RustBelt

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.

Covering the photocell is mandatory with the Sidewinder. You can’t fly with fingertip precision with that stupid thing turning off the motors.

Any particular tests FFB users can do to give you better info?

Nobody knows, it's been a years long conundrum of something that's probably a single value in some esoteric lua file. Mine is always dim except for external views. So it's some whatsits to do with how it does the cockpit.

Don't forget, that's AMRAAM shooting from the 1970's which was a much bigger deal, in a much bigger missile only one plane could use.

And how fast are you going to make 330 KIAS at 90,000 feet? While performing a zoom CLIMB?

When it comes to a warthog, especially when it doesn’t have an extension, I have to disagree with Iron Mike. 15 years ago when it came out it was a very good stick, but it’s now a very stiff, very short throw with a less than stellar resolution. Stock it makes over correction and Pilot Induced Oscillation on a non-fly by wire plane like the Tomcat way too easy. You may as well be flying with a PS4 controller stick. A non-combat flight sim maker had a video about the how and the why of curves and why they apply. I’d post it but rules. Personally I run a Sidewinder FFB2 with an extension and a custom grip, so for me I don’t use a curve on the tomcat but that’s only because the stick is moving the same distance as the “actual” stick being modeled. When I fly the F-16 with my warthog side stick, I put in a good amount of curve or it’s practically unflyable.

Because they gave up on it.

So there’s a chance of a full “THUMP, BANG” failure on the Iranian cats hopefully!

Go to Wags to ask about new features and plans, go to Nineline or BigNewy to get on the ground answers. Especially when it comes to 3rd party.

You ever have one of those bosses that just says whatever without looking into something first?

Be less conservative with the curves. The warthog has a teeny throw compared to the stick in the Tomcat. And what doesn’t LOOK like much compared to the horizon is enough for a beast like the F-14 to make 1-2000 FPM.

But, in the real world, no two planes ever performed exactly to the book either. Although being clear on the margin of acceptable deviation would also make it easier to discuss any results realistically.

What does the NATOPS say about windmilling an engine? More likely from my experience is getting the engine spinning again isn’t modeled, or is as hard as the NATOPS says it is. What’s your memory Items for dual engine failure in the Tomcat? Aside from RIDE ROCKET CHAIR?

Yes although just direct drive or a simple gear train can work. You can either use a motor with a hall sensor, or a separate hall sensor or potentiometer that feeds back to the motor control. If you look at the Authentikit builds you can basically replace the damper with an output gear connected to a small stepper motor. If you’re real slick with driver code you can even get the stepper to act like a damper when you’re not in auto throttle. Heck depending on how heavy your throw is, you could just use one of those hella big servos they use in giant R/C planes. There’s off the shelf servo driver boards for both Arduino and Pi. And servos work PWM not analog so that saves overhead.

That's because the DLC comes out well before engaging ACLS. On case 1 it's when you're downwind on the pattern after the break.

Any Normal Pot will have more than enough travel for the wing sweep. So any basic 10K pot. There is 100% a way to have it behave EXACTLY like the real thing, but that's going to involve having it be driven by a motor running off DCS BIOS. And for easy packaging using a Hall sensor to see rotation angle of the handle. You can make the motor cutout when you lift the lever. But as for positive re-engagement, you're basically going to be building the exact mechanism. Or put up with it just being driven back to it's set position when you push it back down and the motor cuts back in.

If you can't get the core spinning, you don't restart them. No battery, no APU. You just pulled a Pinnacle Airlines 3701. Core lock. Plus no battery means no Igniters, so even getting lucky and getting the engine windmilling you're still not likely to get light off. Don't let both engines die.

You mean Open OUTPUT. Just enumerating all the sim variables is not "Open Source"

A lot of what’s going wrong is all the FFB is being run on 20 year old hardware that’s tired. Or stuff that has to talk to DirectInput through an interpreter because it’s enterprise level equipment playing down to old DirectX FFB. The fact that it works at all is still a small miracle given the circumstances.

Another thing to consider is when not in Air-quake, making an enemy go cold and bug out is as much a success as a kill. The primary goal as the plane and weapon system is actually designed is denial not necessarily burning metal. Them NOT getting a kill or a shack is just as good an outcome as them in a crater.