Jester2138

This betrays your ignorance of just how in-depth and complicated the RIO's role is. You will spend far more time learning the backseat than the frontseat in the Tomcat. Giving it away for free would be odd given that the RIO seat alone is more sophisticated of a simulation than most other entire DCS modules.

The stick is really in the way in VR, too.

For all those poo-pooing the notion that a LANTIRN Tomcat simulation should include a PTID, here's a quote directly from the newly released Heatblur F-14 manual: http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/intro.html It's merely a question of what timeframe do you want to simulate. I, personally, prefer the later Bs, as it feels more in line with what we're now getting in other modules and is entirely realistic, unlike, for example, a D.

I would disagree. In all the planes I've been in the guy sitting next to me on the intercom always sounds noticeably better than ATC or other planes do on the radio. The best radio VOIP in my opinion is ACRE2 for Arma 3. I think it models intercoms and radios quite well. The sound effects in SRS don't sound very realistic to me Jester sounds good to me.

They were a fundamental tool of the mission at the time, which is what we're talking about. All the strike fighters had them and it's a huge part of what distinguished them from other fighters.

In other words, all the things that make strike fighters strike fighters. The affordability of the initial upgrade is one thing. The affordability of continuing to operate it, when far more cost effective platforms exist (like the F-15E), is another. An F-14 strike aircraft would undoubtedly have been retired long ago for the same reasons the actual Tomcat was retired.

Not that surprising considering the F-15E is/was a much more capable strike fighter than the F-14B. Retrofitting a TGP and four LGBs doesn't make it competitive with purpose-built strikers like the F-15E, Tornado, or Aardvark.

Sorry - I misunderstood you, as you did not specify that you were referring only to DCS.

For the DCS-era F-14B, it would be at NAS Fallon in Nevada, as Topgun moved there in '96.

Russia is using Imperial for aviation. At least when you cruise through their airspace. Incorrect - basically any aircraft with glass cockpits can switch between imperial and metric at will, and pilots flying internationally are trained to use both. If you're an airliner flying through Chinese airspace, you'll switch your systems from imperial to metric and fly at the metric altitudes given, then switch back to imperial when you exit their airspace. Even many gauges are marked with both standards, just like speedos in cars that show both mph and km/h. Although this is not the norm.

Every single country in the world uses imperial for aviation except Russia, China, and North Korea. And Russia has mostly switched to imperial by 2018.

I agree; it is, dare I say, shockingly bad design given how unrepentantly awesome everything else about the HB F-14 is so far, and it stands out for that reason.

In DCS settings. Look for the Special tab.

The PTID was a part of the LANTIRN upgrade. With few exceptions, if a jet carried a LANTIRN it would have the PTID. F-14As that were modified for LANTIRN were also given the PTID. I'm surprised to hear the Heatblur F-14B doesn't have the PTID; that is indeed not "realistic." It's true the LANTIRN-equipped -Ds didn't get the PTID; they had a very different display arrangement altogether.

Value-wise, the Odyssey is far and away the best choice right now. The tracking is 100% spot-on for desktop simming. The knocks the Odyssey gets for tracking have to do with scenarios outside the scope of sitting at your computer (e.g. can't track controllers behind you). Resolution-wise, it's significantly better than the Rift (which I've also tried). I think a lot of the people who say it's not that much better didn't wear it properly. It is very sensitive to positioning and IPD adjustements. Give it a few hours of playing and fine-tuning the fit before you judge. I can't think of any reasons to spend over double the cost of the Odyssey to get the Vive Pro, which has the same screens and no discernible tracking difference in DCS.

We shouldn't be straying from authenticity to accommodate the older VR headsets, anyway.

In my opinion, the next "flagship" additions to DCS should be in order of priority: 1) Engine/gameplay noncontent improvements like memory management, missiles, AI, CA rework to make smaller, lighter aircraft more fun (i.e. more realistic infantry AI and movement and so forth), and of course a dynamic campaign. I would be happy to see ED figure out a way they can get cash flow from this; the work doesn't need to be done for free. 2) Full-fidelity Russian multirole or air superiority aircraft to balance the increasingly Western-heavy aircraft selection 3) Apache I also like the F-16, but it is very similar to the F/A-18C which we already have and so wouldn't add any new experiences to the game.

+1 to missiles. This and memory management are the main things I'd love to see improved in the game.

I find the slow speed of the "VR Zoom" makes it hard to use effectively when there's anything else going on besides straight-and-level flight. I also think a quicker zoom would be less disorienting.

The problem is they also help in far combat. Incorrect: the dots show through all objects except the terrain itself (and they'll even show through the terrain for a few seconds after you go behind it). Without labels, I can see an F-15C 20 miles away while in VR... you'll be OK. Guess what guys, spotting IRL is hard too. Next time you're in an airliner try and see how far away you can spot a small aircraft. It probably won't be 20 miles :)

Hi admins of Blue Flag, I've really enjoyed this gamemode. Thanks for all the hard work. One thing: as a frequent KA-50 pilot, I find the use of dot labels very frustrating. I prevents me from being able to use NOE properly, as anybody within 10 miles or so will see an obvious dot superimposed over anything I'm hiding behind, such as a building or treeline. This behavior of the dot labels further gives a massive advantage to anyone with a low tree and object loading radius, as potentially even though I'm 5+ miles away amongst trees and buildings, they will simply see a large black dot on empty terrain. If I nevertheless remain unnoticed for a while, it sometimes give me an unfair advantage as well, because I can sit behind a treeline or building and count the number of black dots superimposed on the object 20m in front of me to inform my team of how many enemy players are at their airbase, and plan an attack on them. Generally, those damned dots work against me, however. Is there any chance of tweaking this to avoid putting NOE and helicopter flight at an unrealistic disadvantage? Thanks!

Having completely unrealistic behavior of JTACs should never be called a "feature, not a bug" in a product that calls itself a combat simulation.

Unhelpful. I run on low graphics settings on heavy missions, but the problem persists, because it has to do with loading the map and mission file, not your graphics settings. ED's changing requirements are a deflection, not a solution, and are what caused me to cancel my Hornet pre-order.

Do we have any timeline regarding a fix for multiplayer? I just spent an hour trying to join Buddy Spike with no success. I even got to the cockpit once but it crashed before I could take off. Extremely frustrating that the product I've spent all this money on has been made unplayable for weeks by a "stable" update. i5 6500, 1070, 16GB DDR4

I wonder if people are getting lemons. I have also tried both the Rift and Odyssey and find the tracking in the Odyssey perfectly adequate. It runs into problems more often than the Rift, sure, but those are edge cases not worth caring about. 99% of the time while sitting at your computer it is exactly the same. Coupled with dramatically better visuals, it was an easy choice for me.