kingsnake11

I swapped the cable ends, checked to make sure that the connections were seated properly, re-calibrated the throttle, and the problem remains. The tdc button press is working but the slew axis are not. Thank you for your suggestion. I also checked with a continuity meter the resistance in the cable wires and found none indicating that there is a good connection between the ends of the cable. I'll email you and thanks for helping.

After months of working flawlessly, all of a sudden, the slew no longer works. Just stopped reading the x and y inputs while the pushdown tdc works fine. Anyone have any idea what may be the problem or has anyone experienced this and have a solution? thanks.

I received a HF8 a few days ago, and got it working with SimShaker for Aviators through the USB. You have to set the USB to ForceFeel. Apparently, the HF8 is an improved/redesigned version of that seat. At least I can enjoy it while I wait for NLR to come up with the DCS supported software.

Thank you for the explanation and sorry that it took so long to respond. I'll play with it some.

I did try it with the Hammer-1 group instead of the Bandit-1 group...same issue. Thanks for the link...I'll look at that.

Update. Thank you Darkwood for the help...however, I think that there is something wrong with the msgBRA, either a bug, or in the description. I did get what I wanted to work, but in another way. Adapting what you supplied, I coded this: local mytunits = mist.makeUnitTable({'[g]Bandit-1','[g]Hammer-1'}, 'static')-- org mist.msgBRA({ units = mytunits, ref = 'Igor', metric= false, text="BRA ", displayTime = 30, msgFor = {units={'Snake'}} }) This worked and gave me a BRA...but it was the average info for the two units, not the BRA from Snake to Igor. The correct answer is 343 for 142 at 58748 but what I get is 170 for 70 at 29374. Which of course is the correct answer divided by the number of groups (2). So I tried a variant, but removing the Hammer-1 group. local mytunits = mist.makeUnitTable({'[g]Bandit-1'}, 'static') mist.msgBRA({ units = mytunits, ref = 'Igor', metric= false, text="BRA ", displayTime = 30, msgFor = {units={'Snake'}} }) This gave me the correct bearing of 343 and the correct altitude of 58748, but the distance was calculated as 0 rather than the 142. The method I used to get the correct bearing was using the getBRstring and messageAdd, triggered by a zone. Here is the code: local string Che = mist.getBRString({ units = {"Igor"}, ref = trigger.misc.getZone('test1').point, alt = true, metric = false }) do local msg = {} msg.text = "Bandit Position is "..Che msg.displayTime = 25 msg.msgFor = {units={'Snake'}} mist.message.add(msg) end This gave me the correct BRA from the trigger test1 as Hammer-1 (Snake) entered the zone. I have no idea how to fix the msgBRA function or if indeed it is meant to give the average position...which seems a bit useless.

Thank you. I will try it but you're solution makes sense. I guess you have to let it know the units before calling them. Thank you again.

Hi. I was wondering if some of you folks more familiar with MIST than me can point out what I am doing wrong. I've been pretty good at getting a lot fo the MIST functions working but for some reason I can't get msgBRA to work. It probably is something simple. What I have is two groups, named Bandit-1 with one unit, Igor, and a second group Hammer-1, with one unit named Snake. What I want to do is generate a message regarding Bandit-1. The code I have tried is: mist.msgBRA({ units = ('Bandit-1'), ref = {units = {"Igor"}}, metric= false, text="BRA ", displayTime = 10, msgFor = {units = "Snake"}, }) Thanks in advance.

Same with the jsow A's... covered infantry and sam's with little to no effect. SA-2's on launchers are very soft skinned targets and should have been knocked out. IIRC in real life, the mk 20's were used to kill AAA crews and take out sam's on launchers... but did little to no damage on armor or the AAA guns themselves. Glad to see that ED is looking into the damage issues as it's been a topic of (sometime heated) discussion in my group.

I will have a look. I fly VR and the push to talk for voiceattack is connected to that button. I'll review the keybindings. Thanks again.

thanks for the quick reply...but as I said, it was Horrido that I was having the problem in. No menu is popping up even though it should with the \ key. I have it bound to a hotas control....works everywhere else... but nothing comes up in Horrido so no way of giving commands. Thanks.

What command/keyboard binding is used for the built in radio? I've had issues too. Sorry to sound so dumb about it, but I too have seen the wingmen simply fly in formation and not react to commands. No problems in the wolfpack campaign. Could it be a 2.7 thing?

There may be a problem here because we only know that certain types of missiles and rockets seem to be easily intercepted. My view is that the SAM systems in DCS are probably a little too effective in shooting down incoming AGM's. I've even seen them shoot down an AMMRAM which I don't think is very likely. Shooting down a scud or a med/high altitude cruise missile is also quite possible to intercept but they don't seem to have much of a shot at low altitude fast AGM. Some recent real world examples...the Iranian/Houthi strike in Saudi Arabia with low level cruise missiles that the patriot and hawk batteries were effectively not capable of dealing with. The result of which was a visit from USAF generals and technical people to assess what went wrong. The Israeli strikes into Syria where although the Syrians claim to have shot down incoming missiles, enough get through to hit their targets effectively. What we don't know and are not yet in DCS, are if what the sams are hitting aren't Tilads or some other type of decoy that beg the sam to hit them. Early examples of these were modeled in the old Jane's F-18 sim and could be really effective. I can't believe any force would go into a sam heavy environment without these. And there is that famous Israeli strike video of sams being shot multiple times from the most sophisticated Russian point defense sam system (SA-22 I believe) at an incoming AGM and missing and then seeing it being taken out by another AGM. Result was a visit by top Russian generals with a herd of technical staff to figure out what went wrong.

Probably because in real life you don't hang around and press the f6 button to see if it hits. You would only know if the SA shows the radar off...and even then you wouldn't necessarily know if it was hit, or the operator turned it off because they knew they were/or would likely being/be targeted. You might be able to get an educated guess by correlating the TTT and when the radar went off...but if you're busy flying out of a dangerous situation...you probably have other priorities.

Just because you may have a lot of excess power, doesn't mean that you can use it simply to see how fast you're going without consequences. All aircraft have redline markings on the VI. It's 800Iknts for the 16 in DCS and it was the same for the CF-104G. You could go faster at really low level in the 104 but you would start having structural heat problems and likely cause yourself real problems. Unlike the F-16, the 104 wasn't thrust limited at high mach. At M1.2 and high altitude you could really feel the acceleration when you pushed into full AB. Even in a clean f-16 in DCS, I can barely get it past the Mach at very low altitudes. The other limiting factor at high speed in real life is that you would run out of fuel real quick. Doing some ballpark math with an example; While a mig 29 could possibly get to 800 Iknots at 300 feet AGL he wouldn't be able to sustain it for long. He would be burning around 90 lbs of fuel for each nautical mile of performance(45lbs per engine)... with an internal load ( tanks would just add a lot of drag and weight so that the max speed couldn't be reached) of around 8000 lbs or so of gas, that would translate to a distance of 90 NM before running out of gas.. at 800knts it would take you 90/800 x 60 or roughly 7 minutes to run out of gas at that speed.... so just because it says you can do it on the Airspeed Indicator, doesn't mean you can actually do it in real life without dire consequences. When they talk about max airspeed for any aircraft..wow it can do mach 2.2!... what's left out is that it may do that only at altitude and they always leave out how long. You can achieve max speed in a dive and then zoom or stay low...but the realities of fuel burn are still there. As an aside, if you ever thought of owning your own Mig-29, it would cost you probably $2K in fuel at todays prices for each showy full afterburner takeoff.

ordered too. just too nice a map and historic theatre not to order. Looking forward to flying over the friendly Syrian skies....

Certain specific displays and numbers can and are often be classified for either tactical or strategic reasons. For example, there are a lot of video's released by various militaries where specific mfd info has been blocked out. Not surprised as someone has decided that the recorded information may allow a hostile intel service to figure some stuff out. The only thing in the old jet I flew that was absolutely verboten to photo, talk about, even admit it was there, was the nuclear consent panel.... for obvious reasons. I think the ED folks have done a good job at producing models from the publicly available info from NATOPS and other like sources that are public. I know that there are addenda to all NATOPS that are classified but they are usually for specific weapons limitations and constraints, or for specific capabilities for certain weapons that are not advertised or publicly known. I do know that even the old aim-7 and aim-54 have modes that are not modeled in the sim and likely won't be as they are still classified. The west is more open with it's info and that is why will will not likely see a true high fidelity model of any of the later migs or su's as even basic info on things like the 29 performance are still deemed state secrets and would likely cause ED to have problems even though the west has had a bunch of them to play with and that info is available. It's more than just having the info, there are real world constraints that we often don't think about, especially here in the west were we are used to living in a much more open society with ready access to information. The bottom line is that ED have done a reasonable job on the most of the flight models even though they are not perfect, they are close enough to the published envelopes in most cases. If you want more realism, just add the essence of kerosene, vomit, and rubber to your computer area :-) g's, well that is another matter.

That will be nice as it's an inconvenience as is now.

Best advice and instruction in 3 easy steps :). I've been flying the 16 a lot and I find it not difficult at all to land. I think some folks are used to slamming down on the more forgiving aircraft. I follow the above steps, usually touching down at 160-165 kts indicated. Airbrakes out after TD, and Aero braking until nose drop at 90. I use slight differential brakes to keep it straight as the rudder becomes useless below 90 anyway and if you have non neutral rudder and apply NWS you can easily lose control and veer off the runway. What is challenging is to manage a landing with a heavy fuel load and ordnance still on the bird. The 16 has narrow landing wheels and recommended taxi speed is 15 or less...in real life....because it is tippy in turns. Also you can't slam it onto the runway like the 14 or 18 as it's landing gear is not designed for that. While having the VVI in the hud would be ok, it's not really needed and you can declutter the hud to get a better view anyway. I'll add one more piece of my 2 cents worth on the above.... -practice. One good way is to set up a little practice mission to do ILS landings. I set it up at Nellis on the NTTR map. Using the ILS is a good way to get the feel and site picture of a 3 degree approach slope. ILS is easy to set up and works fine. 109.1 at Nellis for 210 R. Overhead brakes are more challenging and require ... practice. KS

Finally broke down and bought my first heli...the Huey. Fund and different. I own most of the other modules, but decided to hold off on things that I'm not likely to fly. I like the c-101 and l-39, but I really don't see myself flying them much. Regardless, there are so many choices that I think there's something for everybody. I also picked up tacview to go with DCS as it was on sale too. Now I have another manual to read...oy veh. As to VR, many here have said it...once you do DCS in VR, you won't want to fly any other way. I gave up my trackerIR once I got the Rift-S. I know a few folks with the pixma 8k, and one fellow is waiting for the X. Regardless, the VR experience is phenomenal. Yes, there are settings that could be really affecting the performance. I use the oculus tray tool, and made some changes that let me fly at 30-40 fps in most situations. (Rift-S max is 40 fps). A good place I found with good settings is . I followed his suggestions and improved my FPS by 40-50 percent.

Bozon, You're absolutely correct. In the Sim we are limited by the pixel resolution of the hardware, and this is much lower than real life. Regardless, as someone who has sat in high speed cockpits, the reality is that you can't spot dick at high speed. Try picking out a truck while doing 550 indicated at 500 feet. Unless it's moving (eyes pick up motion) or puffing smoke, it is nearly impossible to spot. That is why there are forward combat controllers and FAC's for fast movers. They mark and indicate targets. The notion of road Recce like what was done in WWII and Korea, really has lost favour in the modern world of fast and expensive aircraft. CAS is never done with out marking or exact target info. Most CAS missions I've seen in DCS n(non WWII) are very unrealistic without JTAC or FAC or smoke to mark the targets. Hitting hangers at an airport, buildings, ships etc is in most cases pretty realistic. Even in air to air, modern aircraft are had to spot...period. Even in my time, you could spot an F-4 and a lot of the other aircraft of the era because of the dark smoke their engines produced, unless in afterburner. Closing speeds in the hundreds of knots is a case of you don't see it...you don't see it..blink it's there...you don't see it....you don't see it.... You can see this in the early scenes of TopGun where the merge happens between the f-5's and the F-14's. In real life, unless both aircraft manoeuvre to reduce the relative speeds (as in a two circle) if they keep their heading and aren't smoking, they will effectively disappear from each others view. I suspect a lot of people use labels in DCS to help spot targets that would otherwise be impossible to see given the limitations. ks

Without knowing the mathematical equation they are using to model how RCS and IR is used, anything we theorize is speculation. The detection by radar of any object is a function of size, shape, materials, atmospheric conditions, radar type of frequency and all sorts of other factors. From what I understand from a radar engineer friend of mine, the RCS's is a base number that is calculated under a standard protocol. Basically, they stick an aircraft on a tall pylon at a known distance and use a standard power on a standard radar type to come up with the published RCS. Don't ask me what those standards are. The plus side is that it would allow less biased comparisons...so doing the standard procedure on an F-4 and then on an F-16, you could reasonably make judgements on the RCS. Same goes with IR detection...what type of seeker, cooling, computing rate, etc...lots of parameters....so having a standard of 1 and comparing others to it makes sense from a modelling perspective...but is it really a measure of the real world? probably not but if the relative measures are reasonable, then the modelling, depending on how it's done, could be reflective of the real world. Fascinating topic but without real information as to how things are implemented it's really impossible to assess how realistic it is other than relative comparisons. Do you believe that aircraft A is twice as easy to detect as aircraft B? We all have our biases and those who design DCS do too. For example, the Mig 21 is small, but it has sharp edges and non radar absorbing metal surfaces so there isn't much there to stop or degrade radar reflections yet it has a relatively low RCS. Is it real or bias by the DCS programmers? I've talked to F-4 pilots who told me that the 21 wasn't hard to get on radar of the skies of vietnam...they couldn't shoot because of ROE dictating visual confirmation...but locking them up wasn't an issue. Yeah... a great topic of discussion but we may not get anywhere without knowing how this info is implemented. ks

The p-47 was remarkably sturdy and came back with punishment that would otherwise bring down other aircraft. It happened to be very good at low level attacks, being able to see targets down low. In fact, many believe that the p-47 was instrumental in stopping and decimating the 6th panzer div in the battle of the bulge. As others have said, it is a different beast to fly. Down low with high boost, any rudder input will swing you, so a fine touch is needed. On the other hand, the 8 guns tend to do a lot of damage. It's not a dogfighter like a spit or the p-51. You have to treat it as an energy fighter with zoom and boom tactics. It will accelerate quickly in a dive and you can extend from an adversary. It's a challenging aircraft to fly well.

I ran across this issue in a training mission I set up in NTTR.

Just my 2 cents worth here. I do know that to be an f-16 pilot, g-strain training is a must to qualify. I knew a tough athletic guy who would pass out at 6 g's on the centrifuge no matter what he did... just his body and couldn't do the strain. You need to strain able to sustain 9 g's for a short while to fly a 16. I'm not happy with the way the 16 is modeled in DCS either. There is a big difference between sustained and instantaneous g's. What the real f-16 can do is sustain a high g turn much longer than most other aircraft...ie doesn't bleed off energy because it has a high specific excess power. So an f-16 with two winders and two amraams, half a tank of gas , at 380-420 knots indicated should be able to sustain a 6 g turn without loosing a lot of velocity through 360 degrees in zone 5 afterburner. What I find in DCS is that it looses energy at a super high rate. Compare that to the way they modeled that mig-21... it's a killer in the sim because it doesn't seem to loose energy. In real life, the delta winged 21 looses a lot of energy in high g turns and that's why they are trained to do fast GCI and run tactics. Also in real life.the F-16 has accumulated an impressive number of kills, and can basically beat just about anything out there in a dogfight when competently flown. Mind you, an F-15 is a tough one to beat because of it's high excess energy too. The 16, with all the nonsense about the reclined seat has very good visibility, especially in a close in dogfight where you want to put your lift vector on the opponent. Seeing him is pretty useful. Compare again to the nig-21 with the clunky visibility, yet they never seem to fail to properly turn into you without loosing energy. Regardless, I'm the old fashioned type that would prefer to put a missile into somebodies face at long distance than give somebody a chance to get lucky up close. :-) ...and in spite of sounding too critical about the modelling, in fact, by in large, DCS has done a pretty good job, and I'm optimistic that they will eventually fix some of these issues. ks