sk000tch

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.

I don't know of any RWR that is distance based, they are all directional taking into account strength, type, whether locked or guiding, to approximate intensity of threat. You cannot measure distance based on strength and intensity, and fighters aren't large enough to triangulate. The 14 layout is pretty standard analogue, the hud is what that era hud is. Its better in the sim than RL. MFDs are what they are for the era, the jet's rocking like 4kb of RAM... thing changed a lot from 1980 to 2000... fwiw, analogue/vacuum gauges have certain aspects that are nice. Less so in a sim, but RL they are very readable, reliable, needle speed gives you a sense of rate of change, etc. I agree having airspeed in the HUD would be great, perhaps we'll get a 14D one day- apg71, IRST, spamraaams... not sure that would be more fun though!

Code is modular. The interface in the hornet and the pod's ability to communicate with systems in the hornet needs to be built, but the tpod itself already exists. I am making assumptions here, but its reasonable to assume that the interface and systems integration branches will be reusable with ATFlir. As litening already exists, that's a suite of sensors that doesn't need to be built from scratch, so its likely a significant difference in work. I suspect that the FLIR re-work may have some role as well though I've never seen ED say so. I think you are drastically understating the complexity of those systems. We really just have the tip of iceberg in the AA radar. They've been working the radar a long time, and RWS is almosts done (though a lot of the conveience stuff isn't in). TWS is a whole other beast, and I haven't heard anything about AZ/EL yet. Making asumptions again, but in terms of new tech the A2G radar is a massive project. If you are not familiar with it, there's six primary modes, most with EXP modes, and much of the functionality doesn't exist in any other module. Heatblur has shown themselves to be a great dev, and they did a good job raycasting the PS-37 - but the hornet is exponentionally more complex. The PS-37 is analogous to MAP in the Hornet, the Hornet's DBS and SAR submodes record and process the 2-D returns from MAP, using the different angles as the Hornet moves in space, to build a three dimensional composite image. And you still have ground moving target, ground moving target track, fixed target track, sea surface, terrain avoidance, and air to ground ranging (I'm missing one...) That's a whole lot of new code MIDS/Link16 is just barely implimented, there's a ton of depth to that set of systems. Countermeasures are a fraction of their full version (no ECM, active decoys), some of the remaining weapons like SLAM/ER and JSOW are on par if not more complex than HARM. the JDAM functionality in the Hornet is not at all like the hog That's a lot of stuff. If the litening shortcut shaves time to release on these major features and provides ability to self designate I'm all for it.

Knowledge of aerodynamics/aviation? 1100 hours combined fixed wing & rotary time? Teaching student pilots about induced drag, power curves, and how now to stall when turning final and kill themselves and passengers? Take your pick Jump in a hornet, get on speed, get a little slow/low and pull back on the stick - what happens? Do you go up? Reversed controls is not literal, just an analogy I like to use when teaching people to fly. Simply referring to slow speed handling where altitude is controlled by throttle and speed with stick But don't take my word for it, on landing a Hornet on a carrier, Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Dominick, a U.S. Navy test pilot described the procedure: abeam the touchdown point, an F/A–18 Super Hornet pilot rolls into a 28-degree constant-bank turn until intercepting the approach path. The goal is to be on the back side of the power curve. Level off, but don’t balloon up. Power back and pitch over to set up an angle of attack of about 8 degrees to follow a glidepath of about 3.5 degrees. The “meatball” on the carrier’s deck, a Fresnel lens system, provides a visual indication of the glidepath. However, the whole thing is moving forward and to the right in an attempt both to provide a headwind to slow the approach speed and reduce the runway required, and to keep the angled deck pointed into the wind. Was there anything else you wanted to correct about what I posted?

Hate to break it to you but overhead break pattern often flown at air fields as well. As are standard left or right patterns, straight in approaches, etc. However, the approach shouldn't matter, what you are struggling with is common. Carrier jets fly on the backside of power curve, just takes some practice to get used to. You need to learn to get on speed and trimmed up quickly without big changes in altitude, then learn the amount of throttle needed when turning to control sink. Navigating the pattern isn't complicated once you can fly the plane precisely. Just find some space and practice getting on speed without gaining/losing altitude, over and over again. 350 kts, 180 degree turn to on speed & dirty. Practice flying around on speed, get the hang of the amount of throttle required when you turn (anticipate it, don't wait until you sink). You can keep your hook up and do touch and goes on carrier as well. Practicing at an airfield is fine as well but don't flare the hornet. Carrier jets land differently. Field landings in the Hornet should still be flown with the "AoA style" in your words, get on speed AoA on downwind leg, turn base w/ short final like landing on a carrier. If you want to soften the landing don't flare by fulling back the stick, it will just jack up your aoa. Remember, you control altitude w/ throttle in the bug. If you want to soften the landing give it a little throttle right before touch down to decrease V speed. Check vid below, notice the short final, just like carrier pattern, no changes in pitch all the way down. The difference between the two landings is the second pilot increases throttle (you can hear it), as I described above. Its not necessary, just softens the impact That's just how carrier planes work. You fly approach on the backside of power curve, so controls are reversed. I think it will just confuse you at this point but if you're curious there's reasons for this, read up on induced vs. parasitic drag. When you learn to fly it gets drilled in your head to get rid of the too low -> pull up -> increase sink/stall -> dead scenario that has caused many crashes, both real and simulated. Compare to our next toy, the f-16 (vid below). The flare to land, squat to pee joke comes from, well, first part at least comes from landing procedure. You still fly AoA so the indexer/hud staple isn't going anywhere, but its landed in a typical non-carrier plane manner. Its is much slicker jet, even dirty, so it doesn't slow down like a Hornet. Fly AoA and same 3 degree slope on approach, too high and you scrape, to low and you will float halfway down the runway. Aim for the numbers, engines to idle and flare to 13 degrees when a few feet above the runway (no more than 13 or scrape). Gently set the rear wheels down (notice those dainty little landing gear), hold AoA (keep nose up) to aero brake, and as speed drops the nose will settle gently (notice even daintier nosegear). One of the landings in vid driver flared late and bounced. Much less stress on plane, so can be built lighter - hence the range/payload advantage of USAF fighters vs USN. Of course, under normal circumstances they have 8,000 ft of runway, not less than 6k.

Thanks, appreciate it!

Hey all, I use a warthog grip and Virpil gimbal, modified warthog throtttle, that dcs doesn’t recognize one as a warthog and thus doesn’t use default bindings. I’m struggling a bit to come up with pap/pal and v-hi/lo setup that works, can someone post the html for default warthog bindings? I’d like to see the default setup as I develop my own. It, if someone has something that works particularly well, feel free to include

OK So the white knighting of the tomcat is irritating, not so much here, but other forums where downvotes are a thing, but this is stupid. This should be moved to DCS, or closed with explanation. Heatblur doesn't have control of this. Every module, every new feature, 3rd part or ED, goes through open beta. HB can't release EA module direct to Stable. Moreover, I don't know how you play DCS without OB. Virtually every MP server runs OB, and of course if you fly EA modules its nice to access whatever the new toy of the week is. Go grab skatezilla's application, makes it super easy to manage. If you are on a terrible connection then I understand being frustrated, but even then, not HB fault.

I've got or have seen the ship symbols, will track them down and provide. I don't think I have the specific f18/lot SA options, but you guys do - is there an option to show/hide naval assets?

I didn't see this clarification before the PM reply so the scope was broader, just focus DL stuff. For what its worth however, its not the Stennis, but rather the AEGIS DDGs, that are important. Stennis is important, obviously gotta land, but in the context of tactical data - Stennis is a runway, the multiple AEGIS vessels in the CSG have the monster sensor. Each AN/SPY-1 supposedly can detect a golf ball at a 100 miles, that's probably about as accurate as an AIM-120 having a range of 70 miles but networked together they can detect artillery/mortar shells against clutter, or guide SMs to satellites/ballistic missiles. They are BIG radars, big arrays, big wattage... The control function seems unnecessary for DCS, but it would be cool if the fleet were to be a bit more -- formidable?

In what sense? We talked about a few things in this thread, from tactical communication 101 to controller function and specific sensors on DDG/CG class. I don’t think you all need to model the procedural assignments or handoffs for deconfliction or even relay, but it would be great if the carrier strike group got some attention given the USN focus of the current flagship modules. If you really don’t have data I’m happy to provide information on AEGIS/AN/SPY-1, would be great to just add as an awacs style C2 donor. Not to drag out the missile dead horse but with the naval focus the SM-1/2/ER are a fraction of their RL counterparts, and I don’t know if evolved seasparrows are in game at all? With harpoons coming missile defense might be an area to consider looking at.

I don't think it would be that bad. Pure speculation, but I would think the bigger chunk of work would be building missile cruiser/destroyers as C2 assets like awacs that can provide tasking or radar tracks. But form a communication perspective (just making them donors), i suspect would be rather easy. It would be a good addition as well, adding to the somewhat underwhelming strength of the CSG overall. If you are interested in military tech/tactical communication there is a lot of material to read online, just start with googling link 16, tadil, mids. It is... complex, necessarily so, given the varying modernization of units, communication protocols, system requirements, etc. However, DCS does not need to model those things. DCS is supposed to be fun. That said, maybe not this year, or next, DCS is going to evolve. More modules will have link capability. tactical communication will become an increasingly important capability. In multiplayer, for example, the ability to degrade the other side's C3 by targeting particular assets would be very cool.

In real life or in DCS? RL Humvees have link-16 terminals, ground fighters and JTACs have handheld terminals. Actual tactical data networks are comprised of multiple platforms communicating on different protocols, joint operations with multiple simultaneous missions, some of which communicate directly, others that don't, all with the potential to conflict, with each frequency and contributor managed via military doctrine. For an F18 part of a carrier group, the Control Officers and various network managers who plan and manage all this during real world operations are all ship based. DCS doesn't model this, or other unnecessary complications of deconfliction, probability of reception or any of the other various not-fun stuff. I don't know whether it even requires line of sight yet. I don't know whether ships actually contribute yet, they don't show up on the SA page yet, but I think its a fair assumption that they will. I would expect at a minimum ships will provide C2 function. AWACS is great, but it cannot match the array size or 6MW power of a single AN/SPY-1, much less the dozen or so within a typical carrier strike group.

i'd recommend not having attack radar on left ddi. There's a reason real drivers don't, you'll constantly be fighting the system, which wants it on the right, and important information will be obscured by advisories. Sensor select can act a little funny sometimes because it depends on what mode you are in, whether HMD is on, etc. Conceptually you'd think that having the radar on left would probably just switch AAQC to left tap, but since left tap usually selects WACQ, I've got a hunch its screwing with your game. Try radar on right, S/A on AMPCD, stores, RWR, HSI, whatever you want, on left. fwiw sensor select switch functionality depends on what sensor is currently selected, which AA mode, and whether HMD is on, so it can be difficult to remember/keep track. AACQ should be right tap whether you are in BVR or ACM, so long as radar is on the right. With HMD on, however, if you have an uncaged seeker or if you are in HACQ, AACQ won't work... I don't think.

No, I am not talking about threat rings. Its not emitter bearing from RWR around the perimeter of the compass rose either. The SA page, as implemented currently, at times shows the location of non-air units (SAM for certain, though perhaps others occasionally - potentially naval?). Whether its emitters or launchers, what precise circumstances cause it to happen, whether it is intended, or what else it can display I don't know. Again I don't if its intended. It may require a specific friendly donor unit type or unit role; or, given that the only reproducible place I've seen it is in a red flag mission, it could be a bug where the friendly unit type is showing up despite being hostile b/c of the red flag exercise. It is reproducible in Sedlo's red flag mission. I don't want to spoil the very well made mission for anyone who hasn't flow it, specifically since the location doesn't matter unless you're trying to reproduce it. So, spoiler tag: I am on a rift and a cluttered SA is difficult to read, at first I thought it was stacked hafu symbols displaying strangly but its not. Its a... i'm not sure actually. Tried google and can't find it. I will try to fly it later and post a screenshot or track, I might not have time as it takes a good 30 mins to get there. But as I said, its a good use of your time, so worth checking out for yourself.

There are more it seems. These are the ones from wags video, but I’ve encountered symbols I am not familiar with. I’m on rift so sometimes difficult to tell small shapes. Do SAM sites show up under certain circumstances?

OK Fair enough, i was not precise in my choice of words. My sentence should have read "deviation from equilibrium point." Part of this is real life vs. simulation. Sim pilots think about controls differently. Your stick and rudder have a center point, that center point is where a gimbal or spring system causes the control to be when you don't touch it. But all that means is 0,0. Its not connected to anything. The force you feel through the stick or rudder doesn't change. The actual position of the control, like the physical center point of the stick or rudder, doesn't' change. I think because of this trim is viewed differently. I'll try to explain... I have MFG Crosswinds, they are nice rudder pedals, much better than the crap I had before. They work great for DCS, are very finely crafted, but don't feel anything like pedals in any plane i've ever flown. They are dead, not connected to anything. Real pedals are connected to a control surface that you can feel. You can feel wind buffeting the rudder when its gusty, or the gradual decrease in centering force at the top of a hammerhead, the buffeting as you slide back down, and the strong DEcentering force when you roll out. To be fair, I can't say with certainty whether the rudder on every plane i've flown doesn't have a mechanical centering force at rest. Some may. I can't say that its something I have paid that much attention to, and usually there is some steering linkage when on the ground, at least for the rudder. I happen to like traildraggers, a lot. My favorite of which, that i have access to at least, is a sukhoi 29. She is a temperamental high maintenance Russian bitch but I love her and wish she were mine...but that's a different story. On the ramp there is almost zero resistance in the pedals, just a little mechanical resistance and the weight of the rudder. If I push the right pedal to full deflection, lift my foot, it would stay in that position. The rudder has weight and because of the nose high attitude of taildraggers, gravity causes it to fall back toward center, but not all the way. Once that monster soviet radial roars to life, however, the wash from the prop will center the rudder. In the air, aerodynamic force of the wind over the surface makes it feel like there's a centering force (and progressive resistance), like the MFGs try to recreate, but where that center point is located is adjustable by trim. When you trim a rudder, a small tab on the trailing edge is moved, which in turn causes the rudder to deflect slightly in the opposite direction. Is that the center point now? If I take my feet off the pedals, that's where they stay. But the pedals aren't centered? There's just no force required to keep them in that position. In fact, I would have to exert force to cause them to center. That's all trim is. A small aerodynamic change that fine tunes the equilibrium point of the plane. I don't get to fly jets, so I'm talking about tabs. In a Hornet, obviously its a bit different. A- there's no rudder... But more importantly, the FBW system just changes the control surfaces so there's no small control surface balancing forces. The net result is the same, you are fine tuning what the plane does when you let go of the stick and rudder, but that's not necessarily the center point, or mid-point, or whatever word we're going to use. So, whether that is trimming nose up for climb, aileron trim from asymmetric load (or wind bugs), rudder for torque, or thrust against drag to dial in airspeed, its all the same thing... sorta.

Ya, same here. There is definitely a bug after refueling where you should be redirected to Darkstar but aren't. I had to check the frequency list and repeatedly call done refueling in an attempt to find the right frequency. Managed to find it about 90 seconds before push, so voice overs went off rapid succession - AO update in 5, followed immediately by AO update, then extra butter, extra something... then like 15 seconds later extra adventure. Everything work out fine, though trying to read the new... I won't spoil it, but lost a wing while zoomed into the SA page attempting to decipher what I was seeing.

Controls don't require a center point to have trim. In fact, trim, by definition, is deviation from a center point. Whether its trim tabs on a cessna that exert an opposite force deflector the control surface in the opposite direction, or the FBW electronic trimming of the Hornet, it is adjusting the aircraft to be in equilibrium at a different state - e.g. trim nose up causes aircraft to pitch up, it will slow down slightly but quickly establish stable equilibrium. Throttles are the same, thrust is in equilibrium with drag. Throttles that have trim, and there are many, are typically just finely tuned adjustments. Like you throttle is coarse adjustment, and the slider fine adjustment.

Thanks for the quick update sedlo, i've had a hard time finding a server/mission in which to really evaluate the new DL - will be fun to fly this again with the new toys. I hope this means that as new toys become available you find the time to incorporate them into your work. A certain campaign I particularly enjoyed could benefit from some updating ;)

ya, have to make sure you turn on dl and iff. incorporate into startup routine re NCTR- its aspect dependent, if you're head on or close it doesn't appear to take long at all. Conceptually this makes sense, though I dont' know if its correctly modeled or not

Interesting tidbit, I have never heard of "coffin corner" before. Amazing to think in the 1950s we designed a plane that was so close to the envelope that it could reach an altitude where Vne and stall speed approach 0. If you look at its stall/mach boundaries it makes sense, as pressure decreases its mach decreases, I just didn't realize it got so close. Amazing to think they were flying around at 85 indicated at 70,000 ft, RWR going apeshit... makes sense why we built the SR-71. Coffin Corner from wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/CoffinCornerU2.png

That link is useful but it doesn't explain "Why" different values are important. I don't have a link to provide but I am sure a few minutes on google will yield plenty of reading material. fwiw, the Hornet displays the various values where they are the most relevant. IAS is the most important number as it tells you what's going on with your airfoils. The Hornet actually displays CAS in the HUD, or calibrated airspeed, but for our purposes consider it the same thing (its IAS corrected for instrument error). Its measured by a pitot tube, which is just a tube with a hole down the center and perpendicular holds around the outsides, that measures the difference between air hitting the front of the tube vs the air around the outside. It functions on the same principal that makes your wing work, and thus tells you what's going on with your wings. If you're very slow, flying the pattern, etc., it tells you your proximity to stall speed, etc. TAS is of less utility, and will always be greater than IAS. Its mostly useful for planning when we used to have to do that by hand (as an intermediate step to GS). GS is the net of TAS and wind, which is useful mostly for navigation. As such, they are displayed on the HSI. TAS to the left, GS to the right. Useful for a quick check on winds aloft. Note TOT depends on GS for obvious reasons. For the same reasons, the radar, rather than GS, displays ownship mach and, I believe CAS? I'm still using rift so I can't read it anyway. The more relevant number is target mach, displayed to left of track, and Vc - closure velocity, on the right hand side next to range carrot. I'm not sure what the SA screens display, as that is an interesting combination of navigation and radar/targeting sensors. My hunch is it displays mach but we'll have to see in a couple days.

Go fly a traildragger with a big radial where you have to S-turn down the taxiway, get proficient then come back and enjoy the sweet no torque straight tracking high vis bliss that is the f/a-18. But seriously, as with everything in a plane smooth control inputs is the rule... decent rudder pedals help, you don't need MFGs but I can't imagine using twist (I can't imagine flying with twist either). Despite other posts differential braking is essential to be smooth, and is an important basic airmanship skill to have for every airplane you fly. High gain in hornet helps but it doesn't replace brakes. No reason to use differential thrust however, but anticipating thrust requirements is key. Just like flying dirty anticipate throttle requirements and adjust before you turn, don't wait until you're stopped and the front wheel is cocked 90 degrees. It will come with time but if you plotted throttle input vs time it should look like gentle waves not the rocky mountains. Careful where you stick your nose. Hornet doesn't have reverse like the A-10 but it can basically pivot on its inside wheel if you keep it locked, so you're never in trouble unless you stick your nose too far into a corner or something and can turn around. You don't have a butt sensor in sims, and this is one of the areas it shows up. You can feel a car, feel it through the pedals, small changes in speed as your butt moves in the seat, so you just have to practice. That fold wings script is cool, thanks for whoever posted it

you shouldn't be, particualrly given the lack of analogue slew on their throttle. Its the only thing keeping me from buying it... I'm pissed at TM for a variety of reasons, but the WH throttle with delta's slew upgrade is the bees nees. I picked up a warBRD base and absolutely love it, more than my children, and am contemplating this grip. If that 8-way was analogue I'd be picking up the throttle too