Lace

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.

Hey Ziptie, may I ask why as a VR user you need a trackpad? I have just mapped LMB/RMB to my HOTAS and look directly at whatever control with which I want to interract using the VR cursor. Not touched a mouse since I moved to VR. Much quicker as there is now no longer any need to let go of the stick or throttle.

Played a lot of flight sims in the late 80's to mid 90's, MSFS, Falcon 3.0, SWOTL, Chuck Yeager and the many Microprose offerings. Once into my 20's I kind of lost the interest/time for simming but came back to it about 10 years ago when I restarted flying IRL and picked up FS9 again. I had an old copy of LOMAC somewhere which I dug out and then bought the first full-fidelity A-10C module. I've only really been seriously flying DCS for the last 3-4 years, i.e. actually being able to effectively employ the aircraft in combat, rather than just bimbling about as there just wasn't the time available which this 'game' demands in order to truly learn the modules, especially with a young family. I guess I'm at the stage now that after spending several thousand pounds on hardware and software for DCS I am pretty competent in 3 or 4 modules.

This is something I have been doing for years now. I work away a lot and it is obviously not desirable to travel with a full set of HOTAS/Rudder controls. The XBox controller is very versatile and with the use of a couple of buttons as modifiers you can incorporate a decent amount of binding combinations, not to mention two sticks so primary flight controls are covered, as well as Tpod/Radar cursor control. I actually find flying the Mi-8 easier with the Xbox controller than I do with my TM Warthog. In VR it is doubly useful as buttons mapped as LMB/RMB mean you just need to look at the control to interact with it so the only controls which really need to be on the controller are those common HOTAS functions. This is an example of my setup for the Viper, though it will need tweeks as the module if updated further and further functionality is added. I have tried to keep certain controls common across modules, so the countermeasure dispense or radio PTT are the same button for simplicity.

I think a SH/UH-60 Blackhawk module, with its various Army/Navy/Civvy derivatives would be a really versatile module, I'm sure it's only a matter of time on that one. Similarly, the F4 has incredibly broad appeal, given its service with the USAF/USN/USMC, not to mention export versions for the RAF/FAA, Israel, Germany, Greece etc. One module I would love to see (but will probably never happen) is the RA-5 Vigilante. A very fast and technologically advanced (and surprisingly agile) big strike aircraft, though admittedly with a very short service life, especially in the strike role as designed. That said, I think the USN is pretty well represented in DCS, with the F18 & F14, F8 and A7 and maybe A6 on the cards.

I fly in VR and never have the pilot body switched on (where available in other modules) - my reasoning being that there are so many controls blocked by the body, and I am unable to move 'my' limbs out of the way as required. How do those who like the VR body get around that?

My votes would be GIUK gap, Kola Peninsula, Fulda gap and the Korean Peninsula. Aegean could be interesting, as could Panama.

No problem. I've attached the cold start and instant action versions. Enjoy! $$ F16 NTTR DACT Instant Action.miz $$ F16 NTTR DACT.miz

I have an DACT NTTR mission where you fight a random enemy (with random skill level), with the option to generate a second or third through the radio menus (fuel state allowing). I made a cold start at Nellis version and an air start at about 50nm option if you are interested I can upload it. Red air are F-14, F-18, F-15, M2000, JF-17, L-39, F-5 or J-11, but this can easily be customised in the ME.

I've seen quite a few photos of Vipers sporting asymmetric loadouts. There are even a couple in the manual as examples, but I've seen mixtures of Mavericks/dumb iron, HARM/CBUs etc. Does anyone know if there is a list of standard asymmetric loadouts? Or what the limitations are regarding drag/weight asymmetry for various flight regimes? Apologies if this has been asked already, I've been away from the forum for a while. :music_whistling:

I thought it would be helpful for people to compare the relative performance of the DCS maps on their systems. Can I suggest 'Stable' or 'Beta', followed by a list of maps owned in order of performance, highest to lowest. I'm running the latest stable in VR SoH Caucus NTTR Normandy The top 3 are pretty close, Normandy very poor. SoH was the worst until the latest update but now runs very smoothly. I've pre-ordered Syria and hope given that it's the same developer it's performance is better than Normandy.

That's quite some list! At least it shows the issue is being addressed. :thumbup:

Considering the vast timeframe the DCS world represents, there are a staggeringly small number of AI units available for mission building. Do ED plan to increase this at some time? Will they be released as 'asset packs' like WWII or China? Even just low-fidelity (like many of the existing AI units) placeholders could be a good option until they can be fully reproduced to current standards.

Look at it this way - some folk will spend 10k+ on a sportsbike for summer weekend use, or on a watch which they only wear on special occasions, etc. 10k for a system which could be in almost daily use and offer many hundreds of hours of enjoyment could be seen as pretty good value. At least, that is how I will attempt to justify it to the wife. :megalol: