Karon

See if this helps mate: https://flyandwire.com/2018/11/08/exporting-avionics-to-secondary-monitor/ You just need to edit a couple lines in the lua file and a bit of velcro :)

A quick note: if you break lock and leave as you launch, the WCS loses guidance, the AIM-54 stops lofting and you are likely to miss unless the target is quite close and non-manoeuvring.

Occhio a quale cartella in /saved games é in uso, soprattutto se fate un fork delle installazioni e poi usate cmd prompt per passare da OB→Stable e viceversa. In questo caso, IIRC, la cartella in /saved games rimane la stessa e puó creare conflitti e altri problemi. C'é un modo per assegnare cartelle diverse ma al momento non ricordo dove si definisca.

Your initiative is commendable but I don't think that a forum is the best platform to do that, unless you keep track of the IDs of the posts and add a summary at post#1. Unfortunately, post by post, the content gets spread. A wiki-like framework would be better I guess (that's why I opened a website btw, although I'm not happy about the blog format). Have you thought about contacting ED's wiki or Hoggit's wiki staff? My technique is simply pressing one of both resets. We know exactly where the antenna is pointing and I fairly remember how much I turned the knobs due to muscle memory. Nevertheless, resetting is much faster. This solution came automatically before the first flight, when I mapped my controls, it sounded the easiest and fastest. Personally, I prefer to bang my head on the problem until I solve it, if I'm asking, it's because I really hit the bottom of my documentation and I haven't found a solution. By doing this I always learn something new and I'm sure I remember how I fixed my issue (which is great because my memory skills suck. No really, I'm terrible!). I actually love HB's manual, it's the one I prefer the most so far: it's clear, concise, web-based. There are some inconsistencies here and there but nothing too weird. I prefer it over any 3rd party guide to the point that I was thinking to write one myself exclusively for the RIO, but I decided it's not necessary. I understand what you mean about the time, we're in the same boat. But for me, reading the manual 2-3 times and testing works much better than using 3rd party guides because the latter often lacks those tiny details that sometimes make the difference. Unicuique suum (to each one his own) :)

I don't mean to be rude, on the contrary, but I don't see the problem to be fair: the details of the knobs are in the manual. It says how much they can be turned and there are buttons to recentre them. Therefore, if you can't adjust the altitude with finer thumbwheel anymore, simply reset it, compensate with the "wider" knob (left of your left knee) and that's it. With time, this will become second nature. About the TWS, if you have done a good job centering the antenna, then just keep the target in the cone. The only issue is cranking: if the pilot turns hard (in AoB terms), then the target may leave the cone unless you compensate for its altitude. If you have done some tests to understand how the WCS works (this is a 10 months old article, but still applicable), you know this is not a real issue unless you are employing at massive ranges, where every bit of loft and thrust are necessary. To give you a better idea, behold my LibreOffice skills! :D As I said, spend one of two dozen hours testing in every scenario you can think of, you will probably run into the vast majority of the issues that the RIO has to face. Note these issues down, then try to solve them. If you can't after checking the manual and trying everything you can think of, come here and let's discuss them :)

Even the ability of taking simple screenshots (somewhat "watermarked" or framed and with info such as latlongs and so on) would be amazing to add even more variety.

RWS, wide and high, splitting the airspace in half horizontally with my wingman to build SA and have a good "view" of the area (sanitization). For the elevation, I use my model, it works fine to get the elevation of the target having range and ΔAltitude. Recently HB added a dedicated kneeboard page as well IIRC. Tips and tricks, well, we can spend a day here discussing them, and we would be nowhere near the end of the list. So I'd start with your issues. What have you studied and what issues did you run into so far? The greatest advices I can give you are: read the manual 2-3 time thoroughly at least then test, test, test. Spend as much time as possible setting up scenarios with the ME and do your tests and learn. Active pause is a great tool but don't use it for too long (it messes up the INS, unless they fixed it) so, for instance, set up an orbiting target, study how it changes in the DDD and TID, when and how to counter if and when it disappears.

I'm making a simplified Fuel consumption model for my site, I'm particularly interested in the effect of weight and DI and how these factors affect the flight performance. I started with a standard CAP loadout (4xAIM-54, 2xAIM-7, 2xAIM-9, 2xFT, Gun - CFG A), then I tried the same loadout but with empty bags (CFG C) and the results are unexpected. For the sake of testing, I copied the original loadout but reduced the amount of internal fuel (CFG D) to match the weight of the test with empty bags. So, what's the issue here? Well, it looks like that the empty bags require a higher fuel flow to match the same performance. The last test instead is close to the original but requires a bit less juice to fly, due to the lower weight. I didn't have time to double check some odd results, although quite a number of interesting things came out from these tests. This is the loadout I tested. As you can see, nothing fancy:

I spent hundreds of hours studying, learning and researching the DCS F-14B, the entirety of my spare time for months for my blog. This wouldn't be possible without having an almost feature-complete EA. I felt a bit burnt out at some point and this just a hobby for me, not my job! Therefore, I'm very happy about you taking time off, it's something so needed yet so often neglected :)

About issue #2; it sounds odd to me, it did work some 3-4 weeks ago when I was collecting stuff for a TTP: I did noticed though that A/A mode, SLAVE to RDR mode must be both set before locking with the TCS, otherwise the cue on the HUD is not shown.

It's intuitive, I tested the various combinations. I guess some aren't fully implemented yet (or were bugged, see time to WP) or need some additional work, hence they haven't been included in the manual yet. Long story short, the criterium is what is hook (or not hooked): target, wp, own aircraft.Depending on that, you have, for instance, by pressing [4] the reading shows your altitude, hooked contact's altitude or WP's. Have fun with the bearing! ;)

No, not at all. I have the maps but I flew the Ka-50 from 2008 to 2019, right until the early access of the F-14. I have a couple more modules though, I bought them on discount/pre-sale (the F/A-18C for instance is the ultimate module: it does everything basically, CV included). I bought BS1 on day-1, then the upgrade and than BS2. That's basically the same module for 11 years. My point is: don't waste your money. It take months (years if you totally new to flying) to learn a module very well, unless you can invest an incredible amount of time in it (and wife/sons/work usually prevent that). The avionics has tons of secondary features that the guides online usually won't tell you that can be real game changers during a mission (therefore start with the manual, read it a few times). As well as minor details of the flight model that allow you to push a little bit further a break a stall, win a dogfight or save your virtual skin. So take your time, don't rush, enjoy learning and studying :) Maps are a different topic. I have all of them, all but PG bought them on sale. Normandy, I was a backer, so I got 2 modules, asset pack, map for 40$ or 50$. You can do everything on the free, base map. It good and offers different scenarios, from the sea to very high peaks. Unless your friends constantly fly in a different map, don't bother for now and save money for a decent HOTAS/TrackIR/VR/whatever you prefer. If you really want to get a map, PG is the best in terms of size and popularity.

I can't wait for the NAVGRID as well. At the moment is quite easy to eyeball it but lacks precision over long distances.

Skip the masses, get the module you think you will enjoy. For instance, if you are into helicopters, get a RW module (Ka-50, Mi-8, etc). If you look for CAS only, go for the A-10. Something faster? Harrier, for instance. If you want a fighter, start by something like the Mirage. The ultimate module, for capabilities, weapons and different experience (CV ops) is probably the Hornet (some core functions are still WIP). The F-14 is an amazing module, you will spend some hundreds hours learning the FM as a pilot but eventually you're going to need a human RIO to reach the peak of this module. RIO-wise, the manual has all the info you need to start, the rest is practice, especially offline. The manual also links some of Jabbers' videos. If you want more videos, Spiceman (CVW-11 IIRC) has done a long and in-depth overview video about the backseat. RedKite has done some as well.I did some tests and basic things about the RIO too, feel free to check them. Google definitely provides many more sources on the matter.

Oh boy this forum.. I used to post a lot, then I gave up. This thread though.. damn.. DCS, as LOMAC before it, has always had some issues when it comes to missiles. I am amazed every time someone comes up comparing RL and DCS on this matter, especially if the user is a long time follower of this forum. Anyway, let's debunk a couple of the most odd comments. In primis no, the missile is not magic (desync and DCS bugs aside), energy-wise is very inefficient because it pulls random Gs in at least three steps of its envelope (departure, end of the loft, pitbull). It would perform better otherwise. Nevertheless, its rocket motor is massive and if you are silly enough to fly head-on buster towards a F-14, you can be hit even at 80nm and more. Fly flanking or beaming, and you cut that range in half at least (AKA build your SA Part I). Actually, if you notch a 30nm+ range shot and the RIO doens't know his job, the missile will simply fall from the sky harmless. In secundis it's not immune to chaffs, on the contrary! It chases the rabbit happily enough and very often. 90% of the complaints come from people that try to notch the missile by notching.. the AWG-9! The angle between the pitbull AIM-54 and you and the AWG-9 and you is different, sometimes both on the horizontal and the vertical plane! There's no way you are notching both when the missile goes active, you are simply doing it wrong (AKA build your SA Part II)! Morever, the AWG-9 can be fooled very easily, increasing drastically the workload of the RIO. Learn how to do it. In tertiis, again, stop comparing real life and a videogame. DCS is a good sim but real performance numbers are not always available, math models have their limits as the coders and the game environment. Not to mention the fact that missiles are not always fired to score a kill but to reach a tactical objective. In a MP scenario, you also have packet loss, LAG and so on. I agree that the current missile representation can be improved (can't wait for ED to give access to the missiles code to HB) but learn to take what comes. DCS is not meant to be fair or balanced (we'd have a MiG31 and its Rusky Phoenix at least -I would love it!-, if that were the case). If you want balance out of the box, probably you are playing the wrong game. Finally, PK does mean absolutely nothing. It's a marketing number with no sense if you don't know the parameters of the launches. It's like saying that the F/A-18 is rubbish because one has been killed during one of the Gulf Wars (I don't remember which one) and no F-15s have been lost. It doesn't make any sense. Since I believe only in facts and numbers, I spent weeks testing the AIM-54 in a controlled environment. Eventually I fired more than 3000 of those and I have a pretty good idea of how they work. I posted my consideration, why and how the AIM-54 is unrealistic and what can be changed in the last part of my AIM-54 PK model. Speaking on Discord, reddit and other places, the most common errors of people that complains is the lack of understanding of how a FOX3 work, hence they notch the wrong source and, even worse, they have zero SA, so they don't even pretend to change the geometry of the engagement to turn it to their advantage. Not to mention that none of them has spent time learning how to defeat the F-14 and the AIM-54. For instance, I recently did a BVR practice test with F/A-18s from my Virtual Wing. They got hit from 80nm at the very first launch, not expecting such a massive range, then immediately adapted, improved and eventually defeated the next AIM-54s (stream, debriefing, tacview and analysis are on my youtube channel). So stop complaining, study, learn, adapt and play according to your strengths. You will succeed eventually.

Thank you folks! :)

I can read thanks. I also know, by having seen lots and lots of F-14 with full human crew dying in really bad ways, that starting in a calmer environment is much more productive (yet, of course, less exciting). I didn't know I had to ask your permission to share an advice out of my experience to avoid a possible source of frustration, but thanks for letting me know :thumbup:

EDIT: scratch that, "unlucky" testing environment :S EDIT2: sorted. I did an elementary-school level vector operation wrong and there's no way to prove a thesys with wrong hipotesis. Dumb *facepalm*

I think I'm close, it's a matter of angles and vectors. It's getting much simpler by applying basic trigonometry.

If you need to learn the RIO seat, I strongly suggest the ME. You can create any situation possible and take your time to experiment and learn.

1. No, I don't think so. Often the two tracks overlap (you even see it in my pics). Moreover, locally compensating for the HDG Delta is quite easy and I'm definitely not smarter than Grunman engineers. I can imagine is a degradation caused by loss of tracking updates or something else. Almost like the TCN issues I asked about in this forum some weeks ago. 2. I don't follow you. Target V here: https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/rio16-tid-vv-mission3-circle-test.jpeg in a few seconds won't be hdg neither NE or SW. I hold to my observation about the possible course yet independent from ΔV (which is bound to the norm of the vector).

Yep, old bug. Same as many other binds either missing or broken. They'll fix them eventually.

This is kind of embarassing, but I have an issue or two with the TID. 1. DL / AWG-9 Discrepancies Sometimes the tracks don't match at all. I have found a number of issues for that. For instance the AWG-9 track is not updated (notch / ZDF). This is affects target seen in PD when the MLC is off. Example: Are there other reasons why DL and AWG-9 tracks do not match sometimes? 2. DL / AWG-9 Aircraft stabilized Velocity Vectors I waste a week on this stuff. So, the VV module is: ΔV=VF14-Vtgt. If the target is faster, the module is negative, resulting in it "piercing" through the IFF symbol. EG: VF14=430kts; Vtgt=200kts. ΔV=430-200=230kts VF14=200kts; Vtgt=400kts. ΔV=200-400=-200kts Up to here, nice and easy. The problem is the heading of the velocity vector. I don't understand it. So, this is my scenario: ME: https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/rio16-tid-vv-mission1.jpeg DDD: https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/rio16-tid-vv-mission1-ddd.jpeg Ground Stab: https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/rio16-tid-vv-mission1-tid.jpeg Aircraft Stab: https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/rio16-tid-vv-mission1-tid-aircraft-stab.jpeg Then, I turned 30° to the right and the mess started. This is a sketch that explains the situation: This is the situation post turn. I wrote down MC and BRG of each target: Interesting fact here, target II was notching (it's shown because I toggle the MLC off) and target V is missing due to ZDF (wasted speed during the turn, it later popped up as soon as ΔV > ZDF). And this is where I lost it. How come that tgt II and V basically look the same (module excluded)? One is going SW, the other NW. I then decide to make the test even more complex by adding a full circle of targets: The only in common I see is that if the LS is decreasing, then the VV points towards the F-14. Or, actually, if the BH put us in a possible collision course then it points towards the F-14. In other words, if 180<Δ(F14_HDG-TGT_HDG)<360 then the VV points towards the F-14. Does it make any sense? EDIT: I've found another way to explain my theory: If hdg-wise (only hdg, no speed) we are on a collision course, then the VV points toward the F-14. Then will be norm of the vector to dictate if the collision can happen or not. Better?

Hey folks, I put together a study of the current implementation of the AIM-54A Mk60 and AIM-54C Mk47. It took me a while, but I finally completed most of the tests, for a total of 3360 AIM-54 fired. I plan to do some more tests later on to offer a better representation of the PK model, at the moment relied to a series of histograms. I am aware of the fact that the current implementation is not realistic due to a number of reasons and I have mentioned such issues in my articles multiple times: from the amount energy wasted by the Phoenix in different moments, to the fact that it goes pitbull automatically. I look forward to seeing Heatblur finally getting access to the code and implementing a more realistic representation of the missile as soon as possible. Imo, what we have is a good compromise but of course we would all want the best and more realistic representation possible. Nevertheless, this is how the current AIM-54 works in a number of different scenarios. I organized the tests to cover specific situations rather than being homogeneous. The first article introduces the modus operanti and each criterium I followed. Introduction Low Altitude The Altitude Factor Medium and Long Range I'm tempted to leave a TL;DR version here but there are simply too many things to consider and talk about. You may find some errors here and there, unfortunately the spare time is never enough so I tend to rush. Feel free to point them out! Lastly, a big thanks to HB for creating what is, imo, the best experience DCS can offer :)

Don't turn off the MLC unless it's necessary and you know what you are doing. It's a bad habit and later on you'll get tons of false contacts on the TID. I usually fly in PD SRC, the progressively switch to more detailed modes as the range decreases. I also check P SRC often, to avoid ZDF and NTCH targets. EDIT: I forgot to add, the APX-76 is your best friend :)