RustBelt

Time for more digital speed tape!

Well good news, your exclamation point key works. Or is very stuck.

Don’t launch on PvP fighters in TWS. Shoot STTPD and bugout when you feel the need to bugout and the Phoenix will go active (I think). Unlike in TWS. Also, you’re fighting planes with a generation newer FOX3. Plan accordingly. Stay out of their kill radius.

Do it every day and you get good at it. And Flow. Your hands can do more before your eyes can read. Flow, then check it against the checklist. Airbus and MD-80 have short LINE startup checklists. Their cold and dark checklists are longer and much more similar to the NATOPS Tomcat checklist. For startup the RIO is busy with their own giant checklist for their seat. RIO calls Before takeoff, fence in and out, and before landing. haven’t seen the Zone5 checklists, but I made my own out of the NATOPS and printed them out. Also have a printed and reproduced actual NATOPS checklist book, but there are a lot of “not modeled in DCS” lines it’s just not worth using for standard operations.

Because the FF not showing burner in the B was a holdover from the 20 year older TF30 in the A which was both less reliable, and originally not made with an afterburner. More modern engines took care of more of their own health and wellbeing. Especially when designed with an afterburner in the first place.

Thats more a TF30 thing since it was originally designed for the Missiler then had After burner added in after that project was shut down. As well as 20 years of engine tech development between the TF30 and the F-110. Why the B and D work that way? Probably commonality with the A. All three designed around engines 20 years newer than the TF30.

Checklists are every pilots best friend. Make one for finalizing building a mission. Live the checklist.

They have multiple certs, but your only current in one at a time. But this it a toy and an airplane still flies like an airplane SO to OP. Air brake the whole pattern. DLC activated in downwind. Throttle to maintain onspeed at altitude. If you’re going to slam dunk abeam the numbers, DLC full out the whole downwind to Final turn and be ready to get DLC to center and power back in to hit your final sooner than you think you will because Fighters have pretty high wing loading and the drag at onspeed is HIGH. Also expect a LOT of trim correction. You’re trying to lose 1000 feet in 20 seconds without speeding up. Until you do this like 100 times, it will be ugly but doable. The key is where you are and what your energy state is when you roll out on final. Nail that and you're fine. Except on the boat. You have to do that by the book because unlike a runway, it’s moving. They already figured out the right way to do that. Treat the CAT 1 like gospel.

To explain why, the instruments for the engine are concerned with the health and behavior of the Turbine engine itself. Afterburner is an external process to the engine operating parameters. You’re not using Fuel Flow to gauge endurance, it’s there to tell you the spinney bits of the engine are working as expected and you don’t want Afterburner hiding that.

Yea I’m over there doing some snooping already.

Oh no, i’ll be making my own gimbal and housing to fit what I have. Also FFB yoke has been my white whale for too long. No turn key for me. All I need is Motors, board, and software. Those I just don’t have the chops for.

This is the hardest thing about trying to learn RIO. You NEED a pilot and most pilots have become so accustomed to Jester that training up a RIO is the last thing anyone wants to do. Your best bet is finding a squadron looking to train up RIO’s that has a sorted out crew concept so both seats know what the other is doing. Just being a pickup game RIO with randos can be rough unless both of you are willing to use your words.

Hey, Duder brought the topic back up 2 MONTHS later. I don't want to hear corporate excuses. And I don't want to hear crying about the "Middle Guys" That's what Indy Games exist for. And What I definitely see as a significant danger to the whole gaming industry is this Enterprise style moronic AGILE development model. This isn't a Lifetime product, it's a game. A little bit of Early Access to basically "Gamma Test" the product is fine with a clear outlay of what is and is not working. But, to think buying in to help the developer DECIDE what their actual project will be is crazy talk. AGILE is just a fancy word for unending Mission Creep in a game. And I know that Deep down DCS is technically just an off shoot of an enterprise solution for real training software. But, to release a product 3 YEARS early with no concrete plan for completion, into an infrastructure that is in a constant state of seemingly random change, that's just asking for problems down the line. Here in DCS or the last few years of blitheringly incompetent AAA console releases. If you can even BUY the hardware for any of it.

Worse, too many cooks. There are like 3 or 4 individuals who all think they’re in charge. One of them likes to talk a LOT. And likes to turn their “I’d like” statements into “We’re gonna” statements when a mic is put in front of them.

The only thing is, too much of game development has abandoned the clear vision of a focused personality. The worst example being the self contained corruption of one Mr. Chris Roberts. Or the Rejection of the new way by Andy “Downshift” Hollis retiring. For enterprise software sure, you work with a client and develop a bespoke (or semi-bespoke) solution. For a game…..as the last 10 years have shown, that doesn’t really work. Earner games are formulaic corporate crap, and real, meaningful games that hold a fanbase are few and far between and increasingly being meddled with by the suits. In the middle there’s just a lot of aimless Middling performers that still require massive investment to just middle in the hopes that their users will crack the code for it as to what will make it blow up. Which frequently ends in disinterest and abandonment by the users because no one dev can give everyone EVERYTHING. That’s just not possible. So everyone shares in the disappointment.

Yea, there’s nothing to know. They clearly said something they didn’t mean.

People still don’t get just how primitive the AWG-9 is. TWS firing was a cool specialty trick back in the pre-pacman days. Good for defensive intercept, but not really your go-to mode for reaching out and splashing someone.

Lookit you with your logic and sense of proper cataloging.

I gotta start looking into this. Time to plan winter projects.

Well, thanks to nvidia’s terrible business choices, that won’t be a problem much longer.

The pitch is going to do that. “Center” doesn’t mean anything in regards to pitch. Stick forward gets it out of the way for ingress/egress. And nose down pitch is more stable on the ground as a headwind causes nose down, and a tail wind is kept from getting under the tail and lifting it up. to say nothing of clearance requirements when the wings are in oversweep. It would be nice if it eased into it as opposed to slamming the stick forward the moment you load in. But that could also be solved stick side. Trim should be 0 for land takeoff and about 2 indexes nose up for catapult on the control position indicator.

Odd it shouldn't work with DirectX FFB. Because that's what I thought DCS was using for the Sidewinder.

Is it running through DirectX ffb or is it like the Brunner where it’s making up its own feedback?

It’s easy to stream two ridiculously close formationed squadrons sling BVR at each other and pass it off as a genuine eSports effort. That’s the issue with sports. They abstract everything to the point of pointlessness. Usually for the goal of ease of presentation.

How right by? Because proximity fuses sucking is still a thing.