VampireNZ Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 Cheers for the update Mike, Tomcat really shaping up nicely. Back in the pit after a small deployment to a Viper squadron and the future list of items on the way, including the addition of SC compatibility (just purchased it last night due to this as I don't own the Hornet), looks great! :thumbup: Asus Maximus VIII Hero Alpha| i7-6700K @ 4.60GHz | nVidia GTX 1080ti Strix OC 11GB @ 2075MHz| 16GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB 3200Mhz DDR4 CL14 | Samsung 950 PRO 512GB M.2 SSD | Corsair Force LE 480GB SSD | Windows 10 64-Bit | TM Warthog with FSSB R3 Lighting Base | VKB Gunfighter Pro + MCG | TM MFD's | Oculus Rift S | Jetseat FSE [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaelu Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Hey Cobra, awesome work as usual. As VR is so immersive and the pilots body is important for immersion, can you expand on the new pilots body? Will this be included for VR? Cheers Craig +1 to this unanswered question. As a new virtual pilot of this plane (I just received it as gift yesterday) I couldn't stop noticing this feature missing. For many of us with a lot of negative time quantity available becoming proficient in these planes systems is only a distant dream, however the short sessions in these birds would be very nice to be as complete as possible from "experience" point of view. I know for some a 1st person pilot body feels awkward/unpleasant/useless sometimes because of first feel "not my body" or limbs in the way... but for some, usually VR players the 1st person body asures "the presence in the experience". For me, when that 1st person pilot body is there... the illusion is complete. P.S. Nice Job Cobra/HB! Really piece of art! :thumbup: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A, Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMike Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 +1 to this unanswered question. As a new virtual pilot of this plane (I just received it as gift yesterday) I couldn't stop noticing this feature missing. For many of us with a lot of negative time quantity available becoming proficient in these planes systems is only a distant dream, however the short sessions in these birds would be very nice to be as complete as possible from "experience" point of view. I know for some a 1st person pilot body feels awkward/unpleasant/useless sometimes because of first feel "not my body" or limbs in the way... but for some, usually VR players the 1st person body asures "the presence in the experience". For me, when that 1st person pilot body is there... the illusion is complete. P.S. Nice Job Cobra/HB! Really piece of art! :thumbup: We're working on the pilot bodies, alas they take time to complete, which is why we cannot promise more than they will come before or at release (and we try our best to bring them asap!). Unfortunately many urgent other items tend to get in the way, and we want to get the pilot bodies just as right as the rest. Please do not forget that we are still during early access phase and just need time to work down the list. But pilot bodies will definitely come and we hope will please you just as the rest of the aircraft, with the same amount of quality and detail. :) Heatblur Simulations Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage. http://www.heatblur.com/ https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_dalan Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 +1 to this unanswered question. As a new virtual pilot of this plane (I just received it as gift yesterday) I couldn't stop noticing this feature missing. For many of us with a lot of negative time quantity available becoming proficient in these planes systems is only a distant dream, however the short sessions in these birds would be very nice to be as complete as possible from "experience" point of view. I know for some a 1st person pilot body feels awkward/unpleasant/useless sometimes because of first feel "not my body" or limbs in the way... but for some, usually VR players the 1st person body asures "the presence in the experience". For me, when that 1st person pilot body is there... the illusion is complete. P.S. Nice Job Cobra/HB! Really piece of art! :thumbup: As someone who got a taste of VR for more then two months (and loved it, especially in the Tomcat) i flew the F-18 both with and without pilot body. I must admit, 90% of the time, i found those limbs....well......in the way, especially when they didn't move when i (i.e.) lifted the elbow to find or reach some switch that was at the time obscured by them. So......dunno, for me at least, the fact they don't move when my own (RL) limbs move, kinda takes away from the immersion, not helping it. :thumbup: Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 I usually fly without pilot body on most planes so not as high on my list, though understand those who want it. Specs & Wishlist: Core i9 9900k 5.0Ghz, Asus ROG Maximus XI Hero, 64GB G.Skill Trident 3600, Asus RoG Strix 3090 OC, 2TB x Samsung Evo 970 M.2 boot. Samsung Evo 860 storage, Coolermaster H500M, ML360R AIO HP Reverb G2, Samsung Odyssey+ WMR; VKB Gunfighter 2, MCG Pro; Virpil T-50CM v3; Slaw RX Viper v2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaelu Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 (edited) Thanks for the answer IronMike! I waited this much so... :thumbup: @captain_dalan and Uxi To each is own obviously. For me having a ghost cockpit is less immersive than having the pilot moving just the hands on stick and throttle and the legs on the pedals. I always have Numpad0 mapped to toggle the body for those cases when I really really need to dim the position lights... Edited April 5, 2020 by zaelu [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A, Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callsign Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 (edited) Will the A-6 release with the Forrestal? I'm making a mid 80's mission and need the A-6 to finish the authenticity of the flight deck. Edited April 5, 2020 by Callsign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLTeo Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Neither is releasing next week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosferatuwhisky 1-1 Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Will the A-6 release next week with the Forrestal? I'm making a mid 80's mission and need the A-6 to finish the authenticity of the flight deck. Nobody said the ship would release next week..... "Chops" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMike Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 We can't give an estimate on the A-6 yet, but expect it please more towards the end of early access. Heatblur Simulations Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage. http://www.heatblur.com/ https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callsign Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Can we get some more screenshots of the Forrestal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airhunter Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Can we get some more screenshots of the Forrestal? They said they'll have more to show this week, so I guess stay tuned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callsign Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Where is the setting to disable boring Jester? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airhunter Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Where is the setting to disable boring Jester? Should be in the special options, main game settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananabrai Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Yes, but that's the case for all other aircraft with jamming effects in DCS. If guys implement some jamming effects forthe Tomcat, similar to the noise jamming strobes shown on other aircraft (F-15, MiG-21bis, ...) using the Tomcat's display symbology for displaying the strobes is the best you could do within the limits of DCS I guess. I really hope ED will extend the EW stuff in the future and especially provide more jamming attributes on the jammer aircraft, as currently all jamming effects have to be implemented on the recieving aircraft, which can be unfair especially in MP, when one aircraft has less jamming effects than the other and thus is harder to jam (or not at all). But as ED is currently actively looking for someone with EW experience I'm quite confident that it's on the ToDo list at least. Untill then we have to deal with the abstract EW model we currently have in DCS and hope that aircraft devs will implement similar jamming effects on their modules :) I really hope ED will improve EW/jamming in some way at least. A lot of stuff is classified, but the fundamentals of electromagnetic waves and their physics are known well. It's not only the military using it, astronomers etc. use it as well.. Being in this field a little bit, I get the impressions that the basics are not so much dark magic. It becomes this with a higher/newer level though. There is a magazine called JED. Most of the time its boring, but they have series called "101 of EW". I am scanning and collecting all of those, if they reach my hands. I mean "range gate pull-off", "velocity gate pull-off", other basic old stuff could work in DCS... And they could take a new CPU core to calculate it, besides of 1 for sound and one more for all the rest :lol: Alias in Discord: Mailman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KlarSnow Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 The big problem with even putting an old technique like those in is how well does it work against the radars we have in game. That will be a mystery and completely open to interpretation. It’s completely possible to run a technique of any sort, and it have no effect at all on a threat or target radar. The radar getting jammed may simply overpower the technique, or it might be able to recognize it and counter it somehow, or it may just be super resistant to the jamming to begin with just due to radar design. This is the kinda stuff that it will be almost impossible to find hard data on, and is reeaaaaally significant to gameplay. Thus its almost impossible to put in game. It would be inherently unrealistic to put in an old 60’s jammer with old techniques and have it utterly trash radars that can handle it because you have no data on how effective the technique is or how the radar can possibly counter it. That detail of stuff is all classified for a reason. Now adding in probabilistic and generational stuff could be done (60’s good jammer has a .5 chance of breaking lock or spoofing a missile from the 60’s, but a system from the 70’s it only has a .2 chance against etc...), but it would all be at about the same level as say CM rejection in DCS right now, just a dice roll, and honestly would probly be just more frustrating than anything else, cause there’s just nothing the shooter or the defender can do to counter it. Or we can just get a reworked noise jamming system like what’s in FC3, but that also has a lot of issues inherent to it beyond what we have right now (noise jammers are limited in how many things they can jam and on what azimuth, and on what frequencies, cant just jam everything at once 360 degrees around the jet at all times) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLTeo Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 I really hope ED will improve EW/jamming in some way at least. A lot of stuff is classified, but the fundamentals of electromagnetic waves and their physics are known well. It's not only the military using it, astronomers etc. use it as well.. As an astrophysicist who frequently makes use of radio observations...you're not entirely correct. It's the darkest of dark magic. You have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callsign Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 (edited) Should be in the special options, main game settings. It should be there but it isn't. P.S. I'm still using 2.5.5 Stable Edited April 6, 2020 by Callsign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blinky.ben Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 This may seem like a small feature, but important. Can we get a fuel tank pylon delete option in the Loadout Menu please? The Clean Tomcat is really iconic, also there was a very limited amount of external fuel tanks early in the F-14 program, which is why you see early A’s without them most of the time. -Preston If you listen to the fighter pilot pod cast with the F-14 guys, which is very awesome to listen to. But they say they never flew without the external fuel tanks to the point they actually wielded the tanks to the F-14. Including the A model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunSlingerAUS Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 Wow, now that's what I call an update! Thank you Heatblur. If only ED were so specific, but then I guess they'd have to deliver. Intel 11900K/NVIDIA RTX 3090/32GB DDR4 3666/Z590 Asus Maximus motherboard/2TB Samsung EVO Pro/55" LG C9 120Hz @ 4K/Windows 10/Jotunheim Schiit external headphone amp/Virpil HOTAS + MFG Crosswind pedals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunSlingerAUS Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 The big problem with even putting an old technique like those in is how well does it work against the radars we have in game. That will be a mystery and completely open to interpretation. It’s completely possible to run a technique of any sort, and it have no effect at all on a threat or target radar. The radar getting jammed may simply overpower the technique, or it might be able to recognize it and counter it somehow, or it may just be super resistant to the jamming to begin with just due to radar design. This is the kinda stuff that it will be almost impossible to find hard data on, and is reeaaaaally significant to gameplay. Thus its almost impossible to put in game. It would be inherently unrealistic to put in an old 60’s jammer with old techniques and have it utterly trash radars that can handle it because you have no data on how effective the technique is or how the radar can possibly counter it. That detail of stuff is all classified for a reason. Now adding in probabilistic and generational stuff could be done (60’s good jammer has a .5 chance of breaking lock or spoofing a missile from the 60’s, but a system from the 70’s it only has a .2 chance against etc...), but it would all be at about the same level as say CM rejection in DCS right now, just a dice roll, and honestly would probly be just more frustrating than anything else, cause there’s just nothing the shooter or the defender can do to counter it. Or we can just get a reworked noise jamming system like what’s in FC3, but that also has a lot of issues inherent to it beyond what we have right now (noise jammers are limited in how many things they can jam and on what azimuth, and on what frequencies, cant just jam everything at once 360 degrees around the jet at all times) I think anything is better than basically nothing though, given the importance of EW to radar-based combat. Intel 11900K/NVIDIA RTX 3090/32GB DDR4 3666/Z590 Asus Maximus motherboard/2TB Samsung EVO Pro/55" LG C9 120Hz @ 4K/Windows 10/Jotunheim Schiit external headphone amp/Virpil HOTAS + MFG Crosswind pedals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconus Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) It should be there but it isn't. P.S. I'm still using 2.5.5 Stable Boring Jester option is not yet implemented. You can only go to Jester menu > crew contract > disable or silent. @GunSlingerAUS: even "anything" needs some numbers put in. Who's gonna guess? Edited April 7, 2020 by draconus Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060 Rift S T16000M HOTAS FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E CA SC NTTR, PG, Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananabrai Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 As an astrophysicist who frequently makes use of radio observations...you're not entirely correct. It's the darkest of dark magic. You have no idea. Alright. I am no expert, but I am also not far from the topic, on the military side though. EA-6B, F/A-18G, EF-111... a lot of dark magic But other stuff... maybe not so much. The big problem with even putting an old technique like those in is how well does it work against the radars we have in game. That will be a mystery and completely open to interpretation. It’s completely possible to run a technique of any sort, and it have no effect at all on a threat or target radar. The radar getting jammed may simply overpower the technique, or it might be able to recognize it and counter it somehow, or it may just be super resistant to the jamming to begin with just due to radar design. This is the kinda stuff that it will be almost impossible to find hard data on, and is reeaaaaally significant to gameplay. Thus its almost impossible to put in game. It would be inherently unrealistic to put in an old 60’s jammer with old techniques and have it utterly trash radars that can handle it because you have no data on how effective the technique is or how the radar can possibly counter it. That detail of stuff is all classified for a reason. Now adding in probabilistic and generational stuff could be done (60’s good jammer has a .5 chance of breaking lock or spoofing a missile from the 60’s, but a system from the 70’s it only has a .2 chance against etc...), but it would all be at about the same level as say CM rejection in DCS right now, just a dice roll, and honestly would probly be just more frustrating than anything else, cause there’s just nothing the shooter or the defender can do to counter it. Or we can just get a reworked noise jamming system like what’s in FC3, but that also has a lot of issues inherent to it beyond what we have right now (noise jammers are limited in how many things they can jam and on what azimuth, and on what frequencies, cant just jam everything at once 360 degrees around the jet at all times) I get what you are saying. I don't think it is very easy dooable on very good level. But I still think that it could be done better than now, with the same approach that you suggested. 1. If you just look for service dates, rushed updates or continuous updates of that HW, you can already kind of see how effective a system is or was. 2. You have a lot of "grey-zone" information floating around, and DCS is already made of that. Now I don't want them to take a risk. But it also depends on what you are taking into the game. Discontinued stuff could just be fine. F/A-18 is made out of a lot of "grey-zone" stuff and is still flying. Plus thats why I collect so much information about the EW topic atm. I would always offer ED/3rd parties to send those articles to them, and they look very helpful to me. 3. User stories. I ask my dad from time to time. He operated Cerberus CIII from the GAF Tornado. It would also only be for older stuff, maybe anything older than 1995 or so, but that still is good. SA-8, SA-6, etc. that stuff is pretty old already as well... (and we just got SA-2 and are getting SA-5, those two beeing a lot older) I have to admit that would leave out stuff from the newer era, F-15C (if it beomces fullfid at some point), -18, -16, JF-17, A-10, etc., but in my eyes it would be better than atm. Alias in Discord: Mailman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KlarSnow Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 There is nothing “grey zone” about any of the modules in DCS, they are all made with open source/unclassified stuff. There is no open source stuff on specifics regarding EW of the f-18C or the 16 or the 15 or the flanker or even lotsa stuff going back to Vietnam. There are general theories and ideas, but not specifics. The whole probabilistic thing, while it could lead to moderately realistic results when you look at say 200 engagements statistically, will lead to unrealistic and exploitable gameplay. Just look at how chaff and flares simplified mechanics in DCS are completely divorced from how they work in the real world, leading to both over and under effectiveness on many systems and radars. The other problem is unless it affects the radar screen and player decisions what’s the gameplay purpose? other than just reducing missile pk just like chaff does right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woogey Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 If you listen to the fighter pilot pod cast with the F-14 guys, which is very awesome to listen to. But they say they never flew without the external fuel tanks to the point they actually wielded the tanks to the F-14. Including the A model There’s about a million pictures online that say otherwise. As an aircraft mechanic I can tell you categorically those pylons were not welded to the air intakes. Quite honestly if you’re not a member of the HeatBlur team you don’t have any business answering the question. Sorry I don’t mean to be rude, but that’s the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts