Lace

I have this issue too. I know the A-10 best, just as a function of owning it the longest. I want to embrace the F/A-18 for all it's multi-role carrier borne goodness, but for whatever reason it just doesn't click with me. It is an incredibly capable and effective A/C, but just leaves me a little cold. It's something I can't quite put my finger on, but I felt (and still do) genuine excitement about the Viper, but had to force myself to buy the Hornet. The Harrier is another one I really need to invest the time in, as it makes a good substitute for an RAF GR5/7 and therefore the only (modern) British aircraft represented, but all the talk of bugs puts me off. It is a big time commitment learning to effectively operate these aircraft and it can be frustrating when something doesn't work, and you aren't quite sure whether you screwed up, or the programmers did. The Viper is another excellent multi-role A/C, but obviously still very much an EA work-in-progress module. By ground-pounding do you mean low level interdiction, CAS, SEAD or a high altitude JDAM carrier in a permissive environment? Given your OP, I would say Harrier. The Hornet is a great A2G platform, but the Harrier will get you closer to the action, especially when hot-pitting from FARPS (wish we had a GR3!). So go Harrier. Or Hornet. Maybe Viggen. Or A-10 II.

And these are exactly the sort of operations I am wishing for with the new dynamic campaign engine. Missions with a bit of depth, missions which require planning. Not just turn up, bomb here, RTB.

Just use a conventional setup. They don't reconfigure aircraft for left/right handed pilots. I fly aircraft with left throttle/right stick, right throttle/centre stick and right throttle/centre yoke IRL, and left throttle/right stick in DCS and right throttle/centre stick in X-plane. It's not that hard, you will adapt with a bit of practice.

Exactly. You will have a large cross range and down range ambiguity, which varies by emitter type, atmospheric conditions, etc.

It gives me something to do while waiting for the INS to align... But DTC capability would be nice one day.

A sand box, but within the realms of realistic possibility. It's one thing pretending one theatre of operations is another, but another thing all together to expect that we can do anything. We can't even have APKWS rockets on the Viper because it is not accurate for the year modelled, but we should be able to operate REDFOR A/C on a USN carrier? Let's save that one for the modding community.

By repeatedly saying the incorrect Radio Telephony (RT) phrases to a computer game, I may inadvertently find myself transmitting incorrect phraseology when flying in real life. This has happened to me before and was a bit embarrassing.

I think that would be a great compromise. We still get to simulate nuclear attack profiles, and ED don't have to work out how to implement unit/building damage on such a massive scale.

Welcome! I have a Rift S and use a similar (Xbox) controller when away from home. I have mapped the LMB/RMB/Mouse scroll to the controller. You will find them in the UI Layer section of the controls menu. Here is an example of my Viper map. It is surprising just how much you can map to a simple game controller and still be reasonably combat effective. Edit - You don't say which module(s) you are flying. Ironically I find the high-fidelity modules easier from a mapping point of view since they have full clickable cockpits. The FC3 modules require a large amount of keys to be mapped since in is not possible to interact with the cockpit via mouse clicks. This (for me at least) makes them essentially unusable in VR, at least not without spending ages mapping (and memorising) controls. Clicky pits are so much better for VR.

Personally, no. I don't want to pick up any bad RT habits from talking to a video game. The contextual menus work just fine.

Almost as if the ship doesn't want to be sunk! Why do you think Navies spend $$$$$ on missile defence systems? As BC above says, you will need multiple A/C firing multiple ASMs (simultaneously, not sequentially) to stand a chance. As for inefficient, a harpoon costs about $1.5M, A Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer costs around $1.3B, to build. That makes it a pretty efficient kill even if it takes dozens of Harpoons IMHO.

I can live with the menu, but it would be nice to be able to launch the Mission Editor as a separate non-VR executable. That said, it's not exactly a huge job to unplug the headset when I want to mission build. What I really want is a standalone Mission Editor I can run at work when away from my DCS PC, but that is a whole other story...

The question wasn't moot, the answer was clearly that for my application, there is no benefit of going down the Arduino route (or at least none that anyone has offered). If someone had said 'the Arduino allows you to do all these amazing things!' then perhaps it would be worth the effort, but since nobody has, then clearly it isn't, for my project at least. FWIW, I can do rotary encoders without any programming using my cheapo Amazon cards. Not tried pots, but at the moment I have no requirement for them.

Concur. Nothing better after a tough sortie than sitting on the apron with the canopy open, listening to the engine and gyros spin down and letting the drama of the past couple of hours sink in.

Snap. It was an improvement for me. Perhaps not a huge one but an improvement nonetheless. Maybe our esteemed colleague bought a duff one?

Why do you need the keyboard? I fly in VR and from launching DCS to shutting down have no need to touch the keyboard. Just map a HOTAS button to your VHF/UHF PTT, and a button for left mouse button. Then you just use the VR cursor to look at the menu item which you need to select and click. The same LMB will work for any of the cockpit controls too. No additional software complications required.

It's interesting that my ON-OFF-ON 'master/safe/sim' and 'radar/quiet/silent' switches on the viper sychronise perfectly through my zero-delay USB board, whereas my TM Warthog throttle light (landing/off/taxi) switch (also ON-OFF-ON) always defaults to 'landing' in the Viper. The momentary [ON]-OFF-[ON] switches make sense for the modules where there aren't specific cockpit abstracts button binds, i.e. 'RADAR on else off', but I like to know by feel which position the switch is in when possible, rather than every switch being in the middle position. As I said, I don't need another hobby, I need* a decent working VR Viper pit. No disrespect to anyone who scratch builds every component, some of these simpits are simply amazing, but that's just not what I am looking for. * ok, not need, want.

That's interesting. The way you write that it seems that for you the cockpit is the hobby, rather than a means to better enjoy the flying. For me a little extra VR immersion by adding of some switches in the correct position is simply a way of improving the DCS (Viper) experience, rather than a goal in itself. I'm not criticising anyone's chosen direction, some of the simpits in this forum are works of art, but the time/benefit for me just does not work out. I'd rather fly an imperfect cockpit, than never get to fly an endless project. FWIW, I'm going for Stang's full Viper cockpit, with TM Cougar & MFDs, and some Hispapanel panels for the master/arm, internal lighting, HMCS, and maybe an off-the shelf ICP. No need to reinvent the wheel.

All well and good but when my time is already stretched between family, fitness, work, real flying, and DCS flying, sometimes I just need a quick and easy, if less fulfilling solution.

I have a couple of simple button boxes which use the cheap Amazon-sourced zero delay USB arcade controllers. These seem to work fine for my application, but are limited in the number of outputs (solved by using more boards). I see a lot of people using Arduino setups which from what I gather provide a little more flexibility with regards to programming (long/short push, actions on press/release etc.) but a lot more work to integrate. Are they worth the effort? Is that the only benefit of a programmed Arduino over a simple USB controller? So far I've not found any problems with my system so I am surprised to see so many people doing things 'the hard way'. What am I missing? Edit - note I am a VR user so have no need for feedback like moving gauges or instrument lighting. My control requirements are one-way.

Same way real pilots in non-swivel chairs do (though without the G's!) In manoeuvring flight tilt your head back and lay it on the headrest sideways. Flying S&L just lean forwards and turn your neck. I also have the Obutto seat but will be ditching it soon as I can't get a good side-stick position without bucket seat/arm interface issues, but that is another story.

REDFOR = Targets. No need for full fidelity targets.

That's great @Kippy, now can you explain how to get my AI wingman to read it please? ;)

I'd have to echo the comments of others above. While I'll no doubt buy the Apache, the 'big reveal' was a little disappointing as we already kind of knew it was happening (i.e. the Wags Syria videos, The Battle Simulator, and the upcoming Kiowa module). I was hoping for something completely out of the blue. TBH I'm more excited about the new cloud/wx model. Understandable though, ED/TBS 'may' well have professional customers who are more influential when it comes to module selection for procedural training.

Thanks, that's interesting as I also use a Race seat with fixed TM HOTAS and have never found it an issue. I agree with the reaching around for some of the rearmost controls for startup, but at least at that stage feet are not required on the pedals (maybe try some yoga if flexibility is a problem). Personally I map Throttle button 15 as a modifier which doubles the number of potential inputs from the stick and throttle. That way I have the trim hat on the stick as LMB/RMB and Scroll up/down, then trim functions as 15+up/down/left/right. Similarly I map the NVG toggle/gain/flashlights to the 15+DMS, The kneeboard to 15+CMS and the views/VR Centre/ESC to 15+TMS, plus other quick actions like emergency jettison/eject etc. You are correct about the cursor being there. It does time-out if your head is still long enough, but this is rarely the case. I guess my brain just automatically filters it out.