Notso

FTFY.

Just so there is no confusion, the Laser designator and the IR marker are both lasers but are in a different wavelength and power band. The Laser designator is a much higher power laser that is NOT eye-safe and is used for ranging and weapons guidance. It is invisible to the naked eye and the IR target pod. There are some special sensors that can see a laser designator, but nothing that is modeled in DCS. The IR Marker is visible only through night vision goggles or Low Light TV cameras (which are not currently modeled in DCS to my knowledge). The IR marker, as the name implies, is used only for visual (NVG) marking of a target at night. It cannot be used for any sort of weapon guidance. Think of the IR marker as exactly like a handheld visible laser you might use in a classroom to put a red dot on something to point something out, except that the IR marker is invisible to the naked eye because its in the near IR spectrum - somewhere between visible light and the true IR spectrum that the TGP operates in. A laser spot tracker (LST) searches for a high power Laser designator band on a specific PRF. For instance, if a JTAC or another aircraft is lasing a target and you want to find that spot - you can use the LST function to search for the specific PRF and then lock onto it. But you never “see” the laser itself, just the HUD or TGP indications of where the spot is.

You are correct that large simulation companies do all of what you describe above as the end to end process is generally (but not always) under their control. However, you are missing the point of what I was discussing. I very clearly was talking about Features & capabilities not hardware or SW bug fixes. Of course any Sim company is going to have to issue patches to address glitches caused by many issues out of their control. But what I’m talking about is the slow drip of features and capabilities released over time. Imagine if Boeing sold their simulator of the new 777X aircraft to United or American but the Flight model was a WIP, the Cockpit FMS was incomplete with “buttons to be added later” labels, and the autopilot was not exactly the way it was supposed to be. But the promise was that these would be added over time. I doubt that would go over well. So again, I get that ED is not a Boeing or Airbus or Raytheon and they have a different business model. I’m in no way criticizing their choices for how they develop and market their products. This thread was simply asking the customers of that product which they would prefer. To wait longer for a product to have all the features and aircraft capabilities included all at once at release or to get a partial solution sooner and get the features added along the way? That’s all.

I used zip ties to mount the cable to the back of the chair so that there was enough play in the cable to move my head around without the cable getting stuck behind my back or get in the way in general. Worked well.

I have a bit and that’s very likely a better solution that trying to get a UFC. How well does it work? Are the finger controllers awkward to wear while still using the HOTAS controls?

A typical G-warmup exercise would usually involve a 90 deg hard turn up to about 6Gs and then a 180 deg turn with an initial 7-8 G and then sustained at about 4-5G through the rest of the turn. It’s usually done before BFM, ACM or ACT fight, so its accomplished at the typical fight altitude - I.e. 15-20K feet. To start, fly straight and level and then in Mil power, push over to accelerate to Corner velocity and then execute a level hard turn (not break turn) with AB as required to maintain about 4 Gs. At the 90 deg point, unload and roll out. Climb back up to your starting altitude. Once level, push over again and accelerate to corner velocity in Mil. Once at Corner vel, execute a break turn in the opposite direction to achieve an instantaneous 7-8G+ in Full AB and then back off the pull to sustain a 4G descending turn until the 180 deg point. Unload, roll out and climb back to the starting altitude for your BFM engagements. The G warmup serves two purposes. Mainly to get your body warmed up and see how you’re performing that day, get the blood pumping, etc. But it also gets your body and hands to be able to feel the jet and refresh yourself on how to break turn and then manage energy throughout the turn while G-straining.

Correct. For instance, as an example it you have a bandit that is on your nose with a Head aspect and you change your heading by 30 degrees - the bandit is still a head aspect. Now over time, if the bandit does not change its heading - the TA will eventually start changing.

I’m contemplating building a small VR cockpit that would be generic enough to use for the A-10C, Viper and Hornet. I have the seat, HOTAS and the Cougar MFD packs (2x so 4 total), so planning to mount three MFD’s to be able to use the buttons in VR with some muscle memory practice. Does any one make a UFC that would also be suitable for this build? I’m not sure if a UFC would work well in VR since its a bit more complicated button pushing than the MFDs, but I’m tempted to see if there is any utility in it. TIA.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.... Cluster munitions have various fuzing options to determine when the release the submunitions. The most common is a simple time setting after release. Once the arming wire is pulled a countdown timer starts (like 2, 4, 6 sec etc) and at the end, the clamshell opens. So mission planning is intensive to release at the correct altitude to get the correct effects. The other way is a proximity fuze in the nose which is a little mini-radar altimeter. At a predetermined height (essentially AGL) its opens the dispenser. To my knowledge there are no barometric fuzes, because if you think about it - it would make it super hard to employ against different targets due to the terrain changes as well as the ability to set the correct altimeter. I can’t say for sure how DCS mechanizes them, but I can’t imagine baro is what they use.

It's tempting to get the Xtal. My main concern (other than $$$) is can a high end mortal PC even run it, or do you need a room full of Cray computers to have a hope of getting smooth frame rates?

Exactly. Also, I still don't understand what the need for the tanker's airspeed is? Is it to be able to do a better rejoin? If so, you have speed and closure rate info available on the Radar and HUD. If its to stay in position on the boom - then you're doing it wrong. If you're looking at your speed trying to match the tankers while trying to connect or stay connected, you're definitely doing it wrong.

I'm getting it intermittently on SP since I upgraded to 2.5.6. Its usually there about every other time I load DCS. I'm going back to 2.5.5 as I've had nothing but problems with the new SW load and the performance has been worse.

Ha, I wondered if anyone would pick up on that. ;)

Height above the Target (distance from the ground).

So is reprojection ON or OFF recommended for VR with the Reverb? What does it actually do? And just to be clear since I'm not tech savvy.... there is no on or off button for reprojection, right? It can only be changed by editing the settings code? I cringe whenever I have to go in and edit stuff like that because I don't want to screw something up in the rest of the code.

No, that's not at all what I said. Choice #1 is what ED currently does.... Release module at day 1 at a 50% state or less and then release patches/updates/new features every 2-6 weeks over the next 1-2 years. In other words, it's in a constant state of change. Choice 2 - Module released on day 1 and is mostly complete and nothing changes at all for a year or more unless there is a patch required to fix a serious bug.

Yes it can be done and is a viable method of LGB delivery IRL. Its not often used but aircrew do practice the technique. Here's a scenario where it would likely be used: You're flying a wheel above a target area and you see something down on the ground that meets the ROE. But you have no coordinates to get the TGP onto it. Rather than slewing the pod around hoping to find it, you roll in in CCIP with the Pod slaved to the pipper with the laser already firing, pickle on the target, execute a safe escape maneuver while keeping the crosshairs on the target and KABOOM. Target is now pink mist. It's a much faster way of delivering LGBs on fleeting targets of opportunity if time is a factor. It's absolutely doable, but it's a varsity move. Having said that, in the current iteration of how the F-16 and Hornet are mechanized in DCS, this is a really difficult task and the DCS systems are not working correctly as they would be in the real aircraft. IRL, as soon as you pickle in CCIP with the TGP slaved to the Pipper - the TGP crosshair would then "stick" to the point on the ground where the pipper designated the target and would stay there during the jets post release maneuvering. The pilot would then hopefully only need to make small corrections of the crosshair during the TOF. I don't know exactly how the Hornet really works, but I assume this would also be the case. However, in DCS as someone said above - you would have to trick f*$k the HOTAS to switch back to CCRP or something after release to get TGP onto the target. So in DCS, I would say not to bother unless you just want to play around with it for shiggles.

I have the Hornet, the A-10 and the F-16..... I currently fly the Viper almost exclusively now and I don't regret buying it. Don't get me wrong, I like the other two, but the F-16 is just fun to fly and more than capable of doing lots of stuff even in its current unfinished state.

I was pondering the other day about how ED releases modules into a Beta stream for public use and then adds features/systems over time. It seems an unusual business model in the aviation simulation world but I think I understand their reasoning. I'll get to that later. I don't know how other "gaming" companies release similar products, but in the actual flight simulation world, a product would be developed for a year or more and then released pretty much feature complete. And then there would be a development cycle where any updates would be released on a 12-18 month cycle unless there was something really wrong with the functioning of the sim. I recently worked for a major global aviation simulator company and this was their and most of the industry's model. Again this thread is in no way a critique of ED's business model - they have their reasons for how and why they release their modules the way they do. A small company like ED likely needs the income stream from numerous releases to keep going and to be able to fund the improvements we all seek. Whereas a large corporation would have the capital to sit on a new release until it was good to go and feature complete. But my question to the group is: In a perfect world, which way would you prefer to see modules released? Would you prefer: 1. The current method of release where you get modules sooner to play with, beta test it, and new features are added or upgraded con a pretty much constant basis? Or 2. Get a more complete module (but likely not 100% or perfect) at initial release and then changes are much slower - like a year or more before any new features are added and usually a large change all at once. There certainly is no right answer. #1 gets product to market sooner, but is always in a state of constant change. #2 takes MUCH longer to arrive but is mostly ready to go with very slow changes after release. I think some here LOVE being beta testers and like the idea of being able to influence the direction a particular module goes with their input. While others just want to get in and fly and have it be mostly correct for day 1. I'm sort of in between the 2 camps. I'm just curious where the rest of you guys and gals fall. Edit to add: I know this should have been a poll, but was unsure how to set that up.

Totally agree. And in a perfect world, the modules would be released on day 1 with 100% of the features that the real jets have, be fully tested and have no bugs. However, DCS obviously doesn't work that way - so given that systems and features come out in dribs and drabs and improve slowly over time - I would much rather see stuff that is absolutely essential to the other 99% of daily ops get worked on and finished first. Now if the F-15E that is about to be released any day now doesn't come with a fully functioning APG-70 with SAR mapping - I'll be REALLY pissed. :smilewink:

I would further add that A/G radar is not insignificant in the combat fight in current gen Ops. But its been offloaded mostly to other platforms such as the RQ-4, MQ-9 and JSTARS. Their ability to offer persistent radar coverage, along with other sensors, gives targeting information to the strikers - i.e. the bombers and fighters. So the SAR strip maps that the ISR platforms gather to see change detection and such will get passed to the planners who then build the strike packages for the fighters to execute. As KlarSnow correctly said, the single seat fighters in the Mid 2000's (that DCS is modeled on) would use those offboard collection platforms to be able to strike their targets using GPS and TGP. The chances of them using their onboard radars to find, fix, target, track engage and assess (F2T2EA) is remote at best. Sorry, but it is what it is. If ED had driven the stake in the ground in the mid 90s as the evolution of their F-16c and F/A-18C modules....... you might have had a case for the need for A/G radar functionality. Again, please don't get me wrong - I think in terms of absolute technical realism of the modules, this is absolutely a capability/feature that should be modeled in a perfect world. But in terms of priority of things that need to get done, I would place it far down the list.

Yep.

There are several newer ones out there. Google "F-16 3-3 manual". Some are even block 50/52 specific.

I was just having a bit of a laugh. Yes, the concepts are roughly the same and as a beginners manual to the concepts, its fine.

No, I didn't say that they would "never" be used, I said rarely. And in a totally degraded GPS environment where both Nav and weapons delivery were degraded to the point of unusable - YES they would just go home until they could overcome the issue. That is the reality of today's tech. That's why most militaries have dumped Billions of $$ into anti-jamming, anti-spoofing tech so they can continue to fight in a degraded GPS environment. Its very unlikely we would be going back to low level Nav using a RBM and slinging MK-84s off a radar fix. They just don't train to that anymore. Even by the mid-2000s, that was a skill that was rarely used if ever in single seat fighters like the F-16/18 etc. Even the Mudhen by that point was not often using its amazing SAR radar capability for targeting much or training to a low level TFR ingress in IMC. Just saying.