RustBelt

I mean, if someone really wanted it. They could make it happen as an unofficial mod. Wouldn’t be easy, but based on some of the mods out there, it’s doable.

Well an actual DIGITAL computer for one with actual memory. A better onboard radar unit, Inertial Navigation as well as simply lock on homing. Search patterns for active seeking. The A was basically a FOX-1 with the ability to also run its own Flood Illuminator and the ability to be commanded by a data stream IN the reflected radar beam while under AWG-9 guidance. The C had the ability to remember what it was told, to continue performing it’s task without the WCS being in constant contact. It also knew where it was absolutely with INS, as opposed to just knowing where the target reflection was in relation to it. And it could use it’s onboard radar to actually actively search for a target when it was active. Not just hope it was pointed straight at it. The A followed it’s instructions, the C knew WHAT it was trying to do. 20 years of computer advancement over the 70’s and 80’s made that happen.

Both I and IronMike literally explained to you why. They built it as part of the airframe. You can’t just cut pieces out of the mesh and give them an argument setting. You have to build it Originally that way, or not at all. The airframe of the tomcat including the pylons is ONE continuous surface. ONE. A subtractive change would be a full start back over from scratch job. Including the full pipeline of mesh, texture, articulation points, arguments, flight model mating, and on and on. Sim’s look like you just make a shape in blender and stick it in a magic computer reality and it just works. But it doesn’t. The bit you see that acts like the real world is working in totally different and unintuitive ways in the system to make that output. And making it do that is years of work. Ask ANY of the big mod makers. It takes years to go from 3D cad object to plane module that works. Taking off the pylons that are already baked in would basically be starting from scratch. changing a pilots head, or making an add on mesh to sit “on” the airframe mesh for some extra bumps is much easier than removing something baked in.

Wait, is the wing sweep switch not momentary for Bomb Mode? It’s like a toggle switch?

This has been rehashed many times. Following a lot of begging in the forums they decided to do an Iran cat well after the project was announced. Well after the airframe model was being developed. a model that had the fuel pylons built into the main airframe model. There aren’t digital bolts to remove parts of the airframe model after the mesh is made. If it’s still hard to understand, just accept DCS has a lot of legacy code weirdsies.

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.