sk000tch

I cannot imagine the cost, but they do make turn-key home edition sims. You can see their throttle in the pics. Most companies that make profession or near level-d quality components do 1:1, but the f-16 is a little unusual in how its mounted so it looks like there are a number of approaches. Its non-linear so I can't imagine we are talking desktop here, perhaps dzus or some flexible mounting system with likely just a friction adjust? The question then is the gates, they are on the sidewall. It looks like both the pro and home edition use a long level arm to an assembly with friction adjust in the left console. Supmua said they were considering adapting their pro, as it would be quick & easy for them to do, so I'd not expect significant deviation. It's just hard to tell how large the mechanical "below the panel" part is. Looks like it could be sizeable given the pic below. For people with a modular pit that would work pretty well. Not sure how that works as a desktop product, though some sort of deskmout would probably work. Or maybe they intend to go WH style and build that section of console w/ audio, UHF, eng/jet start, and such. It almost certainly would have to be substantially deeper than the WH throttle. The Level D sims i've been in have throttles with linkages that look more link Winwings than WH (though ironically i've seen plenty of military/nasa sim projects use actual TM warthogs). Their home edition sim throttle: Edited to add a link to pic of aerotronics throttle: http://www.aerotronicsllc.com/images/f16set.jpg They do similar approach it looks like. That's not to say it would look anything like this, but rather just defining the engineering problem I guess. Supmua they give you any idea of what they were talking about doing?

Seems like it’s pretty concept level at this point, so likely unsettled. I doubt it would be buttons of convenience style, it I’m trying to think of what’s there that would need to be included so as to not prevent the box from preventing an accurate pit build. I’m on my phone so can’t really look, but what’s on the other side- like engine/jet start, pitch override... something else. Unless it was really large you wouldn’t need the audio controls.

That's makes sense, overwhelmingly logical even. Just EPs are hard copy? I've already probably dated myself enough in this thread; and if not, the one where I got all excited when somebody mentioned a T-6 b/c it was first radial engine ac I'd flown)... I do still like paper for long documents

I get that there are manuals available online, but I’m not sure if you all realize what these really look like irl. Aircraft manuals are specific to an aircraft. Supplements come in, with hundreds of pages and detailed instructions like remove pages 342-344 replace with new pages 342-342.2, which coincide with whatever avionics suite, component upgrade, down to the most recent LRU replacement that’s slightly different, and requires a different coolant connection than the 0402x version or whatever did not. Whatever partial manual you’ve found online is a partial snapshot of a bunch of binders where actual documentation details everything on that aircraft, records of all maintenance, logs, and keep a lot of enlisted busy. I mentioned the v(9) because it is a well loved radar in the community not bettered until non-gimbaled active phased arrays became a thing. Off hand the upgrades were substantial increase in detection range at less power, better AG but specifically SAR. The SAR was apparently quite good, fast and high res (1 or 2 ft). Simultaneous tracks in situational awareness modes was increased to 4, and there were improvements in the TWS branch as well. Again, on my phone so going from memory and can’t recall if 5 or 9 had the 9 TWS trackfile + ability to bug 2 targets outside the TWS volume (basically two target sam + a slewable TWS volume). Better sensor integration, so on a cold clear day the ability to discern what’s under the pylons of the mig you’ve got bugged from 30nm out. Not sure whether 5 had... can’t remember name rn, but basically RAID. Just all around better, better track quality in TWS, better ground maps, more jam resistance, mode reliable and easier maintenance (not rly am issue in DCS). DCS also doesn’t really sim responsiveness, when glass cockpits first came out like all computers they could be a little slow, do weird shit, but can’t exactly reboot. But that time period, late 90s to 2007 or so, everything got a lot faster. Short of AESA, it was processing that increased substantially the capability of RWRs, radars, HSDs, etc. so a 10 year newer processor and 10 fold increase in RAM makes a difference, whether in simultaneous tracks or how fast pages come up, etc. Sensors collect infoc but if you can’t process it it doesn’t do you any good. I’m also not sure how much of the MIDS fighter to fighter datalink target sorting, wingman lock lines and launch lines showing who your wingman had locked or their missiles in flight, or the similar capability over link16 from GCI (would be cool online, GCI passing target data to you via datalink). Anyway, not a big deal, I was a little bummed at first... v9 and sniper xr >>> v5 and litening, but really I’m just glad we’ve got a viper to splay with. And not like ED never change their mind. Oh the ANG thing - ANG isn’t flying junk, if I implied that with my question wasn’t my intent. They are different than active though. Guy I’m in a plane partnership with is an ex Oregon redbird,we actually have another redbird and ex-viper guy in our little local group. Acro community is loaded with ex fighter pilots flying big iron now (not exactly a cheap hobby). Anyway, homeland defense units aren’t flying ancient crates but they aren’t first in line for the latest pods or ordinance either. is an important mission but intercepting a Cessna that strayed into some TFR generally doesn’t require the latest IRST upgrade, or 120Ds and block II 9x’s either. It’s somewhat irrelevant anyway, in 2007 our birds were busy, so those guys were all rotating anyway.

Factory spec is kind of a misnomer, they go through mi-life upgrades of various types throughout service. But otherwise blks are the same generally. International have differences, some nations request more options than others. Speaking of which, not trying to start anything here but it’s hard to find data. How many AF blk 50’s still had the (v)5 in 2008?

Agree for the most part, for PD all RWR sees physics of the wave... so pulse width, length, PRF, and repetition time. Under optimal conditions of course, if the same plane is being painted with short range SAMs and some CW, or if its maneuvering and pulses hit blind spots and such, it may not accurately measure or allocate processing to the threat. But ya, using your example, if the duty cycles are the same, and the waveform is the same, then it's just repetition. Roughly 3s or less for TWS vs. continuous. That's a big if though as not all are, and a lot of time and money is spent creating threat databases for the RWR to recognize. False positives are an issue as well. RAID, or the equivalent mode the the (v)9 that we won't be getting, can generate false lock. Also, due to tactical doctrine of how radar responsibilities between lead/wing to sort primary group and sanitize, as additional radars of the same type, particularly if in a tighter or trail formation, the likelihood of false locks and other RWR error increases. So while absent a false positive it won't indicate "lock," depending on the circumstances it very well may promote your threat level on the display or MC. The Viper is a bit weird, as both RWS and TWS have SAM Submodes. SAM and TTS are submodes of RW; SMT is a submode of TWS. On the latter, SMT can track 9 targets in the TWS volume and perform RWS SAM on a bugged target, which can be located outside of the TWS scan pattern. (I said 8-10 before but actually 9). The TWS scan volume can be slewed, regardless of the bugged target position. And the antenna angle will show the same pause you observed in SAM, just after quickly moving to position outside the TWS volume. Anyway I went up today and managed to discuss the issue in person. Confirmed that unlike TWS, SAM does momentarily pause the antenna like we are seeing in DCS. However, absent an error/false positive, it increases the probability of your detection, not STT type lock detection. RWS with a large volume, LRS in the 16, or VS in the 18, are likely to detect a target (unless low) before most RWR can detect the emitter's source type, azimuth and AOA to display the threat. I don't have hard numbers, as it varies with range and conditions, but with RWS max volume being low bookend and STT being high bookend, both TWS and SAM are closer to RWS at long ranges, with SAM having a higher probability. That's the best I got, its an understandably difficult topic because there are so many variables. Range is the critical factor though. Sam mode, particularly two-target, is more effective at longer ranges due to the azimuth restrictions, and will actually automatically switch to STT as you close to ACM range. Reviewing f-16 capabilities though I am looking forward to seeing ED implementation of armraam DLZ/DMC info in the 16 (of a lot of things actually, target sorting/locklines/launchlines over MIDS, or if GCI sorting over link16 is implimented)... Anyway, on DLZ/DMC - We should have a range scale that shows Raero, Ropt, Rpi, Rtr and Rmin, shows the loft angle at current range, and display the heading change current target would be required to make to degrade PK from high qual to nominal on the HUD... as well as in the JHMCS. Should provides some fodder for missile debates

:music_whistling: Kiddijng aside, Jackbauer’s on a right track. I’m also don’t care much what other sims do. Interested in what real plane does, and what happens, or will happen, in DCS. Also, Beamscanner – wanted to reply to your observed azimuth sweep, also I was intrigued so investigated a bit and did some testing It’s hard to tell exactly what its doing for now as we have a sliver of the actual radar implemented and it’s all WIP. The F-16 radar is somewhat unique with its search while track submodes in both RWS and TWS. RWS has SAM and TTS submodes that allow for simultaneous track and search of up to two targets plus a scan volume dependent on range/distance b/w bugged targets, TTS might be (v)9), but those could behave differently. It is still just RWS with a high peak medium PRF waveform, but it’s a higher quality track than TWS in exchange for less simultaneous tracks and scan volume, and slightly higher detection probability. TWS has its own submode, SAM Multi Target Track (SMT), (also might be (v)9) which can track 8 (or 10?) in a TWS scan volume while bugging a target outside the scan pattern with RWS SAM. That too I assume would be different. Side note- I hope we get the lock and shot line datalink. SAM and TTS submodes share via link 16 targets bugged by your wingmen, as dashed line on the HSD. Firing an aim-120 the dashed lock liner will flash and become a …. Shot line. Bunch of other cool tasking and sorting related datalink toys. Anyway, the answer to what real RWR will do is it depends. RWR systems are not created equal, and performance depends on a lot of variables. RWR suffer from ambiguity, can show multiple threats where only one exists, incorrect emitter/threat identification, their performance degrades significantly if maneuvering, and are susceptible to interference/jamming, etc. Depending on the plane you’ve got antennas in multiple locations around the aircraft and depending on the tech era different sensitivities. The antenna can measure frequency, PRF, repetition frequency, time, power, duty cycle and other in right circumstances., those signals are processed calculate direction, compared to a table of emitters to ID the threat, and analysis of the RF to rank the threat. Emission are prioritized for analysis though, and in congested RF environments RWR will struggle, detection performance will decrease, and likelihood of detecting repetition frequency or whatever, and correlating to f-16 SAM mode, would be lower.. Similarly, a fighter currently engaged WVR will have more difficulty accessing azimuth and AOA. Though perhaps the same RWR In a low RF environment closing high aspect an RWR may be able to detect its being tracked. It's certainly less likely that CW or monopulse STT, but possible. I texted a friend I fly with often who used to fly A’s w/ the pratt 200 (who introduced me to DCS ironically), he had little to add but iirc they had CW for aim-7’s so would have no firsthand experience. His answer was it depends and doesn’t matter, section tactics are different... which is a fair point. Further unsatisfied I tested in DCS, after 15 minutes of frustration before realizing friend had not turned RWR on, we tested Hornet’s and Vipers and neither indicated a hard lock, so I couldn’t reproduce the results that started all this (we did run out of time though). I don’t think DCS does for any TWS though? Not sure. So ya… lots of words, not much certainty. But realistically, the correct answer is it depends. As to what is happening in DCS, I'm curious what others are seeing?

Glide ordinance is it’s own thing, got its own (excellent) brevity code and everything fox X - AA Missile Rifle - AG missile Magnum - anti-radiation And of course, Pigs away for gliders

beamscanner not calling you out on this, much respect for your contributions around here but i think we are talking about different things. I tried to be specific in that I have no idea what the WIP DCS model is doing, but rather was discussing what it is supposed to do. SAM is a submode of RWS, an additional TMS Up over bugged target will command STT but not before. But again, who knows how ED has implemented this in the WIP state. As is, I can't get my hotas to swap bore/slave or step missile types, so certainly do not listen to me on the sim aspect.

Ok so this isn’t correct, but this whole thread is kinda nutty so please don’t think I’m picking on you or whatever, just the most recent post. In general these forums are really imprecise with terminology. Careful when you see sentences that start with “I would think” or similar. Anyway, but when you bug a target in the f-16, or designate a trackfile l&s in the Hornet, you are not temporarily “locking” a target. You are not entering STT, you’re still in RWS. I realize that in the game these things are symbols on a display, but irl they change gimbal movement and energy emission detected by target. STT is distinct from search modes, different wave directed continuously at target, and will generate a lock warning. In the hornet, when you designate a track l&s, it does not change the radar emissions. Look at what the radar is actually doing. The azimuth scan and elevation bars all stay the same. It is the pilot telling the mission computer thaw specified track is a priority, elevating it over the ranking the MC does automatically. That’s it. The radar does not temporarily lock the target, and should not generate a lock warning if DCS is modeling it correctly. The f-16 SAM mode is different. When you bug a bandit the radar will increase its update frequency necessary to employ a 120 (about 3 seconds) but also provide a 25 deg azimuth slewable scan. This is the “T-bracket” you mentioned, which represents a physical change in what radar is doing, allowin g you to continue to search a small area or monitor the group while maintaining a firing solution on the bugged target. It’s not an STT lock and will not result in a RWR STT warble, but rl rwr are smarter than DCS. This is one of the things DCS dumbs down by necessity. How DCS will handles it now I don’t know. As a WIP it likely will change anyway. It might blip and promote your threat level, but it’s not STT. I’m simplifying this, post commit in hornet at meld you change from search to group, decrease azimuth, bars, modulation, etc., to improve trackfile quality (or should at least). From target POV this is similar to SAM submode

Absolutely yes, please... we are in desperate need of a truly high end throttle, with realsimulator level precision, otto or equivalent buttons, obviously realsim would kill it on the slew. A generic throttle of that quality would be great, an f-16 would be glorious. Package it with R3 lighting and F16GRH for like.... $1300? Also do it soon, please. Actually, revive the ICP and MFD business at non-ludicrous price and I will seriously give you my dog. Look at him, seriously look at him. He's a absolute magnet at the dog park (does occasionally piss on floor), easily worth $10k. Please! (I have kids if you don't like dogs)

No kidding... I kinda get the sense of fairness in a its rude when people cut in line sort of way... but never buying an ED or EA product again? I'm no ED apologist, but this whole thread bears a striking resemblance to my kids pitching a fit when one gets ice cream and the other doesn't. I love the viper but as fun as it is, the 68(v)5 is no match for the 73. Its small, slower processing, less max azimuth, maybe 65% of the detection range of the 73. Its can't produce SAR images, and while the combined and situational awareness modes are very cool and fit well with the f-16, its certainly not what makes the f-16 great. Apples to apples, the TWS volume is much smaller and thus harder to employ against multiple targets. From a development perspective (and I say this as someone who is not a developer, basically making this up), it TWS is more simple in the viper than the Hornet. There's no MSI integration, its simplified scan bias w/ 25 degree azimuth compared to three independent modes on the hornet, some of which utilize ranked track file data to keep highest threat bandits in the scan volume. Speaking of which, whereas the viper requires you bug a target, the 18 has three acquisition modes, including cycling highest ranked threats, allowing you to quickly step, employ, step, employ, etc. The 73 is quite good at target discrimination in tight groups, and has a dedicated RAID function the 16 lacks. Trackfile ranking has to be in place before TWS, itself a semi-complex logic based on whether a L&S exists, targets with MRMs, closure rate and range, and a few others. Its been WIP for some time now, and again, is a prerequisite to TWS. The hornet also gets a C-scope projection in addition to B-scope (Az/El), though not this is a prerequisite to TWS. Continuing the theme of making up things I have no facts or citations to support, I suspect that we are currently limited by game engine in the ability to model some capabilities of the AG radar (and other things for that matter, like realistic targeting pods, or lasers without finite ranges). Producing a SAR image of map coords 100nm away, resolving object size at BVR distances, may not be possible, or may not be possible to do well, until some other work is completed. So while you might prefer a different development schedule, there very likely might be factors involved in the decision making that we are unaware of. Fortunately half the company is working on non-module related tasks, so maybe that Q1 2020 estimate won't slip (that far). Even then, things have a way of working themselves out. There are a lot of shared features still in the pipeline, seems likely that in some of these cases the Hornet will be first.

It can't be meters, that would be an odd unit. It's not yards either. All of the USN quick estimate equations are based on nm and feet, or degrees, etc. For example: vertical displacement in feet = Antenna elevation angle * Slant Range * 100 In this case, the least precise number we have is antenna angle, but that its in the neighborhood of 6 6500/100/11 = 5.9. Interesting that ALT on stores is 6, which fits with elevation carrot on attack format. SMS pages always has weapon info, release type, fuze, quantity, multiple, etc. This is the AA equivalent, w/ Rmax, Rne, Alt angle apparently, and aspect expressed unusually. The 20,000 number is also odd. I am going to listen to wags and go with WIP on this, i've never seen it before but evidently it's something analogous to info that is displayed for ground targets. Remember some AA weapons have SMS options, small/med/large and RCS for Aim-120s as example.

Awesome update, I’m eagerly awaiting these with of life additions that seem very close. Scan centering in RWS, bump acq, and trackfile functionality w/ undesignate button. Maybe those are emotes than QOL, settings defaults will be nice Wags- that is properly displaying slant range correct? I really dislike that mental calculation. Also, do Ed a the Charlie allow customization of what’s shown? I could swear it showed bandit reciprocal

There's no reason to expect tws won't be simulated correctly. It's not rocket science, just math. DCS doesn't model sensitive factors that affect detection probability, just line of sight and aspect. Otherwise RWS is modelled well. For purpose of this discussion, TWS isn't any other than the frame time restrictions. Check that, there's a lot of symology that they need to build and how the radar reacts to maintain highest priority trackfiles and such, but the geometry doesn't change. The elevation bar and azimuth scan restrictions are what they are, I'm sure they're published as every manual for the f-16 is online somewhere, if not the math is basic arithmetic based on azimuth scan rate and the ~3s update required for weapon solution. If anything I bet it will underperform expectations. As you point out, tws isn't magic bullet. If your BVR procedures are bad tws will make them worse. Sanitize and meld procedures become more important and less forgiving, and the lack of RWR warnings for STT and guidance make adhering to your WVR transition even more important. So no, I wouldn't expect tws to to be a magic bullet.

Even with settings from identical systems testing is also going to be required but that said, trees... I mean, some difference at the margin, so turn down to acceptable level. But with VR, its always pd and msaa that are the huge factors in render times, with shadows often playing sacrificial role in favor of aliasing.

Ya i think most are in agreement that DCS is a bit conservative for trained fighter pilots, at least young and in shape ones. Wags posted a while back that’s they are making changes to how it works, and is high priority.

Ya, it wasn’t a competition but I am still surprised they expose passengers to those loads. Just being able to physically endure something doesn’t make it fun. I mean, theoretically right alter the don’t touch anything talk I could throw 5s @ -10g, 5s @ +10g, and 5-6 3-axis tumbles all in quick succession. Nobody would enjoy such torture however, myself included. The goal is for passenger to have fun, not to leave never wanting to fly again. But they are two very different kinds of flying/planes. I suppose I was just surprised, contrary to absurd example above, I keep it in the 5-6 range usually and that's usually enough for passenger stomachs to call knock it off after 15-20 min. I’m thinking it’s the rapid +/- transitions and disorientating tumbles & spins. There’s a big difference between 200kt in a 2,000 lb prop and 400Kts in a 20,000lb fighter, but maybe the brain makes more sense of the more predictable forces - like VR sickness. That’s from wags, i was surprised too. I wouldn’t worry too much about the exact numbers. Couple 90s at increasing G. Eventually maybe I’ll remember to test it, be interesting to verify.

Bits and pieces of info in this thread but Lots of just made up info. Looks like your reading radar training pubs. The VMTS is a virtual radar installed in t-45. if emulates n the an/alg-73. The pubs’ likely a few years old as I think most are upgraded to AESA now. OFT just refers to operational flight trainer, that, of course includes radar simulation in addition tonalll other systems. The legacy hornet should do the same, both scan centering in RWS (all mods actually) and spotlight. Bignewy Let me know if you need info or verification, pretty important features, and this came up before and answer was ya’ll didn’t have docs on it or something. Like I said though, pretty core function. Works almost identical to as described but with TDC depress instead of trigger: with priority assigned to radar, TDC depress in tactical region with no raw return or trackfile under cursor will recenter scan on that azimuth to the extent that the azimuth sweep allows it to do so without exceeding gimbal limit. So if you’re at 140, you I cannot recenter scan. If you’re at 80, scan can be recentered to a max of 100 degrees in either direction. If azimuth scan is increased, the center will automatically shift toward center until it’s centered again If TDC depress is held ~.3 seconds, Radar will enter spotlight mode on that point. Spot will be displayed across the bottom and cursor will change to an x. The radar enters a space stabilized high update narrow scan... forgive me it’s been a while, but I think it’s 20 deg wide, and either it keeps existing existing vertical pattern (# of bars), or goes to 30 deg or some fixed value. Anyway, it can be slewed around to interrogate areas where you might have seen a return that faded, a track you’ve lost from terrain, or look for a aged track that’s faded, etc. Beyond that it works similar to Mavericks- If the X cursor is positioned over a return and released, the radar will immediately attempt STT on that target. Just using spot will not trigger RWR warning, at least as modeled in DCS (some aircraft would alert pilot to increased energy, and perhaps elevate threat). 18c has scan centering in all radar modes, inc. vs and ax/el. RWS, VS and Az/el all work similar, TWS manual mode is similar semi and auto are different, allow pilot to bias to one or other side of l&s, or maintain track of l&s and dt2, etc

My pleasure hun ;) It was not my intent to come across as a singular voice of the community. Many here have followed the development of your product much closer than I have, or have already pre-ordered, etc. I have no skin in the game, though I do have high hopes for your product. My perspective is somewhat unique as I fly a non-FWB center stick (mechanical control rod linkage) during the day, and sim DCS with a cam/spring/damper stick in the evening. But I am somewhat new to flight sims, so I should hardly be considered an expert in sticks (though I've bought/played with a bunch). Looking at your website, it looks like you guys have done a lot of work simulating 172s and diamonds. Your comment about different forces in different directions makes me wonder if perhaps your expertise on that side of aviation is creeping over into this design. I thought I saw in a video you had equal forces in each direction, but just in case the 1:2:4 standard force ratio doesn't apply here. A hard center on pitch axis with a 10lb breakout is ideal on a 172 but would be a total disaster on the Hornet. The critical design criteria are 1) Adequate (adjustable if extensions) centering force to reliably center the stick, and 2) zero breakout and low deflection forces near center. A soft center is fine but a plot of force vs deflection angle should not show any significant bump at center on either axis. You can have pitch a little heavier than roll if desired, or push a little heavier than pull to reduce pilot induced oscillations, but ideally those are user adjustable. Cam choices are nice as how progressive force increases is user preference. Breakout, or a sticky center, like you would have with a yoke is a non-starter though. Again though, definitely wait for more opinions, I've seen some of the youtube guys vids and though not all are created equal, most I'm sure will say the same. Or you could go try to plug a 4-inch probe in 24" basket at 250 kts and see for yourself. Fortunately it looks like a very well engineered product, so presumably an easy fix.

Winwing I want to love and buy this thing, especially the throttle. Going to watch jabbers now but from the posts here looks like you guys missed the profile a bit. Some advice as pilot and simmer who’s familiar with the real stick and the best VPC/Virgil have to offer: Stop worrying about real plane forces unless you’re going to build a real stick with everything that entails. No matter what people here say, a) ifs not really possible with cams, springs/clutches, and 2) the forces appropriate when you are in a cockpit under G Are totally different than when you’re sitting at a desk. The 18c has what ~35 lb deflection force clean config at limit? That’ll rip the thing off desks, and unless you guys are planning on AOA feedback and deflection forces that increase with G then nobody wants 35 lb when refueling. what’s good for a sim isn’t necessarily what’s most accurate to real life. Sim sticks need to be 1) Very precise at center for refueling, formation, etc. dead zones and hard detents are terrible, rebound with extensions crest pilot induced oscillations- also bad. Center detents aren’t realistic or good for sims, no plane, FBW or otherwise, has then unless there’s an autopilot system creating a breakaway force. Again, usually very light resistance against control rods or FBW system for minor inputs, regardless of speed. Soft & precise centers are key, beyond that user preference controls. Hoe progressive forces are really has to be user choice. Thats why cam choices are key, as it seems to take a couple cams plus spring options to accommodate everyone’s preferences. Unless you all have found a way to read airspeed and increase deflection forces accordingly, I dot see another way. It’s unfortunate that we have to have the same stick force in landing config as a 8G dogfight, but that’s what we got.m I was impressed with the clutch in the vid but also worries, cams + springs = oscillation. Hands on it’s not a problem unless really bad. It’s not accurate, as there’s no rebound force when a real control surface is neutral, but we are stuck with the physics of cams and springs, no apparent wing and elevator size. with other gimbals removing it creates a trade off that’s too much damping, and not worth it. What’s going on with the throttle though? It looked like you guys had it perfected. Big accurate trace, adjustable tension. Just include high quality buttons and 4-ways (force sensing slew as $250 option would be cool). I haven’t lid attention to the panels but so long as they do what they’re labeled to in DCS nobody can really blame you guys.

Careful with them online, you won’t make any friends. Servers don’t handle them well Problem w/ 105 is CCRP, hard for me to estimate lead on moving column. I almost like the 97 in the big better for moving targets. And LJDAM style container would be perfect, or f-16 post designate CCIP. Perhaps just decreasing fuzing time and practice lead w/ viper I’ll get better with them. Related note... They’ve come a long way since Vietnam era rockeyes (not sure why we we’re still using these until recently). I worked with a dude, he retired a few years back but was probably 6’5” and as solid as a 65+ year old guy can be. Didn’t talk about it much, but did like 3 or 4 tours in Vietnam as green beret. Occasionally he’d have a couple and tell stories maybe show a pic of his box of medals, most were funny shit like getting his big ass stuck in a tunnel or general stuff like being danger close to a b-52 drop. I didn’t know this at the time but I guess they’d come in as a formation of 3, each loaded up with over a hundred bombs. From a few hundred yards apparently the sound... can’t even distinguish individual explosions, it’s just a roar so intense feels like your inside are liquefying, ground shaking like worst earthquake imaginable, prone you are barely maintaining contact- just totally disorienting. I’m not doing story justice, but it sounded crazy. Didn’t talk about the bad memories, most guys don’t. But evidently Buffs would drop clusters back then. Not rockeyes, something else I don’t remember, with tennis ball sized submunitions w/ little tails that caused them to disperse over large area (described as being like those spinners that fall from trees). They spent some time in countries we weren’t supposed to be I guess, with no artillery or CAS, so the 52s would drop em and cover huge area. I guess that shit was even scarier, like a hundred thousand of these things with some sort of molten metal warhead that produced a combo shrapnel/incendiary. Anyway, guess that was a site to see, and scary as hell because they didn’t all go off, so they we’re always looking for these little balls. Anyway, sorry off topic, I was maxed when I heard 52s dropped clusters considering what a single 105 does. Fast forward 50 years to BLU 108s, with near jdam CEP and a high pK over an area of like 500,000 sq ft... and the friggin parachute! Imagine rolling in a BTR and seeing that, then seeing the skeets fire/spin off. Unfortunately I guess even w/ the self-destruct, I think Kuwait had like half a million unexploded submunitions to clean up, but I think Kosovo is what really got them banned. We dropped so damn many they are still cleaning em up (I won’t cite the civ casualties, but they’re banned for a reason). But ya... so, fun to drop on a column of BTRs though :)

Nah not really, i've got an old injury bugging me and the meds making me chatty (also sleeping weird hours). Looking back my posts are all like 8 paragraphs :cry: But it's just a clearing turn, control and acro check (ballistic logbooks are bad) - all safety/rule reqs. Actual warmup is just a couple 4/5G 180 deg turns and couple rolls. The inverted steep turns are because I suck at rollers, so I practice the core skills whenever possible. I googled a bit but people don't seem to share detailed explanation of the technique, but if you're familiar with the maneuver you can extrapolate the rudder/elevator inputs required to keep the nose moving at a constant rate through the turn. Thinking about it now, I am pretty sure I'd be much better at them with a new plane.

Jesus now I feel old you guys are talking about the T-6 that replaced the Tweet not the Texan. Slow and underpowered as it is still among my all time favorites. probably didn’t make much sense before. Anyway, I have no idea what DCS constitutes as warm up, I don’t do anything vertical but there’s no reason not to. FAA doesn’t send you letters on DCS, so while an 8G pull is a helluva warmup, it’s a game, nothing wrong with it. Presumably there’s some threshold you need to hit and precision doesn’t really matter. But for me once I get a couple miles out I’ll do an easy clearing turn to the left starting around 2G, usually pretty slow from climb so I’ll accelerate and pull progressively harder, usually 180 to the left (passing traffic supposed to pass on right), then 180 to the right back on heading. Again, Probably don’t have to worry about this in DCS but I can’t see anything during climb out with the big radial, and no FAA letters or controllers i don’t want to piss off. Leveled out on course I do quick acro check (no loose items, no juice in the wing tanks, engine #’s good, etc.). Out of habit I’ll wag the wings a few times with a little lateral stick and shake her ass with rudder (process for me is as much about getting me warmed up and checking control surfaces as any sort medical blood flow thing). Then i’ll do a lroper warmup, roll 70-75 deg left, pull 4-5G range. Again usually 180 left, roll the long way and 180 right and try to nail my heading. Little further out now I’ll roll inverted and make sure fuel is feeding correctly (my system can be a little finicky). Then a few mild steep turns at around -2 to -3G, focusing on precision/alt control. Again, we probably don’t need to do I n DCS but pushing to turn has different feel so a couple turns focusing on altitude precision gets me sharp and is enough time to make sure I’m feeding correctly. Roll out on course, pull the nose up a bit for a quick aileron roll, then a slow point roll the other direction... pretty good to go at that point. My guess is if only concern is upping tolerance, a couple turns at maybe 4-5G would do it. Probably doesn’t take much, like 90 left and 90 right (educated guess here, I just learned that warmups are in DCS). For me, IRL, in addition to G warmup it’s also about getting myself sharp & coordinated and a mechanical check, so I shoot for precision, maintaining altitude, rolling out on heading, crisp point rolls, etc.

Awesome, thanks Wags. That’s cool if warmups have an effect btw. I don’t think its too far off honestly, like I said I think you could add some depth to gameplay by making it more dynamic, factor in jerk and time under load. I like the fatigue idea or something similar, but the limit wasn’t an issue in the hornet, with the viper though... Sorry go hear about your friend. Such is the business but that one sounds close to home. I agree though, acros are very different from fighters. My point wasn’t really to compare the two though. I haven't flown jets in... 14 years? I've never G-LOC though good couple years back I went up a couple weeks after recovering from pneumonia... Just warming up light push for speed followed by a moderate pull (planning to half barrel roll over into some inverted steep turns to warmup) and felt like I feinted. Was very odd. Not sure if it was the push-pull or something related to being sick, or even how long was out, but I was glad it happened before I’d rolled over as I was still cruising along about 15 nose up. You’re right thought it’s different... in a lot of ways. Symmetric 12G limits for one... and we wear jeans and Nike’s... no ATAGS ;) kidding aside, suits are great for long sustained positive g, but wouldn’t help w/ acro. Changes are too rapid. And while not jets (radials still sound damn good), performance is probably higher than you think. 300ft radius turn at 200kts is a kick in the ass. 60+ deg/sec turns, 400+ roll rates. Much less thrust, though higher than you probably think (thrust:weight ~ .6, almost .7 for new MSX Rs). When you’re paying for your own gas it’s about as much fun as you can have. If you’ve never played with an unlimited I’ve got a two-place su-29 (had a thing for radials since I first flew a t-6). Little more limited loaded up with two guys (+/- 12 solo), but plenty capable for some maneuvers you wouldn’t have learned in service - can’t fly jets backwards, snap/flicks, rolling turns, of course all kinds of tumbles... end over end, 3-axis, regular lomcevaks or on a vertical). Our local ATC guys are cool, will let you fly an overhead break among other shenanigans (no section landings though) as long as no ATP traffic. I’ve only listened to a couple episodes (enjoyed just busy), but if you haven’t done a f-15 interview our little group has a couple retired RedHawks. Same guys that introduced me to DCS actually... or really desktop sims/VR in general. Seems like we can never get everyone on lately but DCS damn fun w/ proper section tactics.