sk000tch

Agree on feel, with obvious limitations of sim considered. Presumably if you've got a lot of a-10 time you've got numbers in your head for IAS and FF/ITT at a range of conditions. I would think a clean vs. typical load comparison would determine whether drag from munitions or racks is off. With that eliminated, if straight and level numbers are off its either drag or thrust. If S&L numbers are where you'd expect, but you are bleeding more speed TLT or climbing turn, that narrows it down. We don't do emergency training in DCS because, well, its a sim. But you would certainly be familiar with simulated engines out glide. Be a little hard to tell whether the speed was optimal, but it might give further hint to whether its something wonky with induced drag or thrust. I think we are all pretty sure the TF34s are just a bit conservatively modeled, probably less than we think though. As you said it just feels like more... miss an entry speed and it gets magnified throughout a maneuver, my hunch is its a similar effect, but am quite curious to hear what you think.

First to the prior post and reference to "this video thing" - the video is HUD camera from an A-10C flight making several gun runs in Afghanistan, The complaints here aren't about climb performance (I'm not even complaining, just explaining). Thus, arguably the video is a better source as it provides real world performance data and allows you to hear the stall warning, judge energy loss during typical attack runs and escape maneuvers. I cited timestamps with airspeed, g load, bank angle, etc., to allow comparison to A-10 in DCS performance. I find this more compelling than -1 style performance charts (density altitude, runway length, etc.), but admittedly there are variables we don't know (throttle position, load, fuel state). Your mileage may vary, I personally found it interesting. Moreover - Though I agree with the opinion, this is a dead horse. The Hog driver that posted previously in this thread, the reddit IAmA A-10 pilot, and the other hog pilot pireps have all said the same thing. In fact, I've not heard anyone with actual A-10 time disagree. Again, I find that compelling. All that said, I frankly do not care. Matt has stated that its not going not going to change, and its fun as is. I'm glad we're getting updated model for free, and have nothing to complain about. In retrospect, I am not sure how I even got sucked into arguing US export laws with a European non-lawyer, but perhaps someone benefited by learning why certain inaccuracies exist or systems aren't modeled in DCS. Despite an ED employee currently awaiting trial, and a lawyer good enough to be half-retired in my early 40s citing specific laws to the contrary, its still up for debate apparently. bbrz - That jab wasn't meant for you, and nor was my argument personal. I don't know ATP culture, but those of us that like to fly alone or at more than 1.5g tend to talk a little shit. You might be unaware, but an actual A-10 will fall out of the sky inverted, as it lacks the fuel feed systems required. As to your third point, you literally said "quite a useless number without any weight info." I provided lots of numbers, as did other posters, and have no idea what you're referencing. Please be more precise regarding what you disagree with in the future if you want a meaningful response. Again, I entered this conversation to explain ITAR, not complain about A-10 performance. I now regret getting involved, as its an hour or so of my life I can't get back. That said, my response was not personal. I have frequently seen players argue with ex-hornet pilots, now knowing who they are. I find it funny, but also an important distinction between knowledge derived from manuals and sims and real world flight hours. *edited out some unnecessary, gj deleting reply dude Have a good day, I certainly will

Not sure why you’re trashing extras, they’re well engineered and certainly no toy. I’ve seen a EA-18 grinning ear to ear after a ride in a 300l, pure stick and rudder fun with a silent radio. To answer your question, I compete in IAC advanced in a su-29 (partnership owned). Airframe is certified to 12G with a roll rate >400 deg/sec. We can’t sustain like fighters but hit much higher peak, especially negative (outside maneuvers are all the rage lately with course designers). Inverted thing just a jab at hog and her flight characteristics. I’m not sure what you’re asking in 2.? I have run afoul rule 16 too many times and didn’t want to post the video link, but the HUD video found with the search terms I provided show performance that exceeds the dcs model. From video alone cannot say if it’s drag or thrust, but the a-10 in dcs I fly does not accelerate from 260kts in ~70 degree bank level turn. Zhukov- you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. If you are really that passionate about the subject I’m happy to answer questions or discuss further but PMs would be more appropriate. Traveling and on phone so don’t recall (and can’t scroll) who posted- but we’re discounting 1000s of hours flight time in a different just because it’s a different type? I get the 40hr 172 thing, but I’m gonna value the opinion of an experienced hornet pilot on flight characteristics of the hog, especially if they’ve studied it some, over a sim superstar quoting the -1... planes are planes, to a certain extent (extreme examples of C172 and 747 notwithstanding).

zhukov, I appreciate you summarizing my post but you really need to read it. Your making assumptions about a topic you don’t understand. Not saying that to be rude, it’s almost impossible to give definitive answers even for experienced practitioners. As I said in my prior post, I was merely scratching the surface of a very complex question. Out of respect for Matt and ED, I am not going to cite specific issues or opine on issues they would rather I not. I enjoy DCS and would like it to stick around (despite my occasional bitching), but hopefully I can elaborate a bit. I do not know the facts of how this transition, and obviously haven’t seen any documents. Hypothetically, a situation like this adds an additional layer of complexity. Two parties can agree to whatever they want in a contract. Contractors are also subject to additional rules (where otherwise DDTC wouldn’t have jurisdiction). As I said, there could be administrative review fees associated with requests for review to change to specific core systems, or a blanket prohibition. We simply do not know. Can you explain the difference between the two? What if DCS were sold bundled with a TM Warthog, cougar MFDs, and buddyspike UFC? What about the guy on here with the full replica f/a-18 cockpit? If he sold that with a computer running the hornet module to a guy in Canada? Would any of those facts change your answer? What if a dev working on the project received an email, opened an attachment and it was a -34 for the Hornet? How would that effect things? What if somebody posted something on their forums? At what point does a game, or simulator, “replicate the operation of an individual crew station?” Law is vague, and good lawyers are expensive. These are questions about functionality, not the label on the software. It’s a question of facts and circumstances. Does the fact that the French use the M2000 module for training purposes matter? What about statements from ex-pilots about realism, and the extent to which it teaches you to fly the real aircraft? What, exactly, does it mean for a game to be “developed using classified information?” Would the presence of classified information on a company’s email server support an inference that it was? To quote from the article I linked previously: If that is clear to you, I recommend law school. A senior DC lawyer with good competency in AECA/ITAR will bill North of $1000/hr, not sure what you’re doing now but if you don’t charge $60 to read a 3 minute email you might consider it. My point is just to lay off, there’s a reason there aren’t a ton of DCS competitors out there. Bitch about carrier pricing, slow development, or whatever you want. But on this one cut them some slack. Compared to other work they are doing, adding some thrust to the a-10 would be piece of cake. But I, for one, would rather they pay developers not lawyers. Finally, as to the topic of this thread… My expertise in the a-10 is not equivalent with ITAR unfortunately, but I have seen the comment from several former pilots, and I’ve been fortunate enough to fly a lot of planes. I give the PIREPs a lot of credibility, particularly when you can view HUD footage of A-10s on youtube. More subjectively, my own flight time in high performance aircraft provides a base of knowledge to know its off. I have never flown an a-10, but I routinely hit 10Gs and have much more time inverted than any Hog pilot. Part of the problem is absurd configurations people use, but even relatively clean, DCS’ A-10 engine performance being what it is, our airspeed is always low. At 210-220 kts even a gentle pull will sound the horn. I was going to post a link but don’t think I can. But there’s a video of an A-10 in Afghanistan Tag ab valley in 2008 providing CAS to some very stressed out boots on the ground. If you were to watch that vid, of note are: t=:35 350kts IAS 2-3° nose down (let that sink in for a second) show of force, gentle 2G pull to 5° nose up, aggressive right stick into 5g peak/4g sustained turn through 180 degrees, with just a blip when pitch got a bit sloppy initiating the turn. t=1:54 8° nose down gun run at 320 kts IAS, hard 4.5G pull to 23 nose up, roll ~80° into climbing turn though 180 degrees, dropping the nose level when IAS drops to 275 or so. Note that plane is accelerating in a 70-80° bank nose level. t=2:20 Bonus USAF humor t=4:30 Steep 23° nose down gun run at 330 IAS, 5g pull to 20 nose up with just a brief chop, roll left ~80°, hard right stick (still 20° nose up) to 70-80° right banking turn though 180 degrees leveling out +3000ft still at 220 kts. Go try any of those in DCS and let me know how it works out

I get frustrated with this topic so I am going to be as polite as possible, if I come across rude its unintentional. That said, don't pretend to be an tech export lawyer. The rules are complicated. In the past I've run departments that did nothing but compliance, and still begin almost every sentence with "it depends," "most likely," "its possible," etc. But with absolute certain I can say that just because -1 in online, or even public domain, that is not determinative as to how something is classified. Ace Combat is a game. It is exempt from ITAR. DCS is something else. I'm won't discuss ED specific legal issues, I'm sure they would not appreciate it, nor do I have all the facts. I'm also not trying to pick on you or other posters (well maybe the "most ridiculous i've ever heard guy" a little bit - lots of edits going on). Again, just because technical documents regarding a specific combat system is public domain, doesn't give free reign to simulate it, as there are many other ways to violate, the regs that are very counterintuitive and ambiguous, subject to (at time unreasonable) administrative interpretation. I don't want to write an appellate brief, but if you are interested i'll point you in the direction for some self learning. This article from a law firm on the challenges of flight sim software and ITAR dependent classifications gives an idea of how difficult compliance is. The United States Munitions List is 22 CFR § 121.1, try giving that a read (Cat VIII and IX are most relevant here). Certain aircraft are completely off limits - Category VIII (F) lists the B-1B, B-2, B-21, F-15SE, F/A-18 E/F, EA-18G, F-22, F-35, and future variants thereof; or the F-117. They can be included in "games," but not simulators. As with every ex-aviator that does an AMA, certain topics are just safer to stay away from. To make things more fun, every country has different laws. If its US tech or simulates US tech, ITAR covers it. Doesn't matter where you are, how uncooperative the country you live in is. OFAC has a long arms, even wealthy Russians will go to great lengths to appease or otherwise avoid sanction. I mentioned games earlier, but what's a game? Well, Australia has a specific "serious games" definition. In the US its more complicated of course. It depends on functionality, not what you call it or how you sell it. This leads to some absurd results btw. For example, a simulation based on public domain information might be OK, but if you build a sim pit that it "replicates the operation of a crew position" then suddenly it is not. So a replica f-18 cockpit? What about just using a TM Warthog? Proprietorial discretion prevents most of this, but for companies at up to $1M fine per violation, these risks are taken very seriously. Dependent classifications are another animal. An A-10 is a system comprised of many subsystems, each of which has a classification. It could be a 40 year old airframe, but if it simulates, for example, frequency modulation - you're toast. Or certain types of weapon guidance systems... well, i'll just say that the answer could be "no, no way that goes in. End of discussion." Again, I'm not going to go into specific DCS or ED stuff, I appreciate the line they have to balance. There's a reason we don't have a ton of mil sims competing with each other, why MSFT never has weapon systems, and I'd like ED to stay around. I am literally just scratching the surface of this, it is an incredibly complex and deep subject. I was CLO for company with complex compliance issues, for the cost of a mid-level compliance lawyer you can employ probably 10 devs. Where would you prefer they put their resources? Btw - even the oldest most basic unclassified WW1 plane, if simulating using classified documents, is covered. That's the kind of thing that would make a company a little anxious about what people post on their forums I think? I should add that once you're a contractor, a whole other set of rules apply, and contracts impose additional burdens, incl. specific provisions governing end use, modification, etc. So its not abstracted or made up. Agaijn, I have no knowledge about ED, but often its DTCC compromise, or perhaps a company has information but cannot use it (that based on classified info thing again) Bitching betty bugs me to no end, but on this topic ED gets the benefit of doubt from me. If they could edit a lua and give us proper FM I am sure they would happily do so, its a lot less work then rebuilding the entire model (ala ka-50), or whatever they're doing to the a-10.

Always cool to hear from a hog driver So rumor has it some downgrading of performance was part of the commercial release. I am just parroting previous comments, I have no direct knowledge. I do have some experience with DoD contracts and ITAR though, and certainly possible if US funded sim was created previously, or if there were licensing agreements or some agreement with DDTC, changes to any covered item (engine performance) could be difficult or expensive to change (administratively, not technology). Though its a bit silly to have throttle to the wall and see 1500fpm at 180kts, I can live with the airspeed and climb performance. It'd be great if she would keep a little energy through TLT or any aggressive maneuvering, as you said. Damn stall warning drives me insane though! I can push harder in my su-29 than I can pull in the a-10 as modeled, and while the M14P is probably #2 to Vodka in Russia's all time greats, its no jet. Still a lot of fun to fly, just a bummer that bureaucracy prevents even more fun. Hard to imagine critical AoA of a 40 year old airframe is a state secret

There are many reasons, terminal trajectory and air burst height can be tailored for fragmentation patterns, or to impact a structure at a certain point/trajectory. I don't want to get in trouble again so just google JDAM air burst, or fragmentation or low collateral damage. There's plenty of info. As to question at hand, some questionable info in this though more recent posts have it right. Maps and elevation data is, at least in 2005, not of sufficient accuracy for JDAM targeting. Thus, the only time AGL is used is with certain fuzes. To answer the question, regardless of mode, elevation is entered in reference to zero surface (HAE or MSL). From JDAM menu, selecting TGT UFC, ELEV on UFC may be input in either MSL or WGS, in either feet or meters.. Both in reference to a zero point, not AGL. HAE, height above ellipsoid, is just the zero point for WGS 84 geometric/ellipsoid model of the earth (geodetic system used by GPS system). MSL is of course Mean Sea Level, which again is a reference to zero point, though an approximation and less precise. HAE is recommended for use in our lot, but i suspect truncation converting HAE to MSL and MSL decreased precision won't be modeled so wouldn't stress it. Interestingly, offset is entered as absolute elevation, not differential relative to the offset reference point. And again, several fuzes have proximity sensors that allow AGL, but that's an answer to a different question.

That's not really ED fault, MSAA is brutally resource intensive. It's better than straight super sampling, but it's essentially executing 4x shaders per pixel where the coverage mask is non-zero. It produces great visuals but with deferred shading/lighting that DCS uses its going to kill fps, nothing they can do to change that. Post processing techniques are usually much easier on the GPU, but don't look very good in DCS. Perhaps that is something they could improve? Honestly I don't think we are going to see any big rasterization changes until vulkan, as it doesn't make sense to put resources into it. Even then early ray tracing implementations in vulkan give a lot of reason to be optomistic, and open up a number of more modern approaches

FYI valve isn't trying to gouge people, I think the hard frame magnetic design and materials used just add up. The hook & loop replacements with decent materials for other headsets are $30. Fortunately just like they do with open sourcing everything, valve is releasing the CAD files for the gasket to allow aftermarket designs like vrcover (which, if you've not tried, completely changes my opinion of my O+), to the full custom ones you can get at tradeshow and such where they scan your head/face and print you one. I haven't had the pleasure of trying one, but a lot of people swear by them. *Edit- for anyone who hasn't seen, yesterday they did a deep dive re FOV on Index website, some good info, explains edge clarity and should dispel the conspiracy theories on why they wouldn't publish a FOV number. Also, stay tuned as it looks like we will get a couple more before release. Inter esting to see their design decisions explained d in such Detail: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/index/deep-dive/fov

Not exactly new info but Rubin is at least being honest, so credit for that. As previously said can't fault the business judgment either. Those of us that are pissed Index didn't release at a price a couple hundred higher and go 2k screens, or that are irritated DCS can't utilize 16 threads are not exactly a large ecosystem. If we want content, somebody's got to make a Nintendo 64 for VR. As good as knuckles look, at $300 for controllers, they aren't going to be it. What pisses me off is the money I have in the Oculus store. Again, can't fault the business decision, but I bought into the Oculus that was a pioneer. When Iribe left, Rift 2 was cancelled, and the "race to the bottom" quote came out the writing was on the wall. But before that they were a different company. They were late on touch and room scale but they killed it with tech that wasn't even designed for it. I thought we'd be in Half Dome like Rift 2's by now, not debating whether a HMD built by HP is as good as Vavle's, disappointed by the most recent Rift, built by Lenovo. The virtual desktop thing on Quest, the no rift s exclusives (must support Quest), all proof that Oculus is spending billions to create a Apple store like VR walled garden... Maybe its good for content, but not the experience, and not small devs. I have thoroughly converted to the house of Valve. I really dislike facebook

Reverb is a reasonable choice for flight sims, and WMR a good way to broaden VR market pentration ($99 black fridays, etc.), you've identified the WTF with rift 2. Inside out is great for quest, but why, if your already tethered to a PC, given the difference in quality and precision, would you go inside out? Cost. I don't buy the convenience argument, not when the setup difference is literally 5 minutes. LH's don't even take up a USB port, just wall AC, and the difference is night and day. From the pc games preview (not my preferred source, but its a good quote): Or PC World To answer your second question- I don't see it confirmed anywhere but from the past one should work fine for sitting but two is better. This is particularly true if you decide to play anything else that uses knuckles. Going to more than two won't improve tracking but will expand the size of your play area (up to 10m x 10m). All that said, while I am firmly on the Index bandwagon, I'd probably wait a couple weeks until we have them, DCS' VR "50% performance increase" is out, and you have first hand reports from people with like interest. Reverb has the pixel advantage, which if you have the pc to power it in DCS (2080ti) might outweigh the FOV, edge to edge clarity, comfort (both ergos but also eye strain for long play sessions), sound, and obviously the refresh rate/latency (an underestimated factor in the clarity of a moving screen, regardless of drawn FPS). From my perspective, once clarity hits the ability to read mfd without zooming threshold, sweet spot and FOV become more important. I don't want to move my head to focus on airspeed gauge in the F14, I want a big FOV that I can glance down with my eyes, keeping my head up outside the cockpit. Again though, this is all speculation, we'll know soon enough. If you're interested in further reading in the meantime, Ars posted an updated "one week with the Index" that's quite fair, and an apparently very stoned Brian Lindenhof (climey dev) on the index vs. rift s and WMR (not reverb). Two other comments - I thought I caught word that a native WMR solution was in the works for DCS, that might improve the experience substantially. Won't improve tracking, but better than the steamVR bridge. And second, DCS might have some launch issues with Index, hopefully it will be worked out (else pitchforks), but in a different video Brian mentioned he had trouble with , and I've heard a few other rumblings. Given the popularity of Index ED has strong incentive to fix the problem, if there even is a problem. But perhaps another reason to wait on real reviews

What are you basing the stick force comment on? I’ve been curious about stick feel in FBW jets since spending time in the hornet module, as I don’t like the feel of sim sticks (or, at least, have yet to find one with the feel I want) and am curious about the real thing, as it's essentially a sim stick with no linkage to control surfaces.. Anything you have would be interesting- angle/travel for max input, deflection/centering force, pilot AMAs, etc I’m surprised that the stock warthog isn’t heavier than the real hornet. I found the stock WH w/o extension excessive, particular centering force, and generally unrealistic feeling. I’ve found the warbrd far more precise, but the angle too much (have high hopes for new t50).

Or XTAL, and we could all have linebacker necks from wearing it a few hours a day... But seriously, the actual competition is Index v. Reverb - but until all NDAs are lifted and both are shipped we aren't getting an unbiased/objective comparison. Even then, if 100% sim different than mixed use, and in that rare set of circumstances, Most seem compelled to defend the purchase decision, rather than provide objective insight

Why not? Don't need a full review, but initial observations would be interesting as we are all dying for info, and if you are having an issue someone may be able to assist. Generally WMR has too many tradeoffs for me for my everyday HMD, but for DCS and flight sims I was beginning to think it might be better than Index (I have June 28 slot for Index). I am tired of running two HMDs, one for roomscale (rift), one for DCS (O+), but if Reverb is that good for sims, well, so be it. Doubt i'll be giving up Index, but maybe its an excuse for a sim rig next to roomscale area Besides - we have similar specs (I'm identical to Wags just with a little better lottery luck), and my primary concern about Reverb was performance in DCS with that many pixels, having to drop MSAA to maintain acceptable FPS, introducing flicker and such, so I am very curious how well it runs. The overarching metric for me is to determine the point where clarity at center is "good enough " to clearly read MFDs without zooming, such that other factors like edge to edge clarity, FOV, sound quality, comfort, build quality, and other factors come into play. My gripe with VR thus far is having to look around and center everything i'm looking at, especially with the bino effect. IRL I glance at my instrument rotation by quickly moving my eyes, not my whole head - then wait a second or two for ghosting to fade and image to become clear. Like in the f-14, I want to be able to read airspeed in my peripheral vision with my head up, looking outside the cockpit. Also sound - how is the sound? Perceived FOV? Wags if you are reading this as we run identical hardware I'd be curious about what type of FPS you were seeing and whether you had to adjust your settings. I assume you dropped MSAA down to 2 at least and lowered pd? Were you able to keep all textures/view distance maxed? Any jaggies of visual anomalies?

I've recently had my heading tape in hud/hsi geeze, usually online, and can't seem to get an in air alignment or other previous tricks to fix it. Anyone else having this issue? If so, found a fix?

Interesting, that's not how I understood it. I thought MSI/individual sensor info was aggregated on SA, not vice versa - e.g. attack radar and submodes displayed HARM, for example. Still can't fire on a SURV track from our lot right? the HAFU not show the upper chevron if you are not receiving returns? Also re rule 1.6, I was not aware. I could swear I have posted images, or at least quotes, from various tac manuals for proper HUD/HSI symbols but i am not banned? Will AZ/EL integrate data into that view where applicable? Like harm emitters with radar tracks? or atflir LST?

Am I only one that gets an invalid thread error on this link? Curious as I was not aware DL tracks were showered on the radar page, much les RWR info. You’re talking about the display of link16 contacts on the apg-73 a/a attack pages? I.e. vs/rws/tws (assuming not stt)? Or the display or ownship radar tracks and link16 tracks on the SA page?

And if Wags and crew want to do something very cool, I suggest Tomcat Tactical Targeting:

The aircraft is capable, either as a series of waypoints along a route or if conditions permit (overlapping LAR), up to four targets may be engaged in a single salvo. My question was whether it was going to be implemented... I think unintentionally I piss off the overlords around here sometimes, but I asked the same frigging question like 5 times. As I said, its not intentional, just naturally a dick... Lot 20 18C allows a maximum of four JDAM on a single ripple, for both single target multiple release and multiple target multiple release profiles. This was before the BRU-55 was available to legacy hornets, however. Thus its possible this was increased in subsequent updates. The reason I was asking was because it involves more complex mission planning. Given the complexity, and the entirely different release ques, I wasn’t sure whether it would be implemented. It would require building new functionality into MP, so I could understand not doing so. But, to prove my point, quoting the tactical manual (section in name): HSI with quantity release ques showing preselected terminal trajectories: https://imgur.com/qBvcHvi As I said mission planning is much more complex. Usually performed pre-mission, and loaded via card, though possible to lesser extent in mission. As we are getting cards, it seems possible, but again... unsure. However, for those curious: Release procedures are similar to single release, just hold the button:

So Wags just to be clear, sorry if you already answered but I don't think you have directly. Our legacy/lot does or does not allow salvo release with independent targeting? I know you mentioned multiple release single target, but seemed to imply that PP Missions must be cycled manually if that's the case I'm gonna need to correct some prior statements...

Not now or not ever? I thought the C allowed salvo and single pass multi target sequence??? That was circa late 90s

I doubt that will be in this patch, preplanned manual does not, i believe, allow salvo or sequenced releases. To all the other posts on this page, some questionable info - not trying to be rude. But the JDAM interface is robust, can be mission card (I assume) or input in flight, multiple modes with ASL or bank angle, or tied to AP - we just won't get it all right now. Our lot should be able using auto mode to release 6 jdam on single pass for individual targets, or, multiple releases on the same target, from a specified release point, with different terminal trajectories (hit front of hardened target low trajectory same time as top at 90 degrees). Not sure our lot has FD mode? But regardless, even without GPS signal INS guidance is like 30m? fwiw the jdam interface is the same as slam/jsow, so I suspect we have more toys coming. Also from the vid looks like quite a bit of work has been put into the PN, flight path looks much better than a-10.

Good to hear, she's gonna be a pig loaded up with pairs of 32s or JSOWs. I remember there being some disappointing rack/era issue, suppose it doesn't matter. Its great that we are getting a more complex implementation of JDAMs. Looks like you guys have put a lot of work into the flight model/PN, I expected terminal trajectories to be a "later in early access thing" :music_whistling: JDAM salvos will be fun. I'm interested to see how sequences are programmed (also grateful for recently announced higher resolution headsets) So HARM dev goes to tpod, A/A radar guy in his own personal hell for a while yet, I'm guessing JDAM dev goes to SLAM/JSOW next since its the same interface?

So when you blow your advantage and merge, for those of us w/o a few hundred hours BFM training...what the best probability tactic? I've been trying to take flight vertical and stay away from pointy end but Then what? I can fly but still struggle with some of the systems... haven't had much time yet. Can you fire an aim-9 from a prayer VSL Hi acquisition? I will get proficient in the tomcat eventually, work has been a bitch and I love the way she flies so I'm sure I'll get there. But right now I'm devouring cats in the Hornet. I've got a lot more hours in it, but in a merge its over before 14 can find the drop tanks menu option. Presumably they are still getting proficient as well but they all seem to want to be very high and start lobbing 54s at 40 miles out. Now and then you get surprised with very little time to react, but its an easy notch and they don't seem to track well against clutter. I'm sure RIOs will improve, but that was an important 20 years in terms of avionics development. C2 tracks make it even easier to go silent and pop in and out of clutter while 14 steams closes distance for you, radar AZ/EL straight ahead. When hornets get TWS, ECM and decoys its going to be rough unless I get a whole lot better! With the hornet's ability to point its nose and jhmcs/HOBS I expect it to be tough, but I'd like to be better than what I'm seeing from myself or other 14 drivers. I wouldn't want to be the SEAD element in a strike mission against a good 2-ship tomcat flight intercepting, but in the 1v1 stuff that happens online so often thus far I have yet to figure this bird out. Damn fun to fly though

Its an accurate representation of the HUD, probably more accurate than its RL counterpart actually, but the soapbox go fly ace combat or you don't need to know airspeed learn to fly stuff isn't necessary. I've never flown an F-14 of any variant, but i've flow a lot of different aircraft - fixed and rotary. Gauges are hard to read in VR, in RL its a quick eye movement to check. Analogue gauges are fine, pilots learn a pattern during different phases of flight that you glance and check. In sims its much less convenient to check, you've either got to look down and lean forward, or if not VR switch your view. Worse, in every sim you are missing the most important instrument of all - your ass. I can't feel the plane float, or feel when its uncoordinated, feel sweep angle change or feel control pressures through the stick, G load, or the thunk of various mechanical functions like DLC - so my ability to know what's going on with the jet depends on those gauges. I certainly do NOT want them to add airspeed or anything not realistic to the module, but I definitely understand why people might struggle. During flight the velocity vector seems more of an indication of attitude, as evident by the large vertical speeds when you put it on the horizon (and no ghost, etc) I do hope HB makes a D, and would gladly pay for it. I'd still fly the B because I personally enjoy it, sometimes I prefer glass cockpits other times old school vacuum. However, DCS seems to be focusing in on a turn of the century era focused sim. The D was an impressive upgrade, first fighter with IRST (side question - is this why so much is classified?), APG71 that was quit effective at range, particularly if datalinked with other cat, vastly improved defense and nav. It would fit nicely with the hornet and 16CJ, but that's a whole different conversation.