RustBelt

Because it dumb. 1969 tech. There’s a reason they made the C and that reason is so it would be smarter than a Sparrow. The missile OR the Bird.

Using rudder to point the nose means you are definitely not coordinated.

Are you coordinated when you shoot? Bullets do crazy things when they come out of the barrel and hit sideways airflow.

In real life they have actual humans looking and talking in the AWACS and on the ground with a full big picture. DCS is a sandbox, not a real battle simulation. None of these planes operated in isolated silence. Only the DCS simulacra makes you operate like this.

FXO and Metashaders2 directories getting gunked up on the forestall model?

Yea there’s been a number of Hypoxia issues due to the OBOGS systems in F/A-18s and I think Strike Eagles not actually generating (concentrating really) Oxygen. So pilots were breathing oxygen poor air that “felt” like the system was working, right up until they passed out. Boeing insists it’s a maintenance problem because Boeing can do no wrong as we all know.

No try and match the stick output curve to the stick input curve. I think You’re getting a mismatch between where DCS thinks the stick should be, and where Brunner is putting the stick. Like your stick is moving say 1.2x or 0.8 times the in game movement. Making the game think you’re producing an intentional input. It’s why I refuse to get a Brunner until they make it directly talk to DirectX. Too much fiddling.

That ain’t Futura. It’s too blocky, Futura is built on Circles for curves. Notice how the “U” is flat bottomed. I’m curious what it is too, because it’s a good looking font, if a bit compromising on readability for style.

How long did it take to 3D print that collie?

Ahhhhh neat!

You set the air source to "BOTH"? If not, you aren't in a pressurized cockpit. And also technically your gun could catch on fire.

Does it? Crap, i did mine loose because the old F-4 were like that and I assumed the Tomcat as well given I’ve seen it flopped over in pictures.

Means your Interpreter program is moving the stick more (or less) than it should move according to DCS. This is why Brunner needs to suck it up and make a proper DirectInput driver. You’ll need to adjust your FFB curves to match the input curve.

So here’s how it works, now real AND in DCS: The wings are controlled by the “Emergency handle” position. The Spider Clutch connects the “Emergency Handle” to the motor output of the Automatic wing position system. When you go full manual reversion by directly moving the “Emergency Handle” you disengage it the Spider Clutch. The Automatic system can’t drive the wings again until the Spider Clutch re-engages with the handle. If you have the wings at 20 when the system wants them back, you need to bring the handle back to match the alignment of the spider clutch. In the real plane thats easy because it will clunk back into the clutch and you’ll feel it. DCS now models this by creating a virtual detent position hiccup meaning you just pull back and it should hang at the spider clutch, then master reset. So you can then use the Throttle switch/Auto/Bomb again. The “Emergency Handle” IS an emergency manual reversion mode. Wing position and the auto wing position miss match. The Captains bars reflect this as the system trips off and throws a caution light as well as changing from “auto” to “emergency”. So you need to reset the system.

Yes, either select hear like in helmet, or turn down the cockpit sounds they're loud as heck.

The DDD is still and always will be the PRIMARY instrument. The TID is an Assistant to aid spatial awareness. The RIO needs to work the DDD to get the AWG-9 to perform. Which allows them to manual adjust the TID well, which the Pilot then uses up front. Don’t think of the AWG-9 like the Strike Eagle or Two seat Super Hornet. The back seat is there to do the work the pinball machine can’t.

It is if you’re swinging wide on a lag pursuit or can take a shot on a cross over. Only use Phoenix up close when you have a good lead already set up. It’s active cone of sight is small and ACM up it will be active off the rail, so between pulling the trigger and the motor firing you can end up with it just grasping at sky.

I’d give VSL and help them point the scan area. But moving inside 10 miles without contact is pretty iffy outside of AirQuake. VSL/PAL/PLM are for lost locks while maneuvering. On the push you should at least have the target IFF and Ideally on Candid Camera so you can see what they’re doing. That’s another Jester thing. Be nice if he Zoomed ever.

I don’t know how your monitor is set up, but even that photograph has way better contrast even scaled down. I mean the compromise was blowing out the sky, but the photo is much closer to how the deck or a worn old runway actually looks to the eye. The DCS picture is basically a monotone deck with even the meatball lost in the low contrast. (Which they have to fake back up with obscene bloom on the light source) All the visual depth cues of real life are gone. No haze distance, no sharp line contrast (because Anti-Aliasing) and no “glimmer.”

Yea there’s a reason those controls look tacked on up on the side of the cockpit. Ideally unless the RIO is task loaded, or not conscious, or the plane is deep in ACM the pilot shouldn’t really have much occasion to reach over there and ever use them.

Exactly. It’s hard to think that way at first because Jester does do some stuff, and also Isolates you from some of the Big Power AWG-9 stuff like the DDD. And that’s where it gets tough with things like IFF and active work on Datalink.

Jester is dangerously non-proactive about getting targets sorted. You just have to micromanage him as if you were just using a single seat fighter with a clunky radar interface.

Oh that would be a pointless endeavor. Until a computer science department comes up with a better “Free” render system that Nvidia and AMD can rip off, no game designer has the resources to invent a novel render pipeline that doesn’t need resource hog bodges like post process Anti-aliasing. Hell if it wasn’t for MIT loaner code going to Flight Unlimited we’d all still be stuck with basic vector flight models like in FS 2000 and 90’s Microprose sims. Computer entertainment just doesn’t have the kind of overhead to allow that level of clean sheet computer science.

I understood it more as being a very expensive and limited resource. A Phoenix In the missile magazine of a carrier is available when things go bad. A Phoenix you had to jett into the Med to make trap weight if you had to come back heavy on a routine daily patrol is gone for good. The Navy wanted to preserve their AIM-54s for if things got hot. For basic Cold War patrolling/“Installing Freedom” Sidewinders and Sparrows were the preferred load-out. Especially with Visual ID requirements for RoE.

You can’t really trust Gamma either because Gamma is in relation to your environment and specific monitor NOT just a setting in the menu. HB’s Gamma 2.2 isn’t the same as what you might see if you just set your stuff to 2.2. You need a full on pro calibration to see it exactly as HB sees it on their side. The further fact is both HB and DCS is limited by the decade + old rendering pipeline that at it’s most sophisticated can replicate an iPhone camera for dynamic contrast, color gamut, and resolution. Neither photographs, OR OpenGL/Vulcan rendering can come close to how the eye actually works. And in DCS it’s even worse since it uses an even more primitive camera model for rendering where it cheats zoom with LoD clipping and FoV changes at locked absolutes. As cute as it is for designers to talk about how they set lumens or albedo exactly to real world measurements, DCS can’t even come close to visually recreating the way the real world looks. So any argument to “accuracy” is absurd. Something Holywood understood a century ago, but most game designers still haven’t got in their head.