panton41

I've used 32GB for years and could easily justify 64GBs, but not because of DCS or gaming in general. I use DazStudio and can hit 24+GB with just that program on a complex picture. When I went from 16GB to 32GB I found an overall increase in performance because Windows could cache more files for quick loading. I wouldn't suggest anything more than 16GBs if all you do is play games and budget is any kind of concern, though. If money's no problem, throw in 64GBs and have fun being future proofed.

Are there plans for the civilian Jet Ranger? Or a variant that could be shoehorned into that role? The Jet Ranger - as Sky 11 for WHAS-TV in Louisville, Kentucky - was one of the first aircraft I ever got to ride on.

I tend to juggle games anyway. I spent like 12 hours play virtual golf last weekend and haven't touched DCS in about a month. Sometimes I dabble in Command Modern Operations (super highly recommended if you like DCS), Battletech and an MMO I play with my ex-wife. Honestly, I wish I'd play DCS more, but something about going under the VR goggles and leaving reality makes me feel weird. I rarely play a VR fishing game for the same reason, though it is super relaxing when I do.

Another dark day in the ship's storied history. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/russias-only-carrier-damaged-in-shipyard-accident-now-on-fire/

I will second this and mention if you have lots of control peripherals - like a wheel for racing games - you need to be anal retentive about double and triple checking your mappings. At one point I kept a CH Products Pro Throttle, a Saitek X55 throttle and a Thrustmaster TMX Racing Wheel all attached at once and didn't quadruple check my axis settings... Long story short, there's nothing like being on your takeoff run and having your throttle slam back to idle and the rudder yank full to the left seconds before rotation because the unused throttle and steering wheel decided to make themselves known.

For what it's worth, in the lengths of time involved in many multiplayer games, there probably wouldn't be time to repair a runway. During Desert Storm the USAF had, rather nasty, policy of having F-111s from BLU-107 Durandal runway cratering bombs along the runway and then have F-16s drop CBU-89 GATOR mine-laying cluster bombs. Neither weapon is modeled in DCS as far as I know.

For the people complaining it took less time to design the real radars: Hughes (F/A-18 ) and Westinghouse (F-16) are/were multi-billion dollar aerospace companies with military contract that all but guaranteeing hundreds, if not thousands, of multi-million dollar units sold. They can afford to hire as many people as they need and pour dump trucks of money into research and development. Even then they only finished them on-time and as feature rich are they are by the skins of their teeth. (The F/A-18's radar was particularly difficult because not only was space at a premium, but it had to survive the vibration, gasses and muck of the cannon being fired.) Eagle Dynamics is a rather small, independent, game developer with a handful of developers trying to not just simulate the radar beam, but the signal processing inside the radar set and the avionics that display it.

I'm assuming it's because the "cold and dark" aircraft has already had the pre-start sweeps of the cockpit switches, which would have the pilot set the switches into those positions before they actually begin the process of starting the aircraft. I'm sure taking a look at the procedure in NATOPS would verify this, but I'm too lazy at the moment. * That been my assumption anyway, from the times I've tried to follow official documentation and found everything where it should be during the pre-start stages.

I've sent 4.

This is in reply to someone interested. Private messages aren't working for me. (Please ignore the cat hair, they own this house.)

I'm trying to reply to a private message and after four messages none of them showed as sent. I'm on MS Edge Chromium.

I'm sure the only reason the F/A-18 doesn't do the same is the wing hinge probably isn't strong enough to handle the additional stress.

From what I've read the F/A-18 has Link-16 as well.

I've been enjoying the hell out of it, but I'm well aware it's pretty rough at this point. Then again, the Viper has been my favorite fighter jets as long as I can remember.

I have a TrackIR 5, slightly used but latest version with the active IR Pro Clip and the passive reflector "hat clip." I moved to VR and don't know anyone local to me interested in buying it. I'd rather someone on here buy it than try my chances on eBay. I'm willing to say US$100 and small flat-rate USPS shipping (around $8). USA Only.

I can't get more than a few minutes into the mission before I want to punch the voice actor for sounding like a condescending jerk. I mean I spent about 10 minutes(!) going step-by-step doing the pre-start check of the cockpit and quit around step 34(!!), before I actually started the igniter(!?), because I couldn't stand listening to the guy. "...yeah, I read the manual..." So did I, just shut up tell me how to start the jet... Easily, without a doubt, the worst tutorial mission I've played in DCS.

I'm reading Vipers in the Storm by Keith Rosenkrantz and he's flying F-16C Block 40/42 in Desert Storm and talking about using LANTIRN. The book was written in 1997 referring to a war in 1990-1991. What exactly are the changes on the Block 50/52 and the specific sub-model model DCS simulates in regards to what he's talking about? Is the LANTIRN limited to Block 40/42 (which Wikipedia suggests)? For that matter, is it still in service on those aircraft? Does the Block 50/52 have something equivalent, or is it intended for a different role entirely? How does Block 50/52 manage terrain following flight, or is that the purview of the Block 40/42 model? I've always understood that newer block basically meant "what the previous block had and then some" or am I wrong?

I can't say I had a problem with the cockpit in VR. I have VR tracking problems in general (thank you Windows Mixed Reality), but I'd say it's vastly better than on the F/A-18. I will say... Wow... I can see why so many fighter pilots say that flying the F-16 is amazing because of the unimpeded view. I have a fear of heights, that mostly manifests as a fear of short-distance falling, and felt some vertigo while in the F-16 because of a lack of reference points. To give perspective, I flew from Louisville, Kentucky to Washington DC for the first time in my life and had no problems looking out the window and seeing the view at 30,000 feet. We get to Ronald Reagan Airport and we're exiting via air stairs and I get vertigo from the door of a CRJ-700 (maybe 8 feet/2.5 meters).

If you're on Steam try closing and reopening. (Though by now I bet it's resolved.)

I don't have a track, but I can generate one if needed, when flying the Nevada instant action free flight my performance at 25K+ altitude seems poor. I was pegged a full military throttle but had trouble maintaining 200 knot airspeed at a 10-15 degree pitch from previously level flight. I tried intercepting one of the transports on the map, but had trouble getting close even at full afterburner. Maybe I extended my speed brake and didn't realize it (I'm still learning my HOTAS mapping and cockpit symbology) but it felt like I had a huge source of drag on the aircraft. I tried jettisoning the stores, but it's not implemented yet.

I didn't have too terrible much of a problem, but it was a little blurry. Maybe I'm just used to MFDs in VR being a little blurry.

I think you have the meaning of "simulate" and "emulate" backwards, at least in a computer science perspective. Emulating means to try to make as exacting of a replica as possible, while simulate allows cutting corners to estimate the final results. Emulating a CPU means trapping all the instruction calls from software and translating them into the host CPU's equivalent. Simulating, though, might be like pointing sound card calls to a generic device that's really just the host OS's sound subsystem. (Though modern CPU emulation can cut all kinds of corners by translating OS API calls instead of CPU instructions wherever possible.) In this case emulating the ground radar would be modelling the behavior of a radar beam and how it bounces off things on the ground. Simulating would simply be saying "the objects are here and should have a return that looks like this." Simulating is essentially what the other famous F-16 flight sim did because of hardware limitation of its day. Emulating? Well, if they pull it off it might be a first in computerized flight sims and I'm including "big metal" ones used in real pilot training.

My parents have never, in my life, bought me a video game. I always had to buy them with my own money. This has meant mailing money orders to Bethesda, Maryland to order Commodore 64 games from Microprose in the 1990s. (Namely Red Storm Rising, Project Stealth Fighter, F-15E Strike Eagle and Silent Service.) The closest they ever came was when I painted half the house, by myself, to get them to pay for Sublogic Flight Simulator 2 for the Commodore 64. I go to dinner with my mother a couple times week these days and I mentioned how I was planning to set aside money this month to buy F-16C Viper and she suggested I just let her order it for me for my birthday (in late October). Ironically, she didn't approve me me playing Falcon 4.0 as an early 20-something because it affected my grades in college.

So in other words you moved the goalposts?

Iranian AIM-54s were used against highly maneuverable fighters a large number of times (dozens) and hit. In one case the RIO targeted the center ship of a three-ship flight of MiG-23s in close formation and shot all three down with a single missile. Some of the stuff Iran did with the F-14 put US Navy use to shame. Yes, the AIM-54 was perfectly capable of hitting fighters and real life shows this is true.