bfr

Thank you very much, I didn't realise that axis performed both functions! I will give it a try. I noticed the FOV button did multiple DDI pages (Mav, TPod) but never thought to try that axis with the zoom function.

When I still had CH gear then the pots weren't that hard/expensive to buy new ones for, nor difficult to change over yourself.

Yeah, it'd be nice to have something more dedicated. Yes you can map HOTAS to DDI buttons (and I have done for things like targeting pod zoom) but the big gotcha with that is it only really works on the assumption you're always using a specific DDI (e.g. right DDI). And in the targeting pod case for the F18 then one of the zoom buttons is different depending on whether you're carrying the ATFFLIR or LITENING (which i've managed to configure but means using an additional HOTAS 2 way switch to select which pod i'm lugging around).

Yeah, i've been doing similar (but use Joy2Key rather than Joystick Gremlin) as I have a VKB stick. Plus I could just reassign existing mappings to new buttons from my old throttle config set up the same way, which is saving a fair amount of time. EDIT: I ended up trying Joystick Gremlin as well and have started using that now as being able to do multiple things when the switch is thrown was useful e.g. as well as changing to another set of mappings, I can use it to set the aircraft master mode (e.g. press 1 when I switch to my AA specific configuration, or 2 when I go to AG). A limitation on Joy2Key was it'd change the stick config but not let you do anything else in response to that event.

Fair. I don't think I'll be going "well, this is dragging on a bit" until we're towards the end of June and it still hasn't dropped.

Undoubtedly 2 heads would be better than 1, although even with an AI back seater (as and when one comes) I expect its still going to require a fair amount of work on the human pilot's part to get things 'just so' unless they make a major step change above what we've seen in other modules. And yes, i've seen the video you mention (yes it is the NAVFLIR demo) and nothing looks any more daunting than flying the Viper or Hornet for a comparable scenario.

I've done similar but with Joy2Key (and previously with the bundled CH software until it became unsupported and flaky). For most modules I own I have 3 mapping profiles (one for take-off & landing, one for A/A, one for A/G) and can cycle through the respective set of 3 with one button on my stick. Switching to a different module's set of configs is also a one click operation. Very flexible and hasn't ever caused me any major headaches.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Jester either, although i probably need to dive into it again to see if its improved any. I believe the mudhen will allow the vast majority of things to be done from the front seat and won't be as dependent on the backseat to fight. Front v back seat workload will also likely hold me back on the F-4E until I've seen a bit more about it.

I'm not sure why you mention 'easy mode for DCS' as I didn't suggest any such thing. It would be a very specific assist in what is a pain point for a lot of users. A game that already has quite a few assists/cheats in it should you wish to take advantage of them or not.

You'd have to ask ED why they ditched 'game mode'. Was it too much hassle to continue to support? Was hardly anyone using it? Clearly a decent amount of interest exists for some kind of AAR assist as this thread and many other previous ones testify. And you look at some third party campaigns that've adapted to those who struggle with AAR and they've adapted those so people can get by without actually hooking up. And yes, repeating the line up lights a la Supercarrier would be a start. And to be honest, i've no opposition to a configurable auto-refuel mode that does some/most of the work for you once you've formed up with the tanker. Certainly there is a wider balance to be struck of convenience v realism but I fail to see how softening the considerable learning curve for newbies or people who can't pour hours and hours into the game to practice is harmful. It might make the difference between someone buying into DCS or not and more sales/users is good for everyone.

And plenty of other sim titles have various levels of aids that soften what can be a considerable learning curve (e.g. driving games with ideal line/braking indicators, gear change and traction/braking behaviour assists). If you want a slightly dumbed down experience in some areas for single player then you can have it. If you want a hardcore-only experience in multiplayer or campaigns you create then you can enforce what is/isn't available to users (as you already can in some areas of the game that could be considered as cheats, like highlighting enemy units, certain view and map modes etc).

Jaguar would be potentially good fun. I'd have to seriously improve my AAR skills if a Lightning ever came out as you'd presumably be spending an awful lot of time around tankers. Buccaneer would be great fun and hopefully would be another jet for carrier ops.

I think both the GBU-15 and AGM-130 were on Razbam's list for the F-15E, as well as the datalink pod (which is different to the one in the Hornet module). Although at what point they appear is anyone's guess. And like you say, buddy control is a whole different ball game and probably well down the priority list.

Good question and I can honestly say i've never tried. IIRC in real-life you could "buddy guide" a Walleye via the DL pod so the same might well hold true for a SLAM-ER, but no idea if its a capability implemented in the game for either weapon. I'd assume not as surely the channel selection as implemented wouldn't work very well if several weapons from multiple aircraft are in the air at once within pod range and a non-launching aircraft tried to "tune in" on any given contended channel?

The discount plus free shipping and it actually being in stock finally tipped me over the edge to finally buy one. I can now finally retire my last bit of CH kit! (CH stick got ditched for a VKB a while back)

And in an aircraft context then no ABS is going to mean a locked wheel at landing speed is going to be a wrecked tyre from flat-spotting or possibly an exploded one.

Better late than never! Yes, i've done it a few times as I quite enjoy low level. I've screwed up and overshot with the bombs a few times but never recall having been shot down and rarely even taken fire. I did tend to leave the pop-up phase of the attack as late as I can get away with. I also come in very (like would impress a seasoned Viggen driver) low for the last few miles, so radars have taken little to no interest in me prior to pop-up. Sweeping turn post-release and then return to low altitude and hammer it away from the scene of the crime.

Syria was made available for pre-order in late July 2020 and landed in OB about a month later. PG went to pre-order mid April 2018, released late May. Nevada was on pre-order for quite a while from memory (happy to be corrected). South Atlantic might've been an exception and gone straight into OB. So usually, yes.

Practice, practice, practice. If you're feeling a little tense/demoralised about it then usually smoking the tanker in rage helps a little.

Sinai doesn't look a million miles off, although if it was really close then surely a pre-order would be being at least mentioned? If the F-4E was remotely close i'd expect to see a lot more teasers, early instructional material etc (which has been slowly ramping up for the F-15 and very recently for Sinai). I'd say SE first, then Sinai and then F-4 with a couple of months gap between.

The Typhoon is an interesting case of needs changing with the times. As you alluded to, it started out on the drawing board as a fighter and the multi/swing-role capability was redesigned into it during initial development as the Cold War came to an end and requirements shifted (and is partly why it took so long to gestate from proposal to production). Another repurposing of a specialised role platform (albeit not as spread out over time as the Eagle) was the Tornado IDS spawning the ADV variant. Although you can argue the latter wasn't all that great an aircraft, and there was pretty much zero crossover in capabilities of the two (the IDS could only ever carry IR AAMs for self defence and seldom even bothered, the ADV couldn't even begin to do a strike mission).

Do you mean when Australia bought the legacy Hornet or the Super Hornets bought to fill the gap post-F111 retirement/F-35 availability? I don't think the F-15E had even had its first test flight when purchase of the former was decided upon. Also, I don't think the RAAF operated any boom-equipped tankers at that time despite the F-111 still being very much in service, so that would've potentially added to the bill.

I should imagine for most multi-role operators then its a question of simple economics. As has already been said, operating multiple types can bring additional expense in a few areas (training for air & ground crews, parts inventory, integration etc) so if one type can do both jobs to a satisfactory level then great. There's also a decent correlation between the Cold War ending and the greater proliferation of multi-role platforms in a lot of air forces. This would be partly economic with less defence spend knocking around, and i'd also suggest its partly the kind of conflicts they expect to find themselves fighting in (which have been strike-heavy with any question about air superiority being more about the threat from enemy SAMs than opposing fighter jets).

Oooo nice, I had no idea there was such a failover capability modelled and i've ended up in the same position as the OP before. I'll have to go and get shot up a bit to try it out!

Is the problem you're describing that the RALT-Home/RSHIFT-Home isn't moving the throttles in-game out of the 'off' position? Or do you mean you can use that to get to idle (you should see the in-game throttles move when you do this) but that your throttle then isn't moving the rest of the range? If its the latter then check that something else (i.e. another controller) isn't mapped to the throttle axis too. I've seen some screwy defaults and duplicate mappings of functions when adding new controllers (e.g. my old CH kit would default map both the throttle controller and the on-stick throttle slider to the game's throttle axis and the 8 way on both devices would get mapped to the POV axes). Unless you had a throttle with a physical idle detent then would you even want to map it to the throttle? Would be bad news throttling back a bit too far and killing both engines!