sk000tch

Realize I'm quoting an old post but this is pretty nuts, I've never seen a hornet flare. I suppose it makes sense it can, what's the power off stall speed? 110 kts? Would be funny all hell to see in real life. I've seen a lot of hornets land, and almost seem to decrease vsi with bit of throttle, but hardly the <50 fpm else you'll bounce aerobraking dainty legged AF jets.

Weird, I wonder what he's referring to. There are a lot of variants but the last 10 years they've been back and forth on SLEP, retiring the eagles and flying vipers to 2040... most of the major upgrades are international To answer the question, though, as far as I can tell its not a specific tape. It seems like they are mostly going 4.3, which is right for 2007, but they're diverged a bit... the plan has ordinance from 5+ and it critical systems from 4.3 missing. Sniper got the axe presumably because of tech or documentary reasons, whatever, I assume there was a reason but I don't know whether that means we are losing dual pod capability or we are going to pretend it can dual pod HTS and Litening (which I believe it can now with the 2015-ish litening pods). Conversely, we are getting JSOW, which were ~2 years later coincident with dual mode Paveway IIs, which we are not getting. HTS R7 was ubiquitous by 2007, but required sniper for the two-pod ability to search, ID and locate with precision req'd for stand off munitions... maybe they don't plan dual pod, or will do dual pods but just HTS only capability... i.e.ranging good enough for HARM known range mode. I try to not be a complainer but that would suck, the wild weasel mission is fun and coordinated HARM/PGM DEAD missions with a few other planes would provide capability way behind anything we have in game. Totally guessing here, with a hefty dose of cynicism at that, but at first it seemed like they were loading it up to be nearly on par with Hornet in ordinance capability, but more modern - remember JASSM? JASSM OFP was in the 120D, SDB, 9x II, LJDAM, GCAS, LOAL era. accurate 4.3 was a great plane but was missing a few things... things they've already developed, that would likely be easy to implement. A fully functional sniper ATP, or the modern ordinance that came with M6+ or whenever JASSM was for that matter, a lot harder to develop than JSOW. Move tape up and you have 10 years of weapons development to program, move it down you lack features players want. So realism gives way to pragmatism and they include JSOW for standoff capability, which is an infinitely more boring mission that sead/dead, but one that a lot of players seem to like.

Not sure you're talking to me but if I implied they were similar that wasn't my intent, other than to distinguish EXP submode as essentially a zoom, from spotlight and raid which both change the mechanical scan, and in the case of raid uses DBS analogous techniques to resolve az/range with much greater precision Interesting Wags didn't mention spotlight, guess that is for another day. The 18th will be fun, regardless.

Fortunately I don't think you'll be waiting long. Could be worse, your dream feature could be the ability to generate SAR images and pass targeting data/image via DL to a flight of 18's loaded with slammers... fwiw, raid is a distinct radar mode, its not RWS nor TWS, but rather combines elements of VS with a unique waveform to distinguish groups. It can only be entered when a L&S exists, at which point you can designate a DT2, or employ using ranks. Thus it wouldn't really accomplish anything in RWS. RWS has spotlight, which is, in instself, quite cool. It has a similar scan/display size, but is space stabilized, does not require a L&S, and is slewable. So, low targets, targets in canyons, an MSI track you can't correlate, or a brick that timed out unexpectedly... all situations where spotlight would be useful. EXP is also different. I made the digital zoom analogy previously and it works pretty well. MC will continue to build tracks for the azimuth/bar range you are scanning, but EXP essentially zooms in on part of the tactical region to. for example, discriminate multiple contacts that are overlapping or otherwise difficult to see. Provided you have awacs support and other donors, you will probably use it more than raid. It lacks the update frequency of raid, thus it doesn't provide improved guidance. Thus it's a good habit adjust volume as appropriate before employing. There's also VS and Az/EL. VS is great at picking up long distance targets and identifying those who are closing on you the fastest (quick ID escorts, for example). Az/El has a lot of utility, basically a forward look rather than top down, for different FOV. It shows MSI tracks and a rectangle showing the coverage of your current scan az/el. Allows you to quickly change scan centering, and identify why you aren't picking up particular contacts, etc. I've said it many times before but the Hornet will be formidable in capable hands that understands its systems. It can't knifefight a viper for shit, but when it comes to strike intercept, sweeps, etc., a 2-ship can send a lot of bad news somebody's way.

roger... going from memory I thought it was 2-bar. My point was merely to emphasize the change in antenna sweep/waveform, rather than the digital zoom camera analogy, its effect on frame time, and the usefulness thereof. I've been lookin forward to a proper Hornet for a while, so the anticipation gets the better of me. Regardless, was not meant as a your wrong kind of post

It would be more analogous to spotlight, not exp or “zoom.” It doesn’t just magnify a portion of the attack radar tactical region. It commands either 2 or 4... I think 2-bar (dont recall) x 20 degree auto centered on l&s. the scan and duty cycle is designed to be particularly useful for discerning individual bandits in tight groups at ranges appropriate for sorting. Also, trackfile step (via undesignate) only cycle through trackfiles displayed because the mechanical scan is isolated to what is shown (not just an digital zoom, for camera analogy), and my cannot maintain other tracks. The frame time is short, under 1s, confined to small 20 deg by 10 mile area, and thus it is excellent for supporting multiple amraams against maneuvering targets.

Supmua- so which one is the non BT then? I’ve given up my attempt to convince them to sell a throttle from HE cockpit, so time to move forward without. Can you explain which is which, best for R3L, etc

Thanks for the answer kingpanda, apologies for the delayed reply - tbnh i forgot about this thread. Just the gimbal advantage is intriguing, particularly it can apparently go from a helicopter feel to a jet by just changing profiles? I noticed on their website there is a CSL-P for helo/cyclic simulation (also looks like they have collective and joystick as separate items). They're large and site says level D certified, thus $$$, so I'm assuming we are all talking about the CLS-E? Still, the E can can simulate a cyclic, hydraulic actuated beast with no ailerons and some quirky habits, and a modern FBW jet just by loading a profile? The entire feel, breakout and centering forces, progressivity... everything has changed? Do you have an adjustable extension or something? That's really quite amazing but also unfortunate it is does not provide feedback simulating the Hornet FCS. Natural stick feedback, such as in a regular control rod system, is necessary to fly the aircraft well, as you point out. I fly competitively IRL where we are judged on precision, so many cues are lost - from simple control pressure increase as speed increases, to feeling the tail break when wing turbulence covers the rudder at high AoA. I don't have near the rotary time as fixed wing but a cyclic feels so different, I"m still amazed that one gimbal can do both, but is the feedback realistic to a helo? Pretty remarkable if true. I did not start flying sims until about 1.5 years ago recreationally, but have trained in level D sims. tbh those were not always what I would call "better" in term so how precisely I could fly, though there were feedback effects. The loss of the seat of pants sensor with sims I've wondered if it would be helped by systems like the Hornet's CAS. For someone capable of manufacturing a base like that it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to program. I don't think it's necessary to get into pitch coupling and roll coupling. If you don't go to deep into the weeds its pretty simple. Give me a push at 22 AoA I've got to push through. When dirty go full AoA feedback. Maybe lighten the stick up a bit from the realistic 4lb/G, its a sim and the adrenaline isn't there, or make it adjustable. But definitely above 22 AoA at high G full feedback. THere's literally only three variables - AoA and G, and flaps auto or half/full - the rest is in the stick. Again forgive my ignorance but what's one of these cost? Assuming its not $5k else I admire ya'll dedication... but its got to be at least $1500. Also grips - looks like virpil/TM but no VKB?

Wildweasal my understanding is that litening did not have the auto target recognition or datalink necessary to be compatible with HTS R7 until G4, which was several major tapes after our f-16. In fairness we don’t really have an accurately simulated litening, so it’s not fair to compare real sniper ATP vs DCS litening, but certainly the optics and image processing capabilities are much better, allowing range necessary for wild weasel mission. At least for that time period. I think there’s probably some tech limitations involved. I can’t tell whether civilian cars even have license plates in DCS litening, much less read them from beyond jet noise range. Im sympathetic to the issue, why bother with the work if the sim can’t simulate the tech. It breaks the whole accuracy mantra, but if it provides no benefit does it matter? At the rate development of the viper is going, I’m certainly not complaining

They are different radars, I wish they gave the viper the v9, a second platform able to generate and share SAR images/targeting would have been cool, and 4-target multi target track would have been excellent in many DCS scenarios. The 73 is bigger, which pre-aesa was more closely correlated to capability. Conversely, the 68 is well designed in its pilot interface. DCS does not factor this in as best I can tell, but strap 8 amraams on a hornet and you just more than doubled its radar cross section, and slowed is down vs. an already more agile opponent. Section BVR is a different animal, and mission specific. A missile truck with nearly a dozen aim-120s reflecting radar emissions is great for certain things, like sweep as part of a strike package, where sending a salvo downrange, turning cold while your follow on group engages is different from counter-air missions. where sections are transitioning to WVR. The viper is gnarly WVR, you can’t see it, it’s fast, out rates the hornet over 90% of the envelope, and it’s datalink is not as good for overall theater SA, but depending what ED gives us, its fantastic for section Air to Air (showing which bandits other elements in your flight have locked, their missile tracks, excellent for sorting, etc). CAP is just one mission type, OCA, intercept

First - thanks for all the great info... Re the above explanation, its an interesting explanation but not really sure i get it. I've been planning on picking one up, might as well do it now as I am even more curious. I don't know how long delivery will take but i'll add my $.02 when I get it. I have never flown a FBW fighter IRL, though do have some time in older jet fighters and now fly a very, very twitchy aerobatic mono. You lost me a bit with the lag thing. My plane, like most small planes, has rods that run from the stick linkage to the ailerons and elevators, with cable/pulley to the rudder; others have hydraulic systems, or hydraulic actuated control surfaces driven by dual flight computers, all of them however should experience zero lag between pilot input and control surface movement. Different airplanes will definitely feel more responsive than others (usually dependent on size, and size of control surface relative to total wing surface). I've never used one in a sim or real life, but I assumed that since the F-22 and F-35 use them that pilots and engineers came to the conclusion it was superior. Purely a guess, but it can be difficult to be precise with a regular stick under high G or especially rapid onset or neg-pos type G situations. Seems logical that a stick that doesn't require arm movement, where your arm is braced (against something other than your leg), would be preferable. But having not flown one, sim or RL, I can't mentally imagine that I could possibly be as precise. When you are refueling or flying formation, or other precision maneuvers, do you find that you are as precise as you are with a gunfighter or virpil's high end? Sorry for all the questions, I will know soon enough I suppose... I am very curious from an intellectual/pilot POV. Hard for me to discern a reason why it would work well on a f-15/16, but not 18.

Right, MAN and AUT setting, but in AUT TDC depress on open space in tactical region will enter Bias, which allows the scan volume to be slewed to in either direction to the limit of where the L&S designation would be lost. I'm not saying that very clearly so hopefully it makes sense. It is the most useful IMO of the modes, as the scan volume is azimuth stabilized on L&S, and is the best trade off of SA and minimal loss of MEM or losing L&S. My original post made a lot more sense but I edited it after Harker's comments. That was my fault, as I haven't kept up on development apparently. Hopefully my main points come through. I have given props to ED, whether it was intentional or not, that EA has the benefit of introducing increasingly complexity over time and not overwhelming pilots trying to learn the plane. They've done a pretty good job avoiding letting interim solutions introduce bad habits, with a couple exceptions: Acquisition modes: We've had a few threads going over this though, no need to re-hash. But briefly, before LTWS, users were entering STT via TDC depress. This is a bad habit likely to result in unintended radar behavior. Undesignate button: This I suspect is going to be the new one. IRL usually L&S must be cleared by RSET, undesignate more accurately would be the designate button. Undesignate should either designate highest priority threat or step to next highest (or swap DT1/DT2), but it doesn't undesignate anything (though it does RTS to RWS from STT). One scenario where both of these come up that is quite common: Pilot designates highest priority threat L&S via undesignate. TDC depress is used to designate another contact L&S, making original L&S become DT2. At that point pressing undesignate will swap L&S and DT2, and original L&S target will be L&S again. If L&S and DT2 exist, to actually undesignate, pilot must use RSET to delete DT2, and RSET again to delete L&S. My hunch, given the behavior of the system now, that's going to cause some confusion...

Thanks Harker I didn't realize some of that was in, I edited my original post to correct (how do you strikethrough text btw?) The way rankings work is a bit wonky but it seems to have the basics right of range & Vc. I couldn't tell if it was changing ranks for targets locking you, but did notice the sync issue you talk about. also SET is fine with me for now, a little inconvenient but presumably defaults and MU is coming. The key thing to me is not messing with TDC, having undesignate work properly - AND most critically we can't have no scan centering control

This isn't a TWS complaint thread, but the weekend update referenced TWS as next priority for hornet and there's a couple WIP features that need sorting out before TWS will work correctly. Everything in the hornet is based off L&S, the ability to designate highest threat track as L&S by undesignate button, and to cycle the next highest priority trackfile L&S with each undesignate press, or if DT2 exists, swapping L&S and DT2, is critical to managing L&S/DT2, which in turn is critical to managing scan volume. TDC depress to designate L&S with groups is a nightmare. I am no dev, but I cannot imagine it being that difficult to have undesignate perform the same except according to the threat ranking? There are a lot of hotas controls not in, which is fine as WIP. Some time back I saw a dev comment saying no plans to implement scan centering in RWS and sent a PM to correct it. This was months ago, I didn't follow up or hear anything different after that. This isn't accurate behvarior for even earliest APG-73s. If azimuth is under 140, TDC depress in tactical region of radar attack display that is not over a trackfile or raw return should center scan volume on the cursor's azimuth (or enter SPOT if TDC depress is held). Similarly, if a L&S target exists and azimuth is decreased the scan will autocenter on L&S. The opposite/collary is true as well in that if no L&S exists, and azimuth is less than 140, designating L&S should center the scan on that target, or bias to gimbal limit if centering would go past gimbal limits. This is RWS or TWS. TWS won't have all functionality when it hits beta- no problemi get that. However, managing scan volume and L&S/DT2 designations are key. The lack of scan centering is an annoyance in RWS, makes sanitize and meld procedures not really possible but since we can only launch from STT, trackfile quality isn't really an issue. We don't have aging issues or MEM condition. In TWS though it's is an issue, as frame time directly relates to track quality, and thus pK. And with no deviation from boresight like it is now, assuming we are usually in 4B/40deg, ain't gonna work. We aren't launching salvos of 54s from 30+ nm. The hornet is a bit more finesse in how the pilot maintains track quality while notching by adjusting scan volume for acceptable frame times, usually with L&S and DT2 designations. And assuming we just have manual when first hits beta, you guys will need it for auto/bias as well. Deleted default weapon params stuff - Evidently Set has worked for several months which is fine for WIP. Defaults would alleviate having to set params every flight but not a big deal. Sorry for long post hopefully somebody actually reads though, I am deliberately not mentioning things that can be added later or that don't substantially affect the basic functionality, so it's really not wishlist type stuff. btw As was pointed out below some of what I was talking about is already in, very nice. I also noticed max aspect cues and TOF. STT symbology is almost complete except for NCTR confidence, which is also a TWS thing. Also tinkering with the radar I could swear I saw it enter MEM condition on a track? Nice to see the building blocks coming into place. The 18 is getting grown. We can survive with no auto and bump acq. for a bit, but I don't see how TWS works without scan center/bias and proper L&S/DT2 designation n

Out of curiosity, why do you guys find the R3 to be good for the mirage, f-15 but not for the f/a-18 or other FBW jets? The FFB mechanism just not work well for certain modules?

I thought f-16 at 4.3/Mt5 tape was sadl and l16? And without gateway inter flight sorting still allows assignment, shows lock lines, shot lines, missile tracks, but for squadron or sharing among larger force awacs or other asset (many of which obliteron mentioned) was required.

Anybody else have a strange feeling of deja vu? I still want one of your throttles though, will you sell me one?

Ok serious post this time not just busting the "omg pilots have instruments dumbass" kid's balls... I did some research following my previous post, and we are certainly not the first to contemplate this. Several studies, thesis papers with prototype devices, and dozens – hundreds actually – of studies, papers and other research contemplate the issue, from the perspective of flight specific technology to improving VR experience. As I was lazy and didn't look up terminology I should define some terms up front. Pilot’s spatial awareness is derived from their senses. This is an obvious point, but worth categorizing, and discussing separately. Foremost among these is vision - the brain interprets what the eyes see, such as the horizon. Less important for spatial awareness is aural inputs, but certainly the changing pitch of air noise as a plane accelerates or decelerates, or the unusual sound when a nosewheel fails to extend are important. The two we are concerned with in this thread are the vestibular organs in the ear, which I discussed before, and proprioceptive, which I could not recall the name of. Vestibular again is responsible for sensing motion, balance and equilibrium, and are responsible for VR sickness (and simulator sickness). The other I could not recall is proprioceptive, which is just a big word for nerves in skin, muscles, tendons and joints. This is not just the feeling of G forces pulling you into the seat but also changing pressure points on you butt and hips in an uncoordinated turn – the reason good rudder work is so difficult in sims. Fortunately, it’s not a perfect system. It’s easy to trick in flight, usually manifests as a feeling of climbing or descending in level flight, or a feeling that a plane is banked when its not after a quick correction to level flight after a very gradual entry. Pilots here have heard graveyard spiral, or coriolis. These are somatic illusions, which the FAA discusses in this well illustrated publication here. I see these as distinct issues. The proprioceptive sensors are critical to good stick & rudder pilots. Probably most important is vision -- obviously critical for good pilots (though less so these days), but this is also the seat of the pants flying that I was complaining about lacking. I think here, evolution and continued improvement of jetseat, or some of the other topics discussed in this thread like pulling straps and such should be able to partially, enough to improve quality of experience and flying, address the issue. The FAA produced a corny video explaining the topic, and for those who really enjoy the ground school flashback they made a video on special disorientation as well The vestibular is a different animal, but it is a problem that a lot of research is going toward. It will take someone much smarter than me, but Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) seems particularly promising for flight sims. GVS is the transcutaneous delivery of electric currents to the vestibular afferents with both semicircular canals and otolith organs. It’s a complex topic but potential solutions, or at least improvements, don’t necessarily have to be. The advantage is that GVS is a simple and safe, can be as simple as electrodes placed on the mastoid bones behind each ear. The resulting effect is that wearers feel a pull or sway towards the positive electrode and thus the system affects one’s sense of balance in that direction. A Mr. Erik Krivorukov from Tallinn University did his thesis on GVS in VR. Though there’s a lot of material out there, I’m including this because its loaded with citations for further reading and includes a thorough description of the Arduino based device he built, even his code. Mr. Krivorukov's thesis: Control of Balance in Virtual Reality Interactions with a Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation The famous MIT Media lab has been working on this as well. This is an exciting article in the sense that it really bodes well for the future of our hobby. Like the thesis above, they created a device to provide DVS. They do not detail it's design as thoroughly, but its increased sophistication produced more impressive results results. Interestingly, they tested it in a VR roller coaster app using a Vive, and note that because a coaster experiences G forces in a single axis only two electrodes are required. A third could be included to account for forward acceleration, but otherwise a flight sim doesn’t require lateral. The results were impressive, overwhelmingly testers preferred the experience with the GVS over vanilla VR, reproting increased immersion, a feeling of "being there," and less VR sickness. An extended abstract of Misha Sra, Abhinandan Jain, and Pattie Maes 2019 Adding Proprioceptive Feedback to Virtual Reality Experiences Using Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation Given the simplicity of the device its pretty promising, and that each technology tends to be complimentary with the others – such that a jetseat type or other haptic device, force feedback sticks, continued evolution of VR tech – in a few years many of the shortcomings of simulators (in the sense of whether they accurately simulate flight) could be mitigated significantly or gone in some cases. So there ya go Harry… you might need to increase the amperage a bit to simulate 9Gs, but perhaps you won’t need that Yak after all ;) Seems to me like we're going to need some volunteers...

Today's lesson is to make sure you know what you're talking about, else you might sound like a jerk. I'm guessing a collective 5-10,000 flight hours experience, pilots w/ at least two type quals for planes modelled in DCS, two acrobatic pilots/instructors/airshow performers, and another who flies with no instruments at all - disagree with your sentiment. I used to put sticky notes over primary instruments to force student pilots to keep their heads up looking outside and not down at instruments. Stick and rudder skills are earned with your head up, not down. Lose sight lose the fight kid... With that out of the way, as to the topic at hand - As I've thought about this more I think that addressing the 'missing sensor' is feasible. I am less concerned with a physical representation of Gs in any realistic sense, but rather finding a substitute for the vestibular and other combined senses. I forget the technical term here, but it basically refers to your skin, muscles, etc., that feel changes in pressure of straps, or the classic example of how you can feel an uncoordinated turn. I think this part is solveable with something like the jetseat. Fundamentally its just pressure being applied to your body at different points in the seat. The inner ear is trickier. Again, i forget the specifics but there's plenty of literature for those of you who are really trying to solve the problem, but the inner ear has (3?) canals, again, not a flight surgeon, but there's little hairs in each with fluid that sense acceleration. They're oriented along different axis to detect movement. They're also not infallible. Pilots lose spatial orientation if IFR conditions all the time, but when combined with the visual cues they work very well. I think this is what makes ppl get VR sickness btw. My point though is that if VR makes you sick because you are seeing motion that the inner ear isn't detecting, it stands to reason that some sense of motion, obviously to a much lesser degree than in a fighter jet, could be applied to supplement what we're seeing in a headset. This might be one of those things that takes some more evolution in hardware but intuitively it seems possible? This is where my expertise ends unfortunately. I understand vestibular illusions from a practical standpoint, but certainly not the medical aspect nor would I begin to know how to manipulate them. For someone smarter than me, however, like I said, there's a ton of studies on it. Just google spatial disorientation vestibular canals. HarryHarry - I'd never though of the sensors on the motion rig, that's a cool idea. I'm trying to figure out what to do for a simpit now, if you have some pics or knowledge to share that would be helpful I"d appreciate it. I am new to sims generally but having a ton of fun flying with RL buddies. Btw, its been years but I enjoy hang gliders as well. I got tired of needing a truck with a rack plus wingsuits hit the scene around the same time so I sold mine. Anyway, you mentioned something near and dear to my heart. Stay away from Yaks. They have the same M14P as my Sukhoi. Its a glorious engine. 620 C.I. bullet proof 9-cylinder supercharged radial,,, BUT, they burn ~2 quarts of oil/hr, 30-35 gal gas/hr, have a TBO of 750 hours, and parts have become very difficult to obtain. I'll save the details, but largely due to the red bull series some shops started producing modifications that replaced a number of the problematic or quirky parts, and upped the power to around 450HP on a 91/115 blend. But it's expensive upgrade, and expensive fuel. I love the engine, aside from a merlin (I qual'd in TF-51 maybe 15 years back, weekend warrior style), it is my favorite power plant i've flown. She is absolute beast, but what was a relatively cheap plane at the time to buy turned into a huge expense. My co-owner on it was fresh on 737s at the time (ex-f15c pilot and DCS player ironically), had only been out a few years and it hurt him even worse. That said, guys don't start out racing F1, I see citabrias and decathlons for sale for less than a used Honda all the time. It's never a cheap hobby, and, as you said, people should do what they want. But if its something you dream about don't give up so easy - it may be more attainable than you think.

I've been back and forth contemplating what I want to do. I fly the 18 more than anything, but that might sway to the 16, but still fly the harrier and a-10 plenty, and of course the huey, ka-50, or sometimes older jets. So what kind of pit do you build? I'm 100% VR... don't think i've ever even played DCS 2d. Actually, never played a sim at all outside training until little over a year ago But I know I don't want to hunt around for key combinations, I can't pause because I am almost always online or small group of RL buddies. But trying to come up with a universal cockpit is difficult. And, i hate crappy controls... i've learned that much. I don't want to fly a helo without a cyclic/collective, or a f-16 without a SSC. I've looked around a bit and there are a few turn key builders, in addition to dogfightboss there is viperwing. There stuff is spendy as well, and tailored to specific airframe. That white f-16 one from viperwing is sick looking. I've chatted a bit with realsimulators and they are awesome. Whatever I end up with I want out of my office and into my movie/game room. I've got tiered theater seats and a bar there I don't want some homemade MDF monstrosity. My divorce was expensive I don't want to ruin it. Stang I saw your post before and the plans are very thorough... I haven't seen any completed builds though. WOuld be helpful to see.

Geeze man that's a lot of stuff. Honestly outside of training purposes this is the first sim i've ever played, and I got it maybe a year ago? I've bought a lot of hotas but that is more out of frustration and not liking how they feel. How does the motion work with VR? doesn't the motion make your head move around within the cockpit? Re your point - that's what I was basically saying too. I am a good stick IRL, can instruct in anything from a prop single to jets multis, with wheels or floats, wings or rotors, even several things without a motor for that matter... but as a virtual pilot my altitude is all over the place, as is my airspeed in BFM.... i constantly fight oscillations refueling, im always fuciing blind. It's a mess lol. I'm convinced it's because I am missing the feel of my butt in the seat, so I am 100% with you. I was more just following up on the side topic from a few pages back - conversation has moved on but I don't check this forums everyday or anything so... anyway, you get the point

Ya sorry man wasn't meaning to call you out or whatever. I agree that some means of being able to feel what's going on with the plane would be awesome. I see it sort of, like different categories or magnitures I suppose. For example, consider landing gear: when you lower gear there's the sound and vibration of the motor, as well as an immediate deceleration you can feel in your straps. I've wanted to try a jetseat, I feel like that could replicate the motor vibration, the little thump when they lock down (I'm actually quite curious about what else if someone has insight to share). Harryharry's very impressive/ingenious contraption could probably give the feel of the slight deceleration. Those are cool with the immersion aspect. There's a loss of SA without the physical sensation. For example, I find myself not realizing when i'm getting slow ikn BFM, or sometimes banking when head down messing with mfds, that kind of thing., that wouldn't happen IRL. Something, whether a jetseat (does it help with this?) or the straps (not sure this would) would be great, and result in better flying. BUT, if we're talking about realism its just not there and i'm aware of no technology that can come close. One problem with gopro footage of BFM is you can't see the pilots' faces, but here's a maskless blue angel pilot at presumably no more than 7.5G: So that's 7.5 with a suit, and you can see how hard he's working. Best analogy I can think of is a heavy deadlift, but that doesn't account for the breathing. Every pilot has too many lost friends stories, but here's a similar camera angle of one of the coolest people i've had the pleasure of knowing (and fellow acro competitor, helo, glider, hang glider, wingsuit pilot, great climber and mountaineer.... just an awesome human), Hannes Arch, in a similar plane to mine, pulling 11.5 in a red bull race: That's a 1 minute race and he's exhausted. Fortunately we don't have to sustain like fighter pilots do, but it doesn't take long. GCAS, a truly awesome innovation, saves another pilot in this vid - but you can hear the pilot take a breath before loading up but he GLOC 's almost immediately at 8G: On that happier note, that feeling isn't being replicated by a couple small motors vibrating a seat or pulling on straps, or a multi million dollar torture device (centrifuge). Frankly I am fine with that. It would make DCS much less relaxing lol! But I also get why some of you would want the realism. Again though, if you haven't felt it, it's hard to describe. It's just hard to see anything that could be "realistic" in any meaningful way. Useful and help address the loss of the seat of the pants feel, let us know what's going on with the plane? That would be awesome, and seems possible. But realistic? no way...

If you're really replicating it, then the lazy aren't ignoring it. The effect on one's body cannot be overstated, thus if its being replicated you couldn't just ignore it. Simplest example - Viper force sensing stick is awesome, but when your 15 lb arm suddenly weighs 150 lbs, and you are flexing your core, legs and diaphram as hard as possible, doing quick 1/4 breaths b/c a full exhale means there's no way your refilling your lungs and you've gotta unload or GLOC is imminent. There was a vid a while back of somebody training BFM in a hornet, looked like b-school given the wayu the pilot was handling the plane. While no lesson on BFM technique, it was a good demo. And that's in a hornet where you're generally at 4-6 unless your screwed, viper guys could do that in flip flops and jorts.

Some type of feedback for angle of attack and G would be excellent, the best source of this would be stick force, like the hornet, but to a lesser extent. Or something to help feel those small changes, the slight neg when you are floating a bit on final or anything precision like formation. But if your goal is realism or immersion, I don't think a g suite inflating without the accompanying G's would be realistic or increase immersion- or be very pleasant. It is difficult to explain to people who have not experienced it, there just isn't a point of reference. It is a significant part of the skill of BFM; anticipating high loads, being fit with good agsm, good educance, body positioning, being able to communicate w/ free fighter with more than grunts, etc. But as someone that plays a lot of DCS and still flies a 150 or so aerobatic hours per year, with momentary loads exceeding 10G frequently and longer stints in the 4-5 range (pos and neg... uhg)... it's an issue I've thought and continue to think a lot about. At the end of the day, for realism there just isn't a solution, it can't be replicated sans a giant centrifuge and even then onset and jerk aren't replicated. I do think the performance/replacing that seat of pants feel there are some options, but I think there are better ways. Be careful what you wish for anyway. Someday maybe VR headsets will tap into the nerves sending signals to our brains. Until then appreciate its absence - Gs are fun on a joyride, but when you're task oriented they are an obstacle and dangerous. I can play dcs for hours but 20 minutes of high G and i'm wrecked, I don't get injured playing DCS (well, there was that time running for a fresh beer and the ****ing dog was right behind... ahh nm). I don't' mean just temporarily strains and such because you were leaned forward messing with a MFD or hamfisted. Lots of guys, myself included, have lasting injuries, often in their neck/spine. In my case its not too bad, I have myelopathy in my cervical spine from compressive with my neck in rotation/extension, relatively common but causes loss of sensation/pins & needs in fingers and hands daily. They are getting better and better at tricky the eyes/mind with headsets and small physical tactile sensations, I'm sure it won't be too long before we've got something workable.

Wicked there's a firmware update for headset, also new NV drivers. I was having a pretty irritating day rage quit after freezing up after spending 5 min trying to refuel on a rubber banding drogue, not sure if these fix, or if servers just having a bad day - might as well though