Karon

Occhio solo che campagne e missioni tendono a tagliare corto. Per esempio, il departure comune ma pare fosse qualcosa come 7nm DME, 300kts, 500ft credo (son 2 anni che non volo, e le CV erano buggate a quei tempi). Peró tanti non includono il clear turn post departure, giusto per dirne una. Non credo poi che le campagne ti facciano fare cose base e fondamentali come il resync dell'AHRS dell'INS, col risultato che passi tutta la missione con BDHI e altri indicatori tutti sfalsati (il che poi influisce su navigazione, impiego armi e via dicendo - puoi controllare tu stesso dando un occhio al compass control panel quando sei in moto uniforme, non accelerato e pari quota). Questa parte dovrebbe essere in tutte le checklist dei piloti ma, come detto, raramente si trova. Tutto ció solo per dire che missioni e campagne aiutano la pratica, ma il 14, a differenza di 16, 18 e altri aerei moderni, ha bisogno di un po' di guardarsi un po' la teoria. Per fortuna c'é il manuale che copre tutte le basi. Quando hai le basi coperte trovati un RIO umano che sappia quel che sta facendo: con Jester arrivi al massimo al 20% delle potenzialitá del mezzo Non so rispondere alla domanda sul DCS. Gioco solo come RIO, ho passato poco tempo nel front seat e solo per studiarne le funzionalitá e qualcosa di bombing (btw, quando ti sarai annoiato delle solite cose, guardati un po' di toss bombing: il 14 é incredibilmente divertente, preciso e facile da usare in tal senso).

Nessuna delle due, troppi pochi tasti imo. A meno che tu voglia costruire una fedele replica del cockpit, ovviamente. Inoltre, piú tasti = piú flessiblitá quando inizierai a studiare il backseat (perché devi studiare almeno le basi del workload del "Guy in the Back", altrimenti non riuscirai mai a usare appieno nemmeno Jester). Riguardo al brand, ho Virpil dal 2017, qualche problemino a quei tempi, ma comunque un ottimo prodotto. É piú facile da trovare e meno costoso di VKB (o almeno lo era). Ottimo scelta, comunque, il 14 é il modulo meglio fatto di DCS, attualmente.

Pushed an update to Draft IV: mostly minor corrections and a few additions, taking the total to 650 pages.

No, but why wouldn't you have rudder authority to compensate for an engine dying if you're fast? I'm not an aero/mechanical engineer, so I can only guess. I supposed if you are very fast and an engine quits, the thrust becomes suddenly asymmetrical, the rudder is uncapable of maintaining the proper aircraft would "spin" out of control. At that speed, the forces in play may disintegrate the aircraft. As of why the rudder loses authority, I guess it's due to how the airflow behaves at that speeds, or perhaps it's just a matter of volume / speed in relation to the "size" of the rudder. I'd love to read a proper answer by someone competent.

This. An engine gone when you are slow is indeed a problem (AB restrictions on carrier ops for the 110 come to mind), but at least you don't implode (implode → figure of speech).

Directional stability when one engine is out. SAS and rudder cannot compensate and the jet is gone. Definitely not a lot of fun for the crew.

Passato da una 1070 a una econimica (vs 3080/3090) 6900XT e si', il cambio generazionale e' netto. A 1080p il cambio non e' tangibile: tra 100fps e 300fps, alla fine cambia poco, ma tra 20 e 60 cambia tutto. Giocando a 3440x1440 era davvero necessario. Non uso VR, preferisco monitor e panels. Non so se una 3060 sia sufficiente pero', da quanto leggo devi armati di pazienza, perche' ottimizzazione e' richiesta, e potresti necessitare di 3070 / 6800xt plus. Tbs, giusto per darti un'idea, prima la GPU diventava bottleneck and facendo dei semplici test in ME. Letteralmente: 22GB di RAM usata, GPU usage al 99% e uso CPU limitato. Ora, con questi settings, al day one ero a 60-70 fps, in qualunque condizione meteo e in server mezzi pieni (testato fino a 30+ giocatori). Simili prestazioni hostando io con due istanze di DCS, registrando e con diversi sw aperti, anche se qui e' piu' questione di RAM e CPU. Per diversi altri titoli ho anche fatto un po' di undervolt per farla lavorare di meno, limitando consumi e calore. Non ho fatto alcuna altra ottimizzazione. Il resto del PC e' stato cambiato nel 2019 con un 3900x, 64GB 3200 C16, 2x NVMe. Ho appena montato un PC cheap pensato per andare a 1080p e usando una 6600XT. Il PC precedente usava la mia vecchia 1070 e il salto in termini di FPS e' anche qui netto. Tutto sta nel dimensionare i componenti in funzione di cosa vuoi fare.

I'm really looking forward to these versions (old cat, best cat!). It's unfortunate, albeit very understandable, that those are not a priority. Perhaps after the F-4!

The quality of those videos is quite rubbish, I can't read much on the TID, nor the BDHI or the servo. It'd much easier if you were able to provide clearer videos, mate. Even better, a Tacview track along them. I think I understood something only from the second video. The contact is datalinked, 30nm, but it does not come up on the radar. I think it's a "1" next to it? I can't read the servo, but you are way above the clouds, I guess you are at almost 40A? It looks 38A (can't read the QNH either)? The TID seems to be looking down a few degrees, and I assume TWS ±20. I think I read a -0.8 at some point? It's hard to tell what is an artifact, due to the low resolution and bitrate, and what isn't. If all my assumptions are correct, 4B cover only ±10k, and the target was simply too low to be seen by your radar. Your RIO\you should have lowered the antenna to -9.3° to spot it directly. I really, really hope I'm wrong. Nevertheless, the contact seemed to disappear, but it also did not appeared on F10 map when you looked at it. How was it set in the mission editor? through the last decade I saw weird things when it was set to SA (albeit rarely). I noticed another contact, far, fading then disappearing NW of your position, at -37", but that's definitely not the contact on your TID. Another curious thing I noticed during your turn, is that the contact was zero cut all they way through. That's not possible (unless it turned, and I don't see it due to the low quality). If a contact comes and goes from the DL, there can be a ton of causes (e.g: A or C? Who is the source? Altitude, distance and aspect rel the awacs? Saturation?) but again, I can't see much in your link. Being feet wet does not mean anything, you are not LPRF. The first video sounded more interesting, but I can't read anything. If it happens again, please zoom in onto the TID, servo and BDHI at least and attach a tacview track. I guess we are all happy to review more videos, but they have to be readable :)

No mate, sorry.

It never worked, I ended up using DCS-BIOS. There are (or there were, at least) several other functions with similar issues. At some point, they'll sort them out. In the meantime, you try fiddling with the luas. Perhaps someone else fixed it already.

Parallel to the book, I planned to make a series of short videos aiming to visualize concepts that otherwise would be hard to understand. The first of the these videos was released 7 months ago, and it's about the DDD in Pulse Doppler mode. I released the second yesterday, this time the topic is the synchronisation of the computed magnetic variation in case of carrier operations. More will follow (spare time allowing).

We're definitely going OT here, I'd recommend opening a thread in the section I mentioned above To quickly answer: 1- a 3x3 matrix gives you 9 buttons using 6 pins, so it's advantageous; 2- the sketch you posted works with the Serial Monitor, showing different messages depending on what you do with the encoder. You need to include the appropriate libraries and define the correct variables. Start by using a firmware that already does this (there are plenty around, give me a shout if you can't find any): most of the time, all you need to do is assigning the correct pins to some variables.

Arduino, at least for this basic stuff, is coded in a C-like language. This is my firmware for the TACAN (I'm not sure is the latest version): https://www.dropbox.com/s/i8q8bldvpbt2sv7/F-14_TACAN_v03d.ino?dl=0 I never fully finished it, and it's quite rushed as usual, but it gives you an idea of how simple coding for Arduino is (as long as you're at least a bit familiar with C). It uses a mix of DCS-BIOS to get the status and HID to send them out, so it works with any module, but it synchronizes automatically only with the F-14 (video). The code for basic control panels without DCS-BIOS is much simpler. This is an example: 6 encoders + a 3x3 button matrix. It was my second box: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fP0zBfWA0Za_0PwWI5mQybGBSFTfvLGQ/view All you need to do is changing the pin arrangement, upload the firmware, and you're set. The video you linked talks about Arduino Uno. Leonardo has ad hoc libraries that really simplifies your life. Generally speaking, you just need to include the libraries via the usual directives: #include <Keypad.h> #include <Joystick.h> Then you play with the buttons by accessing them directly (after initializing the variables, ofc). For example, the following lines activate and deactivates a joystick input after 100ms. Joystick.setButton(0,1); delay(100); Joystick.setButton(0,0); If you look in other sections of this forum, you can find people way more dedicated and smarter than me that did really impressive works.

Hi @skypickle, way too kind What do you mean with "dials"? Rotary encoders or potentiometers? I'd use the encoders if I were you, and if you have a spare pin, you can create a "master switch" to duplicate all the functions. In other words, if an encoder commands HID_joystick_button 0 and HID_joystick_button 1, you can very easily have it check the Master switch and output HID_joystick_button 2 and 3, rather than the previous. De facto, you'd have a total of 12*4 buttons, rather than 12*2. It's just a matter of simple coding. Actually, one of my first boxes uses a 3-way latched master switch, so each rotary encoder controls 9 logical functions (CW, CCW, Pushbutton *3). Btw, I don't think you can have more than 8 or 9 encoders on a plain Arduino Leonardo board. You'd need a button matrix (but it is not recommended for the encoders - I never tried myself) or a port extended to have more. You can have as many Leonardo as you want, just change the PID and the VID. Have a look here. I never heard of teensy tbh. Background: ages ago I used to work with PICs, developing in assembly devices for automation. Fast-forward to present day, I wanted to see if those PICs were able to handle HID, but it was a bad idea. I then found Raspberry and Arduino, and chose the latter. It's incredibly easy to work with, it had the library I wanted, so it was a solid and easy option. I just looked a bit more into teensy. If they have a Joystick/HID library already, then it is worth a shot, especially if they have more I/O ports. I buy most of my knobs and pots via Amazon UK because I have no patience and I love the same-day delivery, although they cost at least 20%-30% more than other stores EDIT - I forgot to add: plan everything on paper first. For instance, this is one of the sketches I made long before I even ordered the necessary components. Scale is 1:1 - More here.

Freshly released: The banter is fantastic, this is one of my favourite episodes. I recommend the part when they talked about notching at the AWG-9 (~58'). I spit my coffee at "It looks like it missed a frame"

Fourth Public Draft released. Post updated with the link to the article (or just click here ).

I tested a couple of dozens of launches. I, personally, haven't seen anything odd. However, a friend sent me a video yesterday and the guidance indeed did not make any sense: the 54s behaves in a matter I have seen before only when testing long-range shots (when for long range I mean 150nm). I guess we can only wait for a better implementation of the guidance. If, eventually, we AWG-9/Phoenix duo will acquire the features they are still missing, the wait will be well worth it.

The '54 is not in its final implementation, the devs repeated it I don't know how many times. Nevertheless, it won't go back to how it was recently because it was over performing. In fact, the 54 we have now it's not too different from the one we got in 2019, besides at low altitude or high TA and the cheesy follow-up in PSTT when notched. About modern scenarios, the F-14 is perfectly capable, but you need to work a little more to achieve a kill. Btw, I just realized that the AWG-9 is operative since 1962. That's 60 years of service, assuming the Iranians still have working AWG-9s. Impressive.

Thanks folks! I originally wanted to build a 1:1 replica of the backseat, but then it would have lost its flexibility (atm I can swap panels or have additional MFDs in 30"). Moreover, I used to live in tiny flats until recently (Londoners will understand), so the whole setup is designed to be removed quickly and sit comfortably on a couple of shelves. @WhiteRabbit: your setup looks much better than mine. The armament panel is terrific, well done! I wanted to upgrade some features, but many keybinds are missing, and the F-4 is coming. I'd rather wait and build something that works on both. Speaking of mouse, I can't get to it, and it kind of kills my immersion. Hence the number of functions and the size of the panel @DeltaMike: about his: > So the challenge is to operate the radar essentially blind, with a minimum amount of fumbling around. Once you have a panel set and done, it's all muscle memory. The advantage of building your panel is that you can configure it as you please. For instance, if you are a VR user, you can use different sets of button caps: e.g. square/round/nipple/round/square on each side. By feeling the different shapes, you can immediately understand which function you are about to action. The flexibility factor is even increased when you write the firmware. Take this little box: It commands 121 joystick buttons with a simple and plain Arduino Leonardo by doubling the number of functions with a sort of master switch that sends different HID outputs depending on its position. Other examples are the rotary encoders to select the TID modes or the waypoints, or the master arm that flips the cover at the same time. Your imagination is the only limit

Yup, I built a bunch of panels. Besides the last 4 dreaded encoders, I built it between 2018 and 2019. It's not fancy, it's meant to be as flexible, reliable and cheap as possible. It looks rubbish because it was built without a proper plan in mind until the release of the F-14. But then I did not have enough time to re-do some of the older boxes. What you are asking can be done with 15/25£ top if you have patience. It mostly depends on which buttons, switches and encoders you want to use. In fact, there are many ways to do a sensor CP replica. The simplest, if you can live with temporary switches, is using a bunch of encoders along a quite big button matrix: easy to build, wire and the coding is straightforward. Besides that, you need an enclosure, hand drill and soldering iron. To give you an idea, my entire panel block, RAF Jaguar TACAN excluded, is probably 150-200£ hardware-wise. Probably less, depending on where you buy (it's the time invested and the coding that would drastically increase the cost of it). I can't comment on the link you posted, but if you can live with a much less refined enclosure and labels, it's probably around 10-15$, material-wise (time of building and coding excluded). I forgot to turn on the 8" LDC on this one

Ah, don't hyperbolize my hyperbole, chief After having read several dozens bios and memoir, I can say that most of the books written by crews are brilliant and enjoyable, but sometimes you run into that book in which the author tries that little bit too much (euphemism), breaking the whole experience, at least for me. For example, Bruce Gordon (Spirit of Attack) vs Ed Macy (Apache, Hellfire) vs Dan Hampton (Viper Pilot): I loved the first, sometimes raised an eyebrow with the second (especially after reading Madison's book), but I never managed to finish the third. De gustibus. Thanks for the suggestion, I just ordered the book. £12 used and delivered in a couple of days

I try to avoid accounts of pilots as they have the tendency of quickly becoming somewhat pompous and exaggerated, and those books are written for the general audience with zero aviation background. Therefore, the best books imo are the ones that spend some time diving into the procedures and the technical details. A good example is "Per Ardua", by Gledhill (Nav) and Keeble (pilot). Another good book is Sierra Hotel : Flying Air Force Fighters In The Decade After Vietnam, but it's an entirely different type of book (it's not a bio). I'm using them book a lot as sources and inspirations. If you find book that are technical details and procedures for the majority, please ping me

I did back that project. 40$ for two modules, Normandy map and asset pack was a good deal. Probably too good. I think Shevchenko massively underestimated the difficulties of developing for DCS vs Il2. The campaign would have more success nowadays, probably. Back then, DCS had numerous issues MP-wise, which didn't really help. Now that the F-4 is coming, the Tornado is probably the only remaining aircraft in my DCS-bucket-list. I'd bring some needed variety and fresh air. I am not sure why we are discussing it here though (although the mods can move or merge it, if they think it's not useful)

TL;DR. Correct me if I'm wrong: the '54 was overperforming in certain conditions, to compensate for the WIP guidance; further adjustments drifted the issue our of the acceptable behaviour; the rocket motor performance has been reduced, and the '54 is similar to the expected when flying more or less straight, but the old guidance makes it a brick when turning. Did I miss anything? If this is the problem, it's actually a non-issue, solvable ad interim by: working your geometry to reduce the acceptable TA further; cutting your timeline by 5nm. even better, playing in early 80s scenarios, where everyone has AIM-7s at best. +100 cool factor