 6 "Jesters" aboard to do the duties. "Tail gunner to navigator, are we there yet?" It would be cool!! I just don't expect it to happen, though. For a heavy aircraft in DCS, none would be better than the B-52, except maybe the B-1B. I'd pay $300 for a B-52 module that was at least as well done as the F-86F or F-5E. I just don't see it happening before 2030, if ever. I'd rather have an F-100D Super Sabre and F-105D Thunderchief before that, preferably within the next few years...I wish. F-4E (and F-4B or J), A-7E, F-15E and F-8J are for-sure buys for me when they come out. For a bomber, I'd be happy with an A-6E Intruder...and it can land on a carrier! Or a KA-3B Skywarrior...which can also land on a carrier...even an Essex-class carrier!

Towed KS-19 100mm and S-60 57mm AAA mounts linked with SON 9 "Fire Can" radar direction. Vietnam era.

I think concentrate mainly on a Vietnam map of around 1968 or 1972. I am not at all against your idea, though.

I still think a Vietnam Map would be best for next. I know it would be a large area, but parts of it would just have to be at lower detail levels where the action is typically not. It's also the classic theater for the upcoming F-4E Phantom II (as well as F-4B, C, D and J.) The A-7E, F-8J, A-6E and A-4E-C would all fit well there. The MiG-21bis and MiG-19P would be okay there, too. What is needed then is the F-105D, A-1H or J and F-100D, and MiG-17 (Isn't the MiG-17 essentially a stretched MiG-15 with a more swept wing and an afterburning engine? The cockpit and gun armament are probably mostly the same). And a few AI aircraft: KC-135A, KA-3B, RA-5C (static), HH-3E and SH-3E. The HH-3E Jolly Green might be a good one to be multicrew flyable, though. Of course, more modern aircraft could be used in various scenarios. Question is, can a map be made that is about 650 NM across by 570 NM north to south (14-30' N to 23-30' N and 99-30' E to 111-00' E)? If the whole thing was detailed, I reckon not. But can parts of it be very detailed and other parts low detail? Such as the way NAS China Lake and NAS Fallon are now on the Nevada Map? Areas that will not see action can be low detail. Much of the areas of Thailand might be low detail because they will typically be overflown at high altitude. What makes it so large are the airbases in Thailand. Takhli and Khorat are way down in the southwest corner. But definitely exclude Bangkok from the map. Too much detail would have to go into that. So, no B-52 base at U Tapao...and none of the area south of Chu Lai. The other bases would be Udorn, Ubon, and Nakon Phanom, I think. Along the coast would be Da Nang and Chu Lai. Most of the detailed areas would be nearly all of North Vietnam and eastern portions of Laos. The Hanoi area circa 1968, not today...the whole map would be circa 1968...which should work for the whole period of 1964 to 1975. Offshore would be Yankee Station where the carriers and their escort ships would be stationed...something like a Forrestal and a "CVA" Essex with maybe a "CVS" Essex as escort and about 8-10 destroyers and cruisers as escorts. That might include a cruiser and destroyer up north to provide radar coverage. I think a Vietnam Map would be the best, most classic area until global scenery comes around. The jets could really stretch their legs...most missions would usually require in-flight refueling. And until an F-100 Super Sabre and A-1 Skyraider are made, the F-86F and P-47D could fill in. This map would have no desert and no snow, but lots of humidity to make the jets show vapor over the wings much of the time at low levels. And visible shock waves around bomb bursts. Also, try to include towering cumulous clouds, and associated cloud layers high and low.

I did indeed mean this to be a reference to Blazing Saddles! LOL "All we have to do is build an exact replica of the town of Rock Ridge". You see, an exact replica of the town of Vegas...well, sort of. "And then they'll think it's the real Vegas, but we'll know it's the fake Vegas." I was just having fun with it all. The talk of the fake signs just hit my funny bone. BTW, the great Governor William J. Le Petomane was named after a French entertainer, Joseph Pujol (1890s), aka "Le Petomane", or "the fart maniac", who could legendarily break wind at will...apparently without crapping his pants. He was a farteur or fartiste. Look it up on Wikipedia. LOL

This is the winner, right here! Wow! Outstanding, P-51D OMT!! My aim is to make a generic cockpit "tub" so I can mount flight control hardware and switch boxes and then using VR see if I can use it for multiple aircraft. It won't be a 1-to-1 location match with the VR cockpit, but as long as I know most of the switches' locations by touch, I think it will work.

Maybe there could be a mod for that. To give the option of randomly, every 25-100 hours of time in the sim, one of a couple dozen strange lights or crafts might be seen in that vicinity...if you are there to see it. Or randomly placed within 30nm radius of any point you specify in a mission. Maybe spawn at 90,000' and dive to 500' AGL at Mach 8. Hover and/or do various possible maneuvers. Maybe emit beams or lights, maybe illuminate the ground, momentarily. React to you with evasive maneuvers if you get within a couple miles. Give you about 15-30 seconds and bug out, vertically, at Mach 8 again. Or bug out immediately if you launch or fire anything at it, or even just lock on to it. Subtle things, though, nothing gawdy or blatant. Although sometimes the objects might show up in multiples or formations.