ESzczesniak

That's interesting and makes a lot of sense. I suspected it had something to do INS as I kept reading, but since I couldn't complete an alignment at the mission start, I thought it was something deeper in the systems/mission like a lack of starting coordinates.

Come again? Definitely not case I pattern and I'm not sure "military landing" is even a term with any meaning.

So in real world flying, is it customary to pop the speedbrake entering the break, or as needed based on judgement? I feel I could be pretty well on speed just using the speedbrake the last 45-90 degrees of the break, and not even fully deployed.

I’m wondering if anyone has any tips to get on speed quicker in the case I pattern. I fly the break at 350 kts/800 ft breaking at 1.0 NM DME. I pull just a bit under 1% G’s, finding this puts me from 0.1-0.2 NM off the starboard side at the break to 1.1-1.2 NM on downwind. Pull straight 1% G would bleed a bit more speed, but I end up to close abeam. I drop the gear at 240 kts for drag and have messed with flaps to full at 210 kts and fight the nose up or to full at 180 kts and trim. I find doing all this I’m at 600’ seeing the rundown at about 145kts. Almost on speed, but it’s already time to turn if I’m going to hit my groove time. But I haven’t been able to fine tune my trim at all. I have it pretty patterned that it’s a “3 second count” of up trim to on speed trim. But this isn’t perfect and needs a little fine tuning. This leaves me still tuning trim in the base turn. So any thoughts on how to slow down quicker? Is there much consideration for speedbrake usage in the break in real life? I know I can break past one mile, but if you’re a flight of four coming out of the stack, someone has to break early to get everyone r in the pattern with 4 NM. I’m trying to polish it up so I can be adept at the shorter.

In both the campaign and standalone Alert 5 missions, all waypoints are almost 3500 NM from my start on the carrier. Is this an issue across the board or do I have a bad file? I suspect this mini campaign isn't going to have a lot of maintenance and TLC until the bug is more feature complete, but I didn't find anyone else complaining and honestly liked the mini campaign as a quick play through and test of different systems.

Thank you all again. It is seeming that the Rift S will accomplish what I'm looking for, is available, and a proven system. Think I'm going to jump in. The Reverb looked great by the numbers, but I've already been a little hesitant about performance and reviews that loved the image quality, but were all around a little iffy on the polish with the rest of the headset.

Thank you both! I am starting to lean towards the Rift S. I'd still be interested in others feedback. And particularly if you're using any PD tweaks. It seems some feel the ball is flyable from 1 NM or more. While the YouTube review hedges a little bit right at 3/4 NM. And he has some difficulty with some text as well. It seems he was a purely out of the box review though, so I wonder if a little bump in PD may explain things.

To anyone who has the Rift S, can you comment on the IFOLS visibility when flying around the boat? Can you actually see it and fly it at 3/4 mile? Or when can you start flying it? Can you see/use it any further than 3/4 mile? I have a Rift CV1. Love VR, but I have used it primarily in VFR pattern flying. The resolution has made it very hard to read the smaller font MFD menus for more technically demanding missions where input and adjusting values abounds. And I never felt I could fly a proper pattern. I mean I could fly it, but had to use the ICLS needles to substitute the ball until in close. It sounds like from Wags and others that I have been able to see in this nearly 100 pages, the instruments are better. But I have not seen comment on the meatball. Could anyone comment specifically on this? And confirm that all gauges, including the MFD’s, are easily readable (I want to make sure we’re not talking about switch labels, etc)? I had felt I was pretty set on the Reverb given the numerically far superior resolution. But if the Rift S does the job, it’s a seamless integration with smooth controllers and good history (with the CV1) and I could be swayed.

Thank you all! I didn't know about the Valve or HP Reverb. I was unimpressed with the Rift S specs, so didn't find that to be worth waiting for. The HP Reverb looks good by the numbers and hopefully doesn't tax FPS too much. I'm fortunate to have a 2080Ti and 8086k at 5.1 GHz, so if anything can run it, this should.

I have and Oculus Rift and love VR, but also know technology is moving one. The resolution is the major issue I have, but getting rid of the screen door effect would be a nice plus. I only use VR for flight sims, so I only need a set that tracks head movement well and has a nice picture. What I’d really like to improve (in order): 1. Visibility of the “ball”. With both the Hornet and the Tomcat now out, these are going to occupy almost all my flight time. I’ll add a some Warthog and Harrier time, but love carrier flying. It’s not until about 0.4 NM that I feel I can get much of a real read on the ball and have to substitute ICLS needles, even in case I. 2. Instrument readability. Analog instruments are a bit easier, but MFD menus for more technical flying like AG target pods, ordinance release parameters, etc are very challenging. When I do more “technical” flying such as precision AG attack, I usually fly outside of VR. 3. A2A target spotting. While it would amazing, this seems the most limited and I’m willing to accept that. I’d love to spot targets from greater differences and get a better sense of their aspect, but I know this will be a challenge for a while. All three are really resolution issues. It seems there are two to three possible viable upgrades. 1. The Pimax 5k dfimitely improves resolution and has decent reviews, but hasn’t seemed to win people over. It see,s it’s heavy and maybe not the best tracking. 2. Samsung Odyssey+. If I remember the specs, it’s about a 40% increase in resolution (although it’s worded very oddly as “combine resolution per eye”) and people really do seem to like it. 3. Upcoming Occulus Rift S. I love how reliable and simple the first generation Rift has been. However, it’s a relatively small 20% increase in resolution. I’m not sure how big an impact that really makes. So, with all of that said, does anyone have experience with any of these other headsets and could comment on how much they help improve (or how well they work) for these three points I’m hoping to improve? I think I’m liking what is being said about the Odyssey+, but would love to hear thoughts. I was a bit let down the Rift S resolution isn’t going to be more akin to the Odyssey.

I have little bit of knowledge of the Tomcat, but not much. I’d like to make a decent control map while I start learning this bird, but could use some advice on what could/should be mapped. I have a TM Warthog. I know a few things such as DLC, wing sweep control, brakes, flaps, and Jester. But what else? And any suggestions for TM Warthog maps that work well (what to what buttons based on ease of access)? Thank you for any help!

I can't see the name of the missile. Russia have a high angle off boresite equivalent.

Is this week's Red Flag missions supposed to start C&D or running? It has missions timings for startup and taxi, so I was expecting C&D. But when I load the mission, all systems are up and running. 13 minutes is a lot of time to sit there waiting for taxi as well, again making me think C&D was the intent. I was looking forward to some ramp to ramp missions.

Auto Waypoint Switching - Getting out of sequence? I've been flying the CF-188 Red Flag user mission and finding the auto waypoint stepping odd. I am not sure if I am doing this wrong, there's a fix, this is how it really is, etc. I have SEQ1 and AUTO boxed. I am fine during the navigation phase with the waypoint stepping to the next as expected. However, in Sally Corridor, we deviate to the tanke and then direct to waypoint 5 (skipping 4). If I continue this way, after every waypoint it was to make waypoint 5 next (even after passing waypoint, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc.). If I fly to waypoint 4, then 5, it stays in sequence. However marshall and push points are close together, so the system advances to waypoint 7 (ingress) while marshalling at 5. If I step backwards to 5 or 6, it keeps auto next to 8, 9, 10, etc. I was thinking this would automatically advanced to waypoint n+1, so I could either go skip a waypoint in sequence on the HSI and it would auto advance to the next, or I could go backwards and reset. Is this not how it works in the real bird? And if so, is there some workaround to skip to a later waypoint or revert to an earlier and now mess the whole sequence up?

This has been marked as not a bug, but without explanation. Any chance this could be explained so I understand this better?

I don't know if this a bug or a lack of understanding on my part. I've attached a picture below showing the center MFCD with the HSI and the HSI on the left DDI. There is a block of text when shown on the left DDI that is blacked out. I can not read the time data on the lower left or the distance abeam above CSEL on the lower right. It appears that is is blacked out by advisory messages, but clearing the master caution and FCS reset will not clear these advisory messages any further for me. Am I missing how to properly clear this or is this a bug that I can't read these data blocks? This particular mission is the instant action case I approach on the Persian Gulf map. I am running a 4k TV at 4k. Thanks for any help.

I recently built a new sim computer. A lot of setup left still, but DCS World is back on the new one already. I intended to keep my logbook progress going (medals, landings, AA kill counts, etc). I copied the old logbook.lua from the old computer’s saved games and after installing DCS World on the new computer, copied the old logbook file back in to that location. In the sim though, the logbook just shows “NewPilot” with 0 hours, 0 kills, etc. What am I missing?

I could see that and seems to fit with my interpretation.

I understand the concepts you’re both pointing out. I’m just confused by the language. I interpret those lines as: 1. Never be both low and slow, avoid either low or slow as best as possible 2. Error high and/or fast. But I’m not fully understanding f the language. So I’m trying to understand it to be sure I’m not missing a finer point.

Can someone clarify in the LSO rules to live by, what they mean by “leading” a ball? I understand that low and slow is a bad deadly place to be and high and fast at least gives you safety to fly another pass if you don’t trap. I’m just not sure what they mean by “lead” when taking about never low and slow, always high and fast.

I was wondering if someone could point me to a discussion (I couldn’t find one) or elaborate here on where the Hornet is going to excel in a dogfight, and how to use these strengths? I’m thinking about a post-merge gun battle, short range IR missile at most. Certainly first look, first shot, BVR is the first choice. As I understand it, the Hornet should be more of an angles/turning fighter and not a power fighter. A YouTube video had mentioned it excels at high alpha in a dogfight, but how do I use this in a fight (low speed turn performance?)? And what about weaknesses to exploit against common Hornet adversaries? 1) MiG-21: The Hornet seems to have an marked advantage on turning performance, modest in vertical 2) MiG-29: The Horrent seems to loose modestly in both turn and vertical. 3) Su-27: The Hornet seems to modestly loose in turn and markedly loose in vertical. So how to I go about attacking these aircraft?

I’m not able to view the track at the moment and don’t know how much of this is simulated, but even with a perfectly flown approach, there is a chance the hook bounces and skips over the wires or the hook glances over the top of the wire and doesn’t catch. Again, not sure to what extent this is present in DCS.

I've been a long time user of combat flight simulators, but have always struggled in a BFM dogfight. My struggle boils down to maintaining visual. I do ok with tactics if I can maintain visual long enough to develop the fight. I've become more of an air-to-mud guy as a result, but want to use all sides of the Hornet. I was hoping to get some tips from you all on the board here. I have a great setup including a 55" 4k TV, TrackIR, and Oculus Rift VR. 1. The 4k TV makes a huge difference spotting air and ground targets, as well as seeing more than just a couple pixels to judge aspect/ID/etc. 2. Panning with a Hat switch just doesn't move fast enough at times (i.e. the merge) and is easy to get lost as to where exactly you're looking. 3. VR is fantastic for SA, but the current resolutions are too low to reliably tally a target and then judge aspect/maneuvering of the bogey. I love it for the carrier pattern and tanking, but am not finding them of great use in combat yet. 4. TrackIR is the best I've gotten so far. I probably need to work on perfecting my profile. My struggle right now is to get a good balance of a "stable head" when near center for working with the cockpit displays/instruments and flying through the HUD, combined with a full 180 degree motion around the bird without have to look out of the side of my head with my eyes (i.e. having to turn my head too far to look directly at the screen). I know practice is a big part, and I'm flying a lot of instant action BFM missions. I'm always struggling at the merge when the aspect changes so quickly. Does anyone have tips on managing the visual? I remember Janes used to have a padlock view that would keep you eyes on. A little bit of a cheat, but it's also a limited engine compared to reality. I sure miss that one.

I'm working on getting ready to fly RF04. I'm loving the campaign despite having flown only one real sortie. I'm trying to be very professional, reading carefully on the threat briefing, routing, other sorties. I see that I am tasked with a 4 ship flight to destroy 10 MBT, 2 SAM units, and 10 IFV at the primary and then 2 x SAM, 10 x MBT at each of 2 secondary sites. This is a lot of armor for 30 mm and mavericks. So, I'm wondering what advice you all may have to maximize the weapons loadout. Particularly considering that it's unreliable what I can get the wingmen to hit. My plan is Maverick x 4 (although I could do 6) and CBU-97 x 4. I'll probably Maverick the two SA-19's myself and drop a CBU pair (RPL SGL) on the BMP, then turn the wingmen loose on the MBT. Is it best to have then use guns, or CBU-97 (does that count as guided or unguided bomb in the command menu for attack?). And then move on the the first secondary and Maverick the SA-19's, then turn the flight loose again. The third, I'll have to SPI and share the SAM sites, as I'll be out of Mavericks. Any thoughts on the plan? Are the CBU-97's effective against MBT's? From what I've been reading, marginally. And would it be worth the drag/speed/fuel cost of 6 Mavericks? Thanks for any thoughts!

I would suggest some further reading. Depleted uranium (DU) is less than half the Ur-235 (the actual radioactive component) levels of naturally occurring uranium ore. It is in fact commercially used as a radiation shield in commercial applications (most commonly in iridium imaging practices). No study to date has shown any associated increased rate of cancer is service persons handling DU. There is some scant evidence it may be associated with birth defects. More research is needed to understand the extent of this fully, but it appears to be an extremely small increase if present. The only research suggesting cancer potential is laboratory (test tube/petri dish) studies in bone marrow precursor cells show a possible (not clear and certain) propensity towards leukemic transformation. Remember, test tube and petri dish studies are the are the same ones where diet soda causes pancreatic cancer, cell phones and radio transmission give you brain cancer, microwaves are cancer ovens, and steroid injections give you knee arthritis. None of these actually bear out to be true once put in to a whole person context. Also remember that the primary concern is with aerosolized particles, which are associated with the weaponized employement is DU munitions. This is a bigger concern for the infantryman on the ground in the AO than the munitions loader. This is not to say that DU munitions are completely safe. However, research has been done and these are not clearly a horrific health risk. Continued research to better understand them is of course needed. But one should not succumb to buzzword hysteria. Despite the name uranium, these are the furthest thing from nuclear/radioactive weapons and are in fact less radioactive than the naturally occurring form (which needs extensive refinement to be used in nuclear weapons)