sk000tch

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

Ya... I'm still hopping that dog I offered up back on page 3 gets me somewhere

yes, DLZ has some work remaining. A/F pole cues, Range indications (Raero, Ropt, Rpi, Rtr), the datalink times (A/M/I). Presumably its all coming eventually.

Wicked I don't think they intend to use the mil-spec otto's, keep in mind they make a very good force sense base for $500. Their turn key sims also come in various levels to match customer price. Frankly I don't know that I'd want real mil-spec otto's anyway, they are very stiff. Big difference between being in a jet under G and in my recliner, I don't want 40lb of stick force. My su-29 is two hands on stick under load, I am dripping sweat after 20 minutes of competition/performance. Most of that is agsm and the overall physicality of the activity, not just the heavy stick, but you get my point. Fwiw this is their throttle design, not sure it's exactly what we're talking about here but I'd certainly take it. Proper gates and travel, with quality but not mil-spec switches. Makes you wonder what their ICP and panels would cost... Actually, makes you wonder what a turnkey VR/no display pit would cost. 10K? They look like riveted aluminum, so bet they're at least that. And just to add some drool to the puddle, the pedals: And the pro SSC Info here: http://www.realsimulator.com/html/flight_stick.html This would get real hard to justify fast

So this got moved to wishlist (though I’m not really asking for anything), thus not much attention (my tendency to a bit wordy probably doesn’t help). But the current spec doesn’t line up with any viper in existence at any time. Do we have a solid answer on what tape version they’re building?

Datalink is handy and all but vipers did fine with rudimentary datalink for 25 years. Besides being listed as phase two early access, there’s some pretty fundamental things need fixing that I imagine are higher on the priority list Agree that the SA it adds is hard to live without once accustomed to it

Can’t say I’ve ever had it just stop turning completely from skidding... and that is taxiing at absurd video game speeds. Is your launch bar down? When it is you cannot engage high gain and need to hold nws to turn. But other than that... perhaps some window/control issue? often when taxiing I’m alt-tabbing checking briefing freqs/flight plan and if not active window it won’t turn obviously. Make sure no modifier is set up as. Toggle that would interfere with your assignment. Carrier ops prohibit starting from dead stop with NWS HI due to deck crew safety but doubt this is hard coded in... I don’t do it so it could have been added and I missed it

Video call eh? That is unusual. Honestly, more than means of communication, having someone knowledgeable that understands the product is just as important. I assume if they video called you like that, this was also the case

All great suggestions but as a pilot it is not unusual at all to say “jrac/tower/2, hawg1, repeat last” How hard could it be? I use the keyboard/numpad thing as well but in be if you fingers are off sometimes it’s a very rushed re-entry before it fades, or missed

fwiw im not really wishing for anything, or even requesting. Just asking a question. A long winded meandering one, but a question nonetheless

I admittedly do not track prerelease stuff very closely, and I know that there was some evolution of what specific bird/point in time the viper would be. However, since picking up the module, kicking the tires a bit and reviewing the future armament thread, I spent some time reading RDT&Es and TOs… is it me or do some things just not line up? First - this isn't a bitch thread. Construction questions/feedback only. I appreciate the passion you all have and the sacrifices you make to pursue this labor of love. Indeed, in chatting with Nick I understand -- well first, that my list of warbirds flown is a joke-- but also the long term vision and just how niche the market really is. Thus, while you might see me argue what's best for the game issues like the carrier paywall fracturing multiplayer community, you won't see me complain about development times, prices, or the like. Where I do occasionally second guess is, like I said, where things make sense for the sim. I am trying to figure out the f-16, as best I can tell its a 4.2 or 4.3. Yet, I found a screenshot of the original armament list however, with if that's the case then, well, a whole lot of stuff doesn't line up. JASSM obviously wasn't much later, like SDB later. But even JSOW & WCMD? Similarly, block 50s had v5, 6 or 7 depending on when they rolled out of ft worth. V9's were around as early as 2002 with the Hellenic delivery, and though not the equal are at least approaching the Hornets 73. In 2004 Congress earmarked funds for US vipers, which then became the v10 that later died and subsequently the v9 again before everything US going AESA. I think if you were going FY and calendar year you'd have the v9, indeed your first skin 55Th FS was so equipped when they were deployed in 2009. So it was around, in some jets depending on operator, sporadically deployed in US aircraft. Part of the beauty of the F-16 is its ubiquitous throughout the world. We're getting Syria map, so many conflicts and operators. F-16s with pythons, MWS, APSIS, etc? Also, weren't Iris-T and ASRAAM 4.1? Again, not critical, but that kind of stuff adds to the depth created by multipole operators - sorta like the iranian f-14s. Other stuff, with all due respect looks wrong. Why nix the Sniper XR? I don't think you can dual pod litening and HTS until much later. And even then, it would require features than the litening as modelled doesn't include. So unless you've got some guy in the back coding a Rivet Joint, might want to reconsider. I suppose I am just trying to ensure things have been thought out. The announcement obviously had some unrealistic armament, and caused backlash as things were cut. I understand why those things were cut given the block/tape, it should have been worse, buta the original list didn't come across as though the particular jet to be built had been thought through. Is that what you wanted to build but had to dial it back? This I would understand, otherwise an M5+ tape would make much more sense - better datalink w/ hornets, JSOW, improved ARC-210 Victor. SDBs and EGBU would be great but then you're in 120D/9x block II territory so I'm sure that's non-starter. I'm not necessarily arguing for anything in particular. I like the lighter nose A/B jets, though I think the direction the game is headed is different, I like the modern self protection systems and such we're seeing from Deka, and a more capable redfor sounds great, though the direction the game is headed is much more 2000s than 1980s -Tomcat Notwithstanding. Bummed to hear the strike eagle is 80s era as well, so maybe I'm wrong. Again, I like the direction, datalink in the Hornet opened up a lot. Hopefully we get locklines and shot lines in the viper, interflight sorting, GCI tasking, also please... Aegis donors -- they run the net, its nuts they aren't donors. Eventually RQ4s, Jstars providing ground targets, a deeper sim with strategic gameplay to supplement the primarily tactical fighter jet role. Take out some C2 degrades the network, or knock out ISR assets before major offensive - good stuff. I liked Wags squadron management thought, putting together more complex strikes is fun, but be nice to have a purpose that degrades enemy ability to fight. But things have to make sense. I recognize you are limited in what you can simulate for a variety of reasons, the most simplistic being not having the right documentation. I've tried to help when able but unfortunately I don't know the viper well, others certainly seem to though (I'm sure half what i've said is wrong). Is the specific year/tape a strategic decision or more of a …forced/arbitrary choice? Or maybe I’m way off on the vision, I see the next releases are P47 and Me262, which aren't exactly a Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale (or a 14D). I still think we should make sure its right, and I'm not sure this particular variant/year does?

That's kind of you... But its not really the point. Should ask your NFO members how the academy handles plagiarism, and whether the fact that its non-copyrighted government publication obsolves the author of their obligations. Similarly, selectively quoting someone is fine but you should do so in way that preserves the message in the post. My first post was encouraging, made some references to the source document gently suggesting credit be given but didn't call it out. SFJack in the post before mine was slightly more.... direct. It was two weeks prep for single mission, and "proper tactics" "air quake" and "spamraam" post was what I thought was irritating. The goal of BVR is to kill the adversary as quickly as possible, while denying an enemy WEZ. That's it... Whether A 40nm Phoenix shot or the sexiest 2-ship weave outnumbered 2:1 and flanked -Kill the bad guys, go home. I'm by far the lowest time guy in our group of RL friends, and the viper driver to this day is usually loaded up with 10 amraams in a 18 because he thinks it's hilarious. He did his time in Allied Force and Enduring Freedom so I figure he knows what he's doing, improper tactics and all. So again, I'm glad people are trying to educate others. I wish someone who make a campaign because i think it would improve online play and help people enjoy the product more. But, when something is clearly the work of others, attribution should be given. Especially when it's friggin cut and paste job. If it was plagiarizing an author other than the Navy would you feel differently about it? Like I said, I found the "Just a peek into the cool things we have goin on!" only to present, word for word, illustration for illustration, the primary flight AWI PUB a rather transparent effort to represent someone else's work and knowledge as their own. But the soapbox judgmental attitude is what i'm criticizing, so i'd be a hypocrite to do the same. So by all means, if that's how you all want to represent yourself (and now, evidently, a carrier wing too)... then be my guest

supmua, sorry i missed your poset hiding at the bottom. I will take effort to nudge along. I figured they have something from full sim civy edition, so it wouldn't be much to change. But your right, tempered expectations are better way to go. SPEAKING OF WHICH>>>> like 1/3 of the replies in here are like "sub 300 i'm in." Gonna be straight with you dudes, it's not going to happen. Consider: Warthog Throttle is $299 on amazon. For $450 you get the gimbal and a grip. Realsimulator gimbal is $500 + shipping. Their F16SGRH grip last I checked was like $520. Pic of their throttle in home edition sim is below. We can make a few assumptions. A- Its going to be better than a cougar. B- from gates to grip the shaft will be strong, zero flex, with quality, crips buttons, so to speak; and C- It's not going to be $300. Not trying to be a dick or piss on anybody's party. But I don't want people to have unreasoanble expectations. We're begging these guys to build it, not cool to then get all fired up when it's more than the thrustmaster you can pick up at best buy. Fortunately the slew isn't force sensing but consider the gate mechanism, grip rotation, size, etdc. We don't know for sure what they are thinking, bugeye did a slider but I doubt they will i e.g. It's not going to fit your warthog desk mounts

Nuh Bro... Your context is a bit wonky I was nice, fwiw, even spent a bunch of time to draw that shitty picture. I do think more time how to fly less time specific,kdu,e is good for most players. But without question they took the Primary flight all weather intercept publication, and represented it as their own. The pictures were straight cut and paste from CNTATRA, and they represented it as like "look at this cools shit we do" to recruit. the fact that they did not refer to the source a single time reeks of intent, as every single slide required attribution tbh. I'm all for the education of fellow users,. Like I said, my original response made a few references to the source material and filled in some gaps - nicely. (Btw I'm always afraid to post links but this is OK now???) We are all better off if CAP knows what a triangle is. Here's where they lost me.... Get off the soapbox. Any elitist crap bugs me here. There are legit heroes amongst us, most anon. Given the amount of shit talked, it's a good thing to keep in mind. Spamraams and quake con w/e... DCS works fine if you fly proper section tactics, it does not perfectly mirror reality, But it's fun. Some guys might choose to work through that material rigorously and practice bfm perch sets, other will prefer something different. My flying is very diverse, I end up flying with a group of four that's got a combined at least 8k hours in 15, 16 and 18s. 2 sections dominates a server if being serious (less so if 12 hour bottle to throttle rule not in effect. Other times I'm by by myself, just checking out patch or whatever. But the elitist shit just has no place, especially when you're plagiarizing the Navy. BVR tactics are taught FRS, not in 37s, there's no secrets there. Just work. Worthwhile work, but work. Taking the work of actual servicemen without attribution to recruit is not cool. Had it felt more honest if it was "hey guys, we put in a bunch of time and effort distilling all of this SNFO training into something manageable for sim players, and we are willing to teach you if you've got the right dedication" or whatever... Well, that would have been much different But whatev. Maybe I misread it. I'm a grumpy Ol bitch that just happens to be a good stick, so to speak, full of opinion and salt, prone to message board rants

You’re talking jerk... max jerk rate is way to low, so to speak I don’t know how to write code to simulate a plane, so no idea what is off. It feels like it’s got the inertia of something 3x it’s weight, or that the weight isn’t properly centered on longitudinal axis (no weight out there clean). But since it’s pitch, too, seems like it’s something else. I though it was my setup too as I’m using a different stick for ssc. Almost like my controls were setup and top 25% of command authority was cut off the curve. Roll rate is measurably too slow, but it should be snappy, start and stop roll quickly. Point rolls are good example. F-16 should be able to fly crisp 8-pt rolls:

Right? Resistance is one word, it feels like the roll rate is low. I thought it was perhaps a controls issue but i can't tune it out. My sukhoi is slow at 360 d/s (for an acro prop), but it feels much, much crisper (no way could point rolls in viper as is). The viper should about match that rate clean correct?

btw no worries, I was just playing with ya. That's why i referenced how its used here. It is the equivalent of an American Football play called "I can throw ball 55 yards" though. The f-16 should/will display f and A poles on its dynamic launch in hud and helmet. Not sure how much we will get, but we should get a series of data cycling through F-pole, A-pole, loft angle at current range, the degrees bogie would be required to turn angle off to defeat the missile at current range (once within Raero)... Also, those primary manuals are good sources of info but again, they are skills training. Not tactics. Those numbers are not accurate, both because DCS 120s perform differently than the Navy thinks they do, and because the T-17 isn't an F-18. The VMTS (i think that's right), is modelled on the apg-73 though, which is pretty good teaching aid. Formation and brevity is good, advanced BFM, CAS and strike as well, SEM is very good too but too much without some help especially at first. Enjoy reading ;)

Wait what is now? I missed something. I like when people cite things their fighter pilot friends said .

Didn't watch the vid but recognize the slides, looks like the t-45 AWI pub from primary? I think it's great that you all are taking time to educate and spread knowledge. So much effort expended on studying systems, when the fun is the fight. Even then, DCS is a lot more fun as part of a section where everyone know's their responsibilities. Slides kinda cut off at displacement turn, I assume you left brevity and naming of different groups & pictures, target priority, melding and sorting, how to tell if you're winning/losing and whether to merge or skate for lesson 2? Some of the default stuff would be good to include I think, like azimuth sort and range sort should be common knowledge. One thing I've noticed when teaching basic intercept tactics is that even when people understand triangles, B-scope projections do not naturally produce an accurate understanding of the spacial relationships. Forgive my awful drawing, but I didn't want to post something that could violate the rule. I put the linked pic together to illustrate a few common ways it deceives people. Each is meant to show something, the second is drift when fighter heading = bandit recip. As you mentioned in your slide, this indicates that you will not intercept on current heading.. The fourth was to be a B-scope with associated intercept geometry explaining the terms, but then i noticed that you guys already threw one in from that pat pub that's much cleaner. As my ms paint atrocity is not legible that small, I did provide a zoomed in of that same pic. Hopefully it illistrates the point: https://imgur.com/cKmg2bK I'll be curious what the response is. Not taking anything away, but this is just scratching the surface. Primary is skills training, no tactics. BVR is taught in FRS and no public documents for that. Its a great foundation though, and will put players light years ahead of where they currently are. There are some good mission type specific priorities, how they effecting sorting and melding, etc., but not really tactics. Still, the skills are progressive, have to mastter one before moving to next and such. No point discussing advantageous merge entry if you don't intercept correctly, and all if it has to be solid before you can communicate and fight as a team (which frankly should be the ultimate goal - there's nothing more fun in DCS). Interfect fundamentals, good comms, good BFM - All of ita culminates in lead/wing relationship, and the lead/support roles. Are you planning to do a more of these? Often in response to somebody asking we talked about various ways to teach these concepts and tactics but its always a question of time. Perhaps getting together with a campaign builder and having the lessons and checkrides (the skillchecks are in the course material), but it always comes down to time... or lack of it. PP slides and such are great, but there's no substitute for time in the seat. You can learn geometry from a textbook, but not flying jets. Anyway- I am glad to you guys are putting in the work, and look forward to seeing the response. Not taught in this course unfortunately. Also, f-pole is a thing, specifically a distance, not a tactic (I know its used to describe a maneuver of sorts here). fwiw the DCS 1v1 head on from 30 miles is not a common real world engagement. Usually friends are are involved, and at least one side has another job to do.

Appropriations are funny. Looks like guys that wear boots won this time. Cool upgrade though. New wings and structural maintenance, unfortunately not the new engine they’ve been begging for. SDB’s would be awesome on a-10 though, and dual link 16/SADL like the f-16 has is great. Improved helmet is cool, curious though as most hog drivers like the scorpion. Good for NV, can see HAFU like symbology superimposed over ground, precise location of friendlies, etc. The Dragon’s eye pod would be a fun addition, center mount AESA SAR Radar supposedly very capable used on strike eagles for some time. Though I admit that an A-10 using side scanning radar to pick up and track a Toyota pickup and lob an SDB from 50 miles seems weird. Actually, I doubt the a-10 has the airspeed to chuck em 50nm, maybe more like 25... if nothing else it adds an all weather capability, some Afghanistan stressed was a weakness. I really, really, wish we got stuff like this... I would totally pay for A-10C 2... right along with black shark 3 ;)

OK let’s clear up the confusion on this. Not picking on you, but this is incorrect. There should not be a STT warning.It’s not on ongoing discussion, it took a little bit to verify the inverted T behavior/pause was correct and to reproduce RWR behavior. There is some ambiguity because of how much DCS has to gimp spike management & self protection systems (not their fault). So it’s hard to compare real world with DCS at times, but on this point there is no such ambiguity. SAM and DDT are RWS submodes, but otherwise they are the same as TWS Multi Target Track. In the former, you get velocity vectors on one or two targets, respectively, plus a smaller scan volume, in the latter you get vectors on all tracks within scan volume plus tracking on one or two outside the volume. But regardless of mode, the inverted T shows gimbal location, but that’s it. It tells you nothing about what energy that target is receiving, and has nothing to do with whether a STT lock would be detected. Remember how a radar works. Its not a laser like the inverted T would imply- its a cone. Further, the light is not continuously on. It pulses on and off according to a certain pulse repetition time. The antenna cycles back and forth obviously, it’s location represented by the inverted T. That t, however, represents the center of the beam. The width is different for different types of radar, modes, etc., but again, think of it like a blinking flashlight. Some flashlights are narrow, others wide. The time between pulses can also change (PRF is just the inverse of PRT). The beam width when combined with the angular velocity of the sweep, determines the dwell time that the target is in your beam. Dwell time multiplied by PRF determines the hits per scan. It takes a certain amount of hits for a radar to collect enough data to process different things. Range requires less than velocity and heading, for example (I just got my warnings cleared... google this if you care). The point is that the target sees no difference between 100 pulses as an antenna scans past it, or 100 pulses from a stationary radar pointed at it for a fraction of a second- it can’t “see” your gimbal stop momentarily before it jumps back to the scan volume. The last wrinkle is the difference between receiving enough hits to process a trackfile (i.e. ltws in hornet), and update frequency sufficient for firing solution quality trackfile (the limiting variable for scan volume in TWS). SAM and DTT, or TWS multi target track, are just a hybrid of the two. Targets as we see them aren’t really scanned, they are processed: From the 90s to, well eventually aesa, processing improved significantly, decreasing the data required (dwell time) allowing for more efficient allocation of radar resources, like these hybrid modes. The various SAM modes are just variations of this hybrid search and track. Bugging a target in SAM vs TWS will marginally increase the probability of your detection, but it will not generate a STT warning. The current implementation seems to (though not always?), and is therefore not working correctly. I’m sure it will be fixed, WIP, etc.

100% with you, but engineering school was long time ago, but I am hyper anal about controls, and thus far my attempts to design a modular pit specifically for VR that works for f-16/18/14, A-10, AV8, UH1 and KA-50, have been unsuccessful. Disregarding UFC/ICP and button/switch layout... sticks are good - side stick, and center mount w/ options. But throttles and collective? I can do a collective and throttle, but without some transformer shit I have not come up with a good solution for throttles. It'd help if we had specs, or confirmation that winwing will sell that throttle solo, etc. Anyway, way off topic. We are all in agreement that production of a realsim throttle must begin immediately. Supmua - any updates?

Case in point for the need here realism ^^^^^ Most Commercial manufacturers, if they are willing to take your call, do the same. Likely not as nice as what real sim folk would put together either. The oddness of the viper throttle does introduce a whole lot of challenges from scale, mounting, etc. It's not like an f-18, which is basically just quality grip on a much, much longer lever arm on pivot axis (longer than stuff we have, not longer than f-16). Though I wish someone would build one of these too Btw).

sign me up. Again though, my point was more about what reamsimulators has in mind. I was assuming, give their past products, we'd looking at something near 1:1, but many of the posts in this thread make me suspect other people are not, or have unrealistic price expectations. It would give us some idea of if they are talking about. Ii forget their tier system but their high end/commercial product line would presumably look more like aerotronic in the link than anything thrustmaster makes. Is that what they are talking about? Or do they intend something, as bookend example, with a just a couple inch pivoting an axis like the warthog. I'm probably in either way just for the form factor of the grip and expected quality. But would ben nice to have an idea

Cool The question remains however, that looks good for pits, but i imagine a lot of the yes’s in here are assuming something more typical of other products, that can at least work with desk mounts.