RustBelt

Are you 100% positive the Target Designator Slew X and Y aren’t doubled up on pitch and roll? It does that one to me a lot. Wish there was a way to make it stop “helping” with hardware setup.

OH! Is that what that meant! That camera images on the MFD could now see out to 150km. I was really confused by “MFD Surface”

The tape is the sad one, because you know that crap is making it like 3 days before falling off. The plate is damn genius. Would love to know which squadrons came up with which solutions.

How dare you provide feedback in the feedback thread. You’re only supposed to agree with stuff. Unless it’s Phoenix performance. Because that feels like science!

Did you find a Forge Easter egg?

Might be related to the roll instability at high AoA. May have the right coupling now.

Yeup 4 colors of GLORY!

Oooooh dig that CGA retro style on the export screens.

That makes no sense to me. Turns of what?

“Chance to take credit” that’s the bit I don’t get. Is there some finite bandwidth when it comes to talking about stuff? Does the forum have some secret popularity points system or? What exactly? Did the Forums lose multithreading in order to put it in the sim?

What? What does that mean? What spotlight? It’s a forum, literally everything can be talked about at the same time. Not like that vile Discord format.

Uhhh? We can pay attention to more than one thing at a time. What do you mean take first stage?

Heatblur says no.

Well the NATOPS we can get. And that’s primarily just non-combat systems operation. Beyond that the piles and piles of non-classified training documents. But then it becomes less a Study Sim and more a Dissertation level research sim. Aside from a few months in Covid2020 there just isn’t that kind of free time. And even then, there’s always the “this doesn’t work in DCS” factor. Because the F-14 is a well made Module, but it’s still just a simulacrum. So real documents only approximately work. We’re not flying an F-14, we’re engaging a computer game made to act a lot like an F-14 within its own design limitations.

Ok peanut

To a game level ya stickler.

Too bad there wasn’t like, a manual for that. Hm? Plus side is Reflected sim gets some of that sweet youtube money.

Didn’t compare them to -1A. Just that without -1A something needs to be there. Because again, can’t study something you don’t have access to but the game is built with. Beyond that, user insight, best practices, how to THINK in F-14. Especially how to think in RIO. And specifically all that in relation to the DCS-isms of it all. And recording sound nibblits for a game isn’t bleeding edge unless it’s 1995 or you’re nintendo.

Then why do we have to grab his head and point him at mission targets like a particularly slow child, or reasonably average dog?

DCS being better money for value is a personal preference. You do certainly get what you pay for with the DCS core. And the 3rd party certainly gets a development leg up not having to build their own game from scratch, so it's a bit of a wash. It's also important to note when dealing with historical gaming, they were actually inventing it as they went along. DCS wasn't created in some knowledge vacuum unable to look at past works and what drove interest, sales, and player engagement. (and what drove a lot of people away from it following the 90's) Especially given the amount of "Oh DCS can't do that" making real world documents nice, but not entirely applicable beyond an aircraft systems and switches simulator. The manuals must have been good enough for 12 year old me to be able to successfully pick up F-19 and play it for more than a few years on the old blue chip 8088 in 4 vivid colors. Because keep in mind too, the significant resource limitations of those, as you called them, "early access" titles. Don't know nothing about the F-4E, it's an Air Force crate so couldn't care less. And honestly, by the time that's done, I can't even comprehend why HB would go back to fiddle with finished decade old modules when they'll still have Eurofighter, Intruder, and whatever else lined up. TL:DR You can't have a primary source study sim if a lot of the primary source is still CLASSIFIED. Except to the Dev for......Reasons not to be discussed.

So there would be a list that ties the called files of everything jester says to what was said. Meaning there is a paper trail to make subtitles from in any language someone may choose. So should a ESL modder chose, they could do this without having to transcribe every audio file. Assuming HB provided them with the info. Like they do with the paint kit.

I basically always have to do this. I think it gets confused by the buttons being pressed when it starts up. So I always load in at Idle. Then pop them back into Cutoff when it loads in. All the “on else off” actions seem to be funny like that on load in if you go in “button pressed” even if it matches the state.

You gotta pick one, either you properly documented your audio files, and thus have transcripts or at the least approximations of what is said in every file along with the rest of each files data, or you didn’t. Don't worry how good or bad I would have done this, because I don’t do this. I DO however maintain documentation and process procedures. Both for manufacturing and in aviation. Software is always behind on this stuff even at big companies. “I’ll remember it” or “It’s all in my head so it’s fine” are nightmare words not culture worthy of praise.

I’m going to risk form rules an obliquely bring up “Classic” real physical manual and map heavy, “alternative products” from the ‘90’s and early 2000’s as a counter example. The “Prose” of such manuals, and the “Spectrum” of information and understanding they provided in the box. One wasn’t even a box but a Hard cover binder as I recall looking across my room at a shelf of old things. There’s been a significant “Downshift” in that regard since then.

Followed by “Sorry most of it missed the patch somehow”