sk000tch

That dude should not be used as a basis for average anything, he is a beast. Again, I have never Calculated or paid attention to exactly what the line is in DCS, just opining that in my experience it feels abrupt and conservative. My point was more about the fatigue and exhaustion of BFM, and considering ways to make DCS more immedsive in that respect. A good analogy would be when the Hornet inlet ice caution would come on at 18k ft no matter what the circumstance. Makes sense sometimes, but on a blue bird day in PG feels a bit out of place

Just came back to read my post, was a little worried what i wrote but wasn't too bad. I wrote that rambling novel while laying on the couch watching football well medicated as the myelopathy in my neck is flaring up... Ironically it's from neck extension and rotation (check six) under G. If I gave the impression my POV was from the back seat looking straight forward that's my bad, chalk it up to the rambling incoherence. I used the roller coaster e a ample just for people that have no basis of comparison, but emphasized the difference between momentary and sustained, and particularly jerk. I don't disagree with anything you've said other than how the body reacts to Gs, but everyone is different. If you've only been up a few times you might not have realized, as you said it's different when you're along for the ride. Your eyes need constant O2 to see color, it's the first thing to go. You notice vision effects a lot more when you're trying to avoid task overload and maintain SA, or keep a perfect vertical through a couple 8pt rolls. Tolerance helps as well, that 4-5 that was on you pretty good becomes quite routine, I have no f-16 time thougb, so can't really speak to it specifically. But from a purely stick and rudder perspective, the jets I've flown were kittens relative to WWII warbirds or modern unlimited Class acros. Obviously not in terms of speed and certainly not system complexity (though most are certified to more max G), but pilot stuff takes a back seat (heh) to the job, rather than pure pilot skill being the job. I can take a non-pilot up and show them a 8G pull, they’ll grunt a bit then laugh their ass off and spend the rest of the day “OMG that was crazy it felt like my face was getting pulled off!” or whatever. I’ve also taken guys with 2,000 hrs up, fly a few rollers and they’re cracking open vents and I’m giving the “it’s easier to wash a hoodie than a cockpit” speech (i.e. puke in your shirt not my plane dude). The difference is a high G turn or pull from vertical, while more in magnitude, is pure positive G, and the brain understands what it's seeing and feeling. Rollers depending on speed max about 4G maybe 5G, but through the turn it’s constantly oscillating positive to negative and yawing in both directions. If hou're not familiar with what I mean, a . It would take a book to describe the control inputs required to keep the nose moving through that turn (much less with no altitude change and constant roll rate), but you can imagine that as you transition to knife edge, inverted and outside you've gone through multiple cycles of full rudder deflection in both directions, at times for lift, others to keep the nose moving, same with elevator. Paul's actually got some good vids in his channel of unknown sequences and such I'm watching now, good pilot. Im not sure what we're even talking about anymore. I think it had to do with me taking offense at something but I don't remember what. My neck hurts and it's time for meds though. But ya, DCS is a little conservative... And I'm no ****ing mechanic ;)

I agree and disagree with Mover (gasp). I agree it’s too conservative, but I’ve never seen a passenger take 9G. Definitely not the norm. 9 is a lot... the difference between 9 and 5 is much larger than the difference from 5 to 1. 5Gs is barely more than a roller coaster, most passengers are laughing and having fun. 9Gs is a punishing battle to remain conscious. I’ve taken a lot of pilots and non-pilots up for their first unusual attitude/spin recovery training or a 3rd date joyride, and the vast majority get real uncomfortable real quick above 4-5Gs, and even then after a few maneuvers the effects accumulate, the laughing stops and they start fumbling trying to open air vents. Even trained pilots... though tolerance is very individual, some can just naturally take more. Most untrained people will not last 10 seconds at 7G. I’ve thought a lot about how DCS does or does not model certain aspects of how G forces effect pilots. They don’t, for example, model jerk or the less than full g-loc physiological effects, fatigue, recovery time, push-pull, etc., and as a result the effect feels generic and unrealistic. Every pilot is different, and tolerance comes with time (and vice versa). But all bullshit aside, every fighter pilot is gonna say it’s too conservative, that they could take 10G for 20 seconds in nothing but shorts and flip flops. ED has to pick an average somewhere, but it’s not a black and white conscious/unconscious thing... so rather than debate the absolute limit, I think there’s a lot they could do to enhance realism. First, in DCS it’s like a hard limit. At x amount of Gs = g-loc, but in reality it’s more like 18 seconds at x-2, 14 seconds at x-1, 10 seconds at x, etc. it takes 8-10 seconds under extreme loads to black out. You lose color vision quickly, and peripheral will progressively narrow, but you’ve got enough O2 in your blood to keep the brain working for 8-10 seconds even if you can’t pump any up there. My days of high sustained Gs are over but I still fly competition acro at anywhere from +11 to -6 or so regularly. Somebody said something about Red Bull above, basically same thing just higher altitude and more technical maneuvers, no giant inflatable pylons... same planes though. Most are certI died to between +/-10 and 12, hence the limit. But with maneuvering speeds half that of an f-16, the duration is much shorter. For comparison, I can reverse via half Cuban or split S at 11G in under 4 seconds (iirc the Red Bull races usually have a half Cuban, I’m sure there’s a vid somewhere). It’s a leg/ab squeezing heavy grunting 4 seconds, but it’s over so fast that I lose color vis but nowhere near tunnel vision, and recover quite quickly. Like everyone though, I do experience fatigue. DCS has improved its grey to g-loc effect lately, but fatigue plays a big role that would be cool to have simulated in game. It’s difficult to convey how physically demanding BFM is. High G physio effects require recovery time, and they accumulate. When you combine the physical exhaustion with the cumulative effect of repeated high G maneuvers, a pilot that can handle a 8G turn for, say, 15 seconds at the merge, after several minutes of rapid onset, violent reversals, and high sustained Gs, that same pilot may be able to take half that. Again, I agree that generally g-loc comes on too quickly in DCS, but I’m sure that’s relatively easy to adjust. What would be more interesting and do more to improve realism is if they added some of the other effects besides full loss of consciousness. I mentioned recovery before. So, after the 10-15s black screen you should not come back at 100% mental/visual/physical acuity, immediately able to acquire the horizon, have perfect SA... and sure as hell shouldn’t be able to finish pulling out of that dive you were in while you’re supposed to be out cold. But beyond that, the cumulative effect and fatigue I described earlier should play a roll. I’m not a doctor so forgive me if I hack the technical language, but under G the sort of order things go is color vision very quickly, then more gradually peripheral vision, then you start feeling the lack of blood, you’re looking through straws on edge of g-loc. color and periphery matter... consider the 14 or 18 engaged over blue water. Horizon and altitude are more difficult to track and visually estimate over water. Tracking horizon is somehow related to your peripheral vision. Blue sky over ocean ain’t the brown and blue of Nevada. Would be cool if they could incorporate that degraded spacial awareness, perhaps some visual effect that blurs the horizon contrast. Unfortunately not like they can simulate the confusion and mental effects, but something is better than nothing. Also, most fighters aren’t built to take negative Gs, but it seems like even moderate negs cause a ringing and, well, I don’t remember but I know the game does something. I don’t think it should... Compound outside maneuvers are all the rage these days, so I can personally attest to the physiology. High negatives are unpleasant, and while sore shoulders (from harness) and bruised knees from bracing against instrument cluster, and occasionally some broken blood vessels causing red spots on your eyes are unavoidable, provided the jet can take it, most military pilots should be able to handle negative G to the airframe limit with no more than a light headache, so I don’t see why the sim should model it. some guys claim their vision gets a bit foggy, and I’ve heard old wives tale type stories of pilots who have issues with their lower eyelids pushing up over their eyes for a red-out like effect, but I’ve never experienced that or know any one that has. I’d just take it out of the sim, personally. I guess my basic point is that it’s much more interesting and complex than x seconds at >y Gs = blackout, pilots are trained to mitigate it as an essential aspect of good BFM. Push pull maneuvers, for example. Transitioning from even light negative G abruptly to high positive G can induce immediate loss of consciousness, it’s somewhat rare, but it happens. Smooth control inputs to keep jerk low, not ham fisted stick and rudder work with wild oscillations in G. these matter IrL, would be cool if they mattered in the sim. Theres a lot like this that they could do to improve realism and add another layer of complexity/skill to the sim, which to me is more important than whether screen goes black often 8 seconds or 9...

Sure, but that's not what occurred here. OP thanked ED for the update info, said he was happy to wait. In response he got, well, smart ass cynicism. Substituting a strawman that requires "constant reassurance" for someone that was thanking ED for the info drop isn't persuasive. And fwiw, gf is slower than ED... so when she got that general tso I am frequently texting "wtf are you?" and "on your way?"

Certain (a) mod can at times have an attitude or cynicism I don’t agree with, perhaps consider some attribution else ppl might think you’re the same way Or not. Regardless, hopefully my post explained why people look forward to things... whether they be radar functions or Chinese takeout Jesus dude... almost deserves the two weeks response, but I’m in a good mood today. Neither feature is “close.” AG radar is likely to be a trickle of features, like AA, with modes that rely on drawing geometry at long distances (SAR & DBS Modes) likely next year (from what I’ve heard). No idea on atflir, but litening II atp irl on a cold clear day can discriminate infantry weapons and read license plates at belong jet noice ranges (~20nm slant range), until the game engine can match that performance, other than loadout options, I’m not sure what we gain from it. I don’t think we are getting auto-track of moving objects, multiple target designations, or most of the more advanced datalink from real pod given how other things in game are handled. AA slave is cool but more of a toy than tactically relevant.

Nice vid, captures some of my favorite aspects of flight that don’t sim well. Just loose formation playing around in cumulus clouds with a buddy... a little slalom or skimming a defined layer at a few hundred knots... maybe someday VR will replicate that feeling, but we’re nowhere close yet

A lot can be inferred from your attitude and signature... however, among the main complaints ED gets is communication (or lack of), and they have done several things in the last couple weeks to address this. As far as waiting on features... do you even play? With EA products we knowingly buy something we know is incomplete, but of course we look forward to implementation of functions that more accurately model the aircraft. Whether most posters here realize it or not, the f/a-18 is a fraction of its combat ability, both A/A and A/G. A/A is more complete, yet currently sits at maybe 20% complete/lethal. TWS is as necessary to modern fighters as wings, but no scan bias/centering, bump acq and RTS, no undesignate button functionality (I.e. stepping L&S, swap l&s/dt2), no az/el, no spotlight, raid, exp modes, default settings, etc. As someone who enjoys flying the module, why would I not look forward to the implementation of these features? I mean really dude, refraining from personal attacks here... I look forward to my gf getting back when she’s picking up takeout, what’s not to understand about looking forward to more accurate sim?

Like a shapeko or whatever, basically mini router on a 3D printer like gantry? Of full water cooled CNC milling with the extra twist axises? I would think the heat from a router bit would melt acrylic?

Not wrong, it gets you from A to B. You make a valid point about being able to get in the habit of using features that don't exist. This is like the 4th time a thread has come up on topic. The fast, auto, bump acquisition methods aren't intuitive, particularly the way early access spoon fed hotas and radar functions.

To some extent it can. On Radar page there is a settings PB, not in yet, but you can change defaults for things like range, azimuth, prf for when you RTS from ACM mode, or select weapons. I don't know what ED plans to do with the preferred DDI screens, I believe Wags did say default screens were part of that. Defaulting to stores isn't bad though, critical for AG. But in AA a quick SCS left will change stores to AZ/EL. Useful page to have up (once implemented), with SA on AMPCD and gods view on right for basic AA setup.

Lol I didn’t realize this was like 5-pages when I quoted first page post.... was a quick browse on phone. Still curious what he thought was off though

I’m not viper expert but I know ITAR and DDTC, it may be in some cases that they need to tweak certain things (much better to have a cooperative relationship), but the Viper DM is open source. It’s been published and peer reviewed, from NASA studies on flutter to more recent. It’s probably one of the only jets where they have exact thrust curves for multiple altitudes. I don’t ever say never in my business but of all the things they have to dumb down a bit, hard to imagine they missed the FM that badly. I’ve got accurate performance numbers and a guy I fly with is an ex viper driver who’s already looking forward to trying it out after I’ve been telling him about VR, R3 lightning and the fun we have when some of our mutual friends get a couple sections together. What, exactly, is it that you think they missed? I’m sure he will have an opinion, seems to on most things

I hear ya, to their credit ED puts a lot of effort into the manuals and usually a pretty good job. That doesn't do much for things that are coming down the road though. Like this case, it's not that it was wrong, just that there's a better way. I don't think the manual is going to address things things like that. Anyway, glad it was helpful. Tune in next week for using points of the L&S star to estimate TA and required heading for perfect rear quarter intercepts.

Fast and Auto acquisition are modelled. Bump acquisition and track cycling will be nice additions, and TWS will change the post commit building SA/adjusting scan volume process, but this thread (and the other) is a good example of why in some ways the slow addition of features makes it easier to learn. Hornet hotas can be very efficient or it can be clunky... trying to essentially double TDC depress a bandit to enter STT is clunky, especially since that target may be aged and moved significantly or in close proximity to another target. Further, soon TDC depress will recenter azimuth sweep or enter spotlight if cursor not over a track (this is what I meant by upcoming features, bad habits get worse as things get more complex). For now, TDC depress to designate L&S is our only option. Once designated L&S, whether your style is to turn zero angle off and go full AB, or you scan for additional and build SA, consider aspect and lat sep, plan intercept for positional advantage before committing, adjust az sweep/modulation/bars for better update time, etc., in either case when you want to command STT, you can either put cursor over L&S and TDC depress, or just press SCS right (make sure no track under cursor). Both will attempt to acquire STT on L&S, one will automatically and immediately acquire current L&S, whereas the other may accidentally select another track as L&S, recenter scan, designate a DT2, etc. FWIW, if you want to enter STT immediately SCS is better than as well. One key press vs. two. Once ranked are in, it will command STT on highest threat, but for now still have to move cursor. But again, both methods work. No NFO sim instructor grades in DCS... so fly however works for you

Only this will prompt RWR tone, however, a few pages back there is a thread where another guy and I go into great detail about why commanding STT by this practice is bad given upcoming features, and that you should try to get in ha it of fast acq or auto. Thread is air to air radar or similarly titled

OP- Not sure what your reading but sounds like BFM exercises, and if It's in a t-45 those drills are setup to teach specific concepts and skills. If you're copying drills to improve in Hornet, like off/def perch sets or something, not necessary to perform exactly as specified. Probably better to have some variety. Most DCS guys just pass head on, in a sim minimum sep, hard deck, knock it off calls, etc are all Kinda pointless. Your second question is more intersting. I can't post anything here, but if you've got t-45 syllabuses presumably you can find 18c performance charts. Look for chart with turn radius or rate on Y axis, Mach number on x axis. Charts will be available for different altitudes. Good to know these well enough to predict radius at high speeds to calculate lateral separation on intercepts, but I suspect more general knowledge of which fighters are turn vs rate for DACM will be fine. Otherwise you'll be spending a lot of time Memorizing charts for adversarial aircraft.

How is this any different the a-10 varying 3? Almost always is just 2 irl. Or, for that matter, I've flown Campain missions in the a-10 that have it at max gross with less than full fuel, loaded up with TERs of mavs or gbus, double 3x mk82 on inside pylons and CBUs, and/or multiple draggy 3x rocket. Every a-10 I've seen operate is far more conservative, like 10k less ordinance conservative Rives. Couple jdams, pod, rockets, etc. (Not might have something to do with complaints about thrust and aoa warning) The falcon can use the 88, the 88 can load 3 mavs. So long as missions are designed correctly, I will choose realism and load 2. If realism is the goal actually, we should be able to load 3 but have a chance the rocket exhaust will flame out the big mouth. Honestly I'm more concerned with what we are not getting than what we are. I was Disappointed they were simming an ANG CJ with a v5, why not v9 if already developing SAR for Hornet? Only other differences are better range and lighter weight, a welcome but negLigible difference in the nose heavy 16? I know lots were disappointed by JASSM, personally having some knowledge in our current litening II and sniper XR, I was bummed to learn we would not be getting it. Range and r solution allowing 30k orbits, ident infantry weapons or read a license plate beyond jet noise. Fun to play with AA radar slave functions, multiple target track, auto target tracking, datalink, 3rd Gen FLIR, better aeros and deployed to 50CJs 5 years before our Build? But whatever, I'll get over it, the reason I love the 16 isn't from its ability to drop I figure half this stuff at least comes down to documentation or compromise with DDTC, not like ED just doesn't want to build cooler shot.

There’s actually a substantial amount of hotas controls missing, in large part because functions aren't in yet. Also it’s not navy vs Air Force, but rather McDonald Douglas vs General Dynamics (note Grumman’s were different as well). To answer the question, because the stick is missing a 4-way Co pared to others a lot of the controls are context sensitive, dependent on master mode, page disk play on ddi where TDC priority, whether a l&s exists, etc. Someone else mentioned scs left swapping hsi/SA page, If not tac will bring up stores. In AA, scs left will bring up az/El. Scs right from non tac page or weapon select will bring up attack radar and enter AA, except gun is gacq. There are hotas commands to change radar range scale and azimuth sweep already game. Bump cursor over top (dug out) or bottom lines then quickly back into scan region to increase or decrease range. TDC depress in AZ sweep will display scan options which can be selected with TDC depress. Some of the most important controls aren't in because we don't have the functionality yet. Undesignate button is particularly useful, as it will cycle l&s through MC ranked track files, or if a dt2 exists it will swap l&s and dt2. None of the bump acquisition controls are in. These change based on whether you entered STT via fast aq. or AACQ, in which case scs right will exit STT and exclude current track while searches for another. If from ACM, e.g. Boresight, scs forward will bump RTS and exclude current track but for shorter ti e period (iirc it's like 2 seconds vs 10). TDC depress on radar if not over a track file centers scan azimuth on that point (only to gimbal limit of current sweep however), TDC depress held enters spotlight on that areas. What else... Weapon select enters AA master mode, if in ACM weapon select again for current weapon will exit ACM (unless in gaqc). There's a bunch of AG radar and hud stuff. Iirc with hud set TDC priority, scs forward in AG will enter agr, scs twice quickly will emcom. Cage will toggle loft if aim-7 selected, if AA mode and no l&s enter flood, if nav mode u cage hud. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting. While most pilots would probably say they prefer the viper style, once complete the hornet’s much more fluid/fast than currently modeled.

Very nice extension solution. Love the authentic throttle, including running cable external to lever arm, and possibility for additional grips. Speaking of grips, as authentic as everything is, is the polished metal almost chrome grip the final finish or are they just not coated/painted? i've never seen or flown anything quite like that... Eagerly awaiting the reviews

I’m not totally sure what you’re addressing or disagreeing with, if anything. My post was already getting stupidly long, it’s also hard to tell exactly what the symbology is in that video. But yes, hornet pilot may enter Terminal Impact Heading, Terminal Impact Angle and/or Minimum Impact Velocity. All of here are shown on mission data format page, but HSI is different, and only directly displays terminal impact heading. Regardless of whether target is displayed as a triangle or diamond (PP vs TOO more), terminal impact heading is shown by a short line from the target market. However, the purpose of izlar is dynamic calculation of acceptable release point where the weapon will have a high probability of achieving the terminal attack parameters. If there are no terminal parameters, then izlar is irrelevant - thus irlar (the max range circle we currently have) is displayed. If terminal heading is specified, irlar gives way to izlar. Hopefully this makes sense, if no impact heading is specified, the LAR is a circle (unless wind parameters are input, in which case it becomes more egg shaped depending on wind velocity). FWIW, you can decipher whether other parameters are specified by how the izlar behaves. Minimum impact velocity number can be set very high. I don’t know how ED intends to handle this, nor do I feel comfortable being precise, but suffice to say double digit Mach equivalent FPS values can be specified (for hardened targets). As you can imagine, very high values have a substantial effect on IZLAR. My point was that dynamic launch zones, to use the terminology of OP, are irrelevant if terminal impact parameters are not set (or no quantity release). As terminal parameters don’t work currently, and would have no effect on weapon effect under the current damage model, it does not seem like a very high priority relative to other things that bear directly on lethality and survivability. My prior post was a bit rambling, but does that make more sense?

Assume by dynamic launch zone you guys are talking about LAR HSI symbology? The two lines from from 15 degrees off AC nose on in range LAR circle and converging toward the min range circle? Not that it matters but fwiw all the terminology is based off launch acceptable region (LAR), so IZLAR- in zone LAR, PPIZLAR for pre-planned, or the max range circle we have now is in range LAR (IRLAR), but anyway, enough acronyms There’s a ton of JDAM stuff not implemented, and we aren’t going to get all of it. That said, why the big desire for dynamic LARs? They aren’t even displayed unless you have terminal heading specified or target is within 15 degrees of AC nose. In the latter case, the IRLAR circle we currently have works fine. Dynamic LAR are useful for pre-planned high off boresight release, or when you’ve set I mpact conditions or especially both where release/terminal conditions require an s-turn(s); or a quantity releases where release is only valid in LAR intersection, but until damage models are changed/improved impact conditions are pretty meaningless. If we get a real quantity release manager that would change things but until then? Personally, of the yet to be implemented jdam features, I’ll take auto loft with HUD pull up (and asl) and HSI loft initiation cues (because tossing jdams over a mounting ridge from 7 miles away is fun), or HSI display of multiple PP targets (without planning tools it would be nice to visualize proximity). That might require finishing mission data and jdam display page though. Or easy to implement stuff like named PP targets (useful for keeping track). we don’t get the dynamic TOT calculation that factors in time of fall, or the reverse that displays ground speed cue for PP targets. Quantity release that allow true single pass multiple release without playing hotas like a guitar would be very cool, but otherwise a lot of the more advanced stuff is really of marginal utility for DCS. Just in terms of HSI symbology - Terminal trajectory tails on targets, offset points, the various “bearing to” lines would only be useful in a manufactured situation like JTAC requesting offset target and terminal trajectory conditions, because it doesn’t make any difference in weapon effect. But even in their partially implemented state, jdams are very effective, able to accomplish nearly every mission a fully implemented weapon and interface would allow. Conversely, we have MAYBE 20% of the Apg-73- our most important sensor, and it seems like we are close to a massive improvement on the AA side (AG a bit longer)- twiz, raid scan, bump acq., all of the functionality related to L&S and undesignate button like cycling l&s through ranked trackfiles, L&s/dt2 swap, or functions that help you pick up MSI or other tracks your struggling to acquire like spotlight (or exp mode). Given some of the recent bugs maybe scan centering at least in RWS is close? Of course could just be a bug, but eventually it will be very useful not to be stuck with 140 azimuth sweep, struggling to maintain contact as aspect increases when you want some lateral separation or anything other than head on intercept.

Dude, no... you don't need it. I say this as a friend, like an intervention or something

dang, ok... Be real nice to accurately replicate the hornet actuators, but you need to be able to get up around 35lbs at max G for that. That kind of number even feasible with the same kind of tech?

when you say everything works perfectly what do you mean? Like, stick forces are progressive, buffet at stall, etc. Or does it mimic the actuators in the Hornet for G and AoA feedback? is it progressive like the real thing? iirc deflection force is 4lbs per G, e.g. so that at 10G deflection force would be 40lbs How does the gimbal compare to VKB/Virp's top offerings? I love the concept, hate the absence of feel in my sim sticks, but I think poorly implemented would be worse than none. I've never tried one outside a level D sim though.

Ya I saw that after i quoted you... there were several vulkan comments though so I just left it. Also it was mostly adapted copy/paste from previous explanations/posts. I do think getting out from under MS' lock in is a big factor though, almost on principal... not that D3D is bad, but, assuming all else being equal, given a choice between DX and open source/royalty free api, who's main backers (khronos members) are AMD, Apple, Google, Intel, Nvidia, Valve, Epic, Huawei, Samsung -- basically everybody but MSFT. Not exactly a touch choice really we are way off topic though, I don't mind to detract form the AG complaining...