Why atleast a rough HMD is needed

[shaHeen-1]

Hello. This is something that bugs me with most modules but Jeff in particular since it is pretty much the only top tier jet that doesn't have HMD.

 

This I feel pertains to people like me who don't/cannot use VR. Since head tracking solutions do not allow for rolling eye balls nor do monitors allow for peripheral vision, it is difficult to maintain awareness in Jeff while under pressure.

 

A basic HMD that shows altitude and speed at the very least, (no need to even model HMS, yet) is needed. I know that PAF isn't known to use it yet but Jeff is designed to work with many off-the-shelf solutions. I didn't really buy DCS: PAF Jeff. I bought DCS: Jeff. I don't really care if it doesn't match PAF exactly. PAF is to me more a livery than modelling constraint. I'd like to see Jeff modeled more to its potential.

 

Go Jeff!

[razo+r]

Is it needed? No.

 

Would it be nice to have? Yes.

[AeriaGloria]

Sorry but no. Our JF-17 is simulated with the weapons that have been certified on it by Chengdu. They probably wouldn’t integrate a HMD until a customer asks for it. So there is nothing to go on. It’s a real life limitation. There’s a button there yes, but the HMD has to be plugged in, have sensors to detect its movement, and we would need documentation on how it works and functions.

 

Rafales don’t even have HMDs yet, we’ll be fine

 

I’m sure it’s possible to mod but it would not be realistic inside a simulator and so much more then just a gameplay concession, it shouldn’t happen until there is evidence of HMD Integration and the HMD itself is known enough to be modeled

 

If you need more awareness, come up with a prioritized instrument scan the way many people are taught in real life, it’s a valuable skill.

 

For example you also have your speed and altitude and artificial horizon on radar page, it’s very useful

Edited April 17, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[shaHeen-1]

Please. I just mentioned that the FOV sucks when playing on a monitor. Its like flying with a window glued to your face. No chengdu Jeff comes with a window glued in front of pilot helmet forcing them to turn head to look around. You can't look at the HUD all the time. and God forbid you play with lower res guages and instrument.

[AeriaGloria]

Yea just like every other plane in this game without HMD. It shouldn’t be a part of the module unless trying to be realistic. If it’s something that can be modded I’m sure that’s something that a lot of people would probably very much like to try. But this is one of the inherent limitations of all JF-17s of this type flying today, sure that may change a few years down the line and there might be some opportunities but that’s that.

 

Not many planes have HMD, Rafale doesn’t operationally I believe, F-22s didn’t get HMD for many years, we will be fine flying it Like everything else without a HMD.

 

A real pilot I’ve heard has a lot of trouble moving their head under high Gs, that it’s hard to turn at high G and move your head around precisely to check things, that is one advantage we have over real life being able to move our head the same no matter the maneuver. I don’t see lack of HMD being a reason to have fictional HMDs

 

Jeff is no different then other planes without HMD, I’m sure a mod would be popular, and when it comes and if Deka gets documentation sure it would be awesome as long as we have the correct version of JF-17.

Edited April 17, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[Mustang25]

I didn't really buy DCS: PAF Jeff. I bought DCS: Jeff.

 

You bought the Jeff that the developers presented. They've always been clear that the Jeff they are making in the game follows the development of the PAF Jeffs.

 

This I feel pertains to people like me who don't/cannot use VR. Since head tracking solutions do not allow for rolling eye balls nor do monitors allow for peripheral vision, it is difficult to maintain awareness in Jeff while under pressure.

 

This seems like a personal problem. Plenty of people fly the Jeff and literally every other plane without a HMD and adjust to it. On this line of thought, we might as well ask ED for a HMD in the P-51 while we're at it.

[Kazansky222]

Is it needed? No.

 

Would it be nice to have? Yes.

 

Yea my thoughts exactly.

 

I would absolutely love to have a HMD, but only if its been retrofitted onto the Jf-17 that we fly in DCS. which I think it was planned for seeing as their is already a switch for the HMD on the AAP panel. (not to mention a switch for the IRST on the same panel)

 

*edit*

Also if they want to put it on as a "fictional" just make it an option to set in special options or something. If you want to fly the PAF jiff, you can, if you want to set it in special options to have the jiff fitted out for everything i twas meant to have given an unlimited budget, your choice.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Kazansky222

[J20Stronk]

Also if they want to put it on as a "fictional" just make it an option to set in special options or something. If you want to fly the PAF jiff, you can, if you want to set it in special options to have the jiff fitted out for everything i twas meant to have given an unlimited budget, your choice.

 

Technically we already have a "fictional" JF because it's a Block 1 with an AAR probe (which were never mounted on Blk. 1, only Blk. 2).

 

 

Also, ED added the cheek mount for the F/A-18's LITENING, which they initially claimed was never going to happen since they were modeling a USN/MC Hornet from ca.2006. The US never used cheek mounts for their Hornets, but it's there now.

 

 

I believe an HMD is not impossible for Deka to add since the JF is definitely capable of using one as integration was planed for blk.1 by Chengdu, but the PAF turned it down since they didn't need it for their JF's strike fighter role. (They want to save as much $ as possible too.)

 

 

Of course it's up to them to decide to add that in the future, as well as other Blk.2 features like OBOGS, KLJ-7V2 and WMCs software updates. (Maybe even sensible blk.3 stuff, like 360 deg MAWS and a better engine?... :music_whistling:)

 

Edit:

As foxwxl stated, the HMD coding is actually complete. You can find the files in your JF-17 install folder. It's been disabled, but Deka can literally just enable it in a couple of minutes on their end.

Edited April 18, 2020 by J20Stronk

[foxwxl]

The basic coding for HMD/IRST has already been done when the aircraft is released, but since no JEFF is currently equiping HMD or IRST, they will stay at the engineer's laboratory.

[Wizard_03]

The basic coding for HMD/IRST has already been done when the aircraft is released, but since no JEFF is currently equiping HMD or IRST, they will stay at the engineer's laboratory.

 

Might we see them added as an unrealistic option, perhaps behind a ME/UI checkbox??

[Matchstick]

AIUI there are no JF-17s in service with an HMD - until that changes it seems a tad ridiculous to expect the DCS one to have one.

 

At least with the Hornet there are actually been aircraft in service with that cheek mounted TGP.

[shaHeen-1]

Why exactly is it ridiculous? It can be mounted anytime. Someone just has to pay for it.

[probad]

fantasy module smh

you guys are gonna ruin dcs

Edited April 18, 2020 by probad

[AeriaGloria]

Just becuase there’s a button there doesn’t mean it’s plug n play with a OTS Chinese HMD. Integration to the airplane, the way avionics accommodate it and transfer data.

 

Some people like Israel and I think Thales make HMDs that bolt on to HGU-55/P which is the helmet currently used on JF-17.

 

It is a different situation then the Chinese weapons we have that PAF don’t operate, becuase those have been certified by Chengdu and have already been tested and integrated, but there is no evidence of the same thing happening for HMD where a solution is ready and integrated and just waiting for money. There probably wasn’t even a single HMD chosen, I’m pretty sure PAF wanted Top Owl for a long time.

 

If there was a HMD chosen and already integrated into software and ready on PT-04 or PT-96 or one of the Chengdu prototypes I might agree with you. But even if Pakistan oryanmar suddenly got the money to buy Chengdu wouldn’t send a HMD immediately, they would need time to accommodate it in software avionics many things, this is a big deal and requires a lot of work beyond a customer paying for something if it hasn’t even been integrated and test flown

[shaHeen-1]

It's a game. It's more fantasy than u realise I think.

[AeriaGloria]

Sure there a lot of concessions to be a game, but not fictional pieces of equipment that have never been used one these airplanes. A lot of modules have their share of “gameplay” features like many of the MiG-21 weapons(they are there to simulate earlier variants), our own DPLAYER(something not even physical that gives us same functionality as the music tape in the F14), but a fictional helmet where it’s a wild ass guess of what the HMD model is and another wild ass guess on how this HMD works with the airplane and how it’s weapons work with it?

 

Nothing like that in other modules at all. Some of our modules are mish matched patchwork incorporating a few things of different variants, but not something that’s entirely I a pretend stage at the moment

 

Fast repair times is a fantasy game concession that works in the environment of our simulation, but fictional equipment these airplanes never had is not a game concession it’s a “what if future”ism that is a different type of game

Edited April 18, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[Jester2138]

Put an HMD on the DCS JF-17 and you're not simulating the JF-17, you're simulating what you wish the JF-17 was.

[dorianR666]

It's a game. It's more fantasy than u realise I think.

thats not an argument for making it even more fantasy

real jeffs dont have hmd => dcs jeff wont have hmd

 

would be real shame turning dcs into ace combat just because some people would like completely fictional combat subsystems.

[shaHeen-1]

Anyone read the mirage changelogs recently? It had things that were not in actual plane for the longest time.

 

Also there's no fking way they haven't tested hmds with jeff.

[TLTeo]

Anyone read the mirage changelogs recently? It had things that were not in actual plane for the longest time.

 

Also there's no fking way they haven't tested hmds with jeff.

 

 

The reason those changes were implemented is because the French Air Force asked for them. Not exactly the same situation as random people on the Internet wanting "their" module to be the bestest greatest airquake because "other modules have this".

[Shrike88]

Why not just release with HMD a mission editor option. Yes the jet is capable of it but give mission designers the ability to turn it on or off depending on how realistic the sever will be and time frame and country using the Jeff.

 

Just like the refueling booms.

 

Music player was added as well.

 

Don't get me wrong I love it and the boom. And the clock and I use them all and love the feature. But stating things are used/unused / certified seems and subjective. Agreed with J20Stronk.

[AeriaGloria]

We don’t even know what HMD would be used, and with the right info even it would take a while to code especially how every weapon and SOI works with.

 

I think if someone makes a mod it would be great fun though

 

I just think it should still be way beyond a ME feature, the unique ME options have always been for somewhat realistic options like RWR or the MAWS(even if the Mirage 2KC doesn’t carry it the pylon is already made and compatible), or the refueling probe we have, isn’t the Mi-8 engine life a ME option? There’s no evidence HMD for Jeff even got off the drawing board, there is no information that the button is there for anything more then future proofing

 

If by some chance there is PT-04 or PT-06 sitting around with an HMD and they haven’t told anyone, it’s just a prototype or two!

Edited April 19, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[shaHeen-1]

Why should geopolitical/economic constraints influence a video game? I don't really care what has been done by PAF to Jeff. When they choose a very specific HMD please feel free to update a barebones one you put in beforehand. Until then, put a basic one in. Those who don't like it/don't need it can feel free to not touch the power button.

[TLTeo]

It's not a geopolitical or economic constraint for god's sake. It's just that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HMD ON ANY JF-17. At all. Anywhere in the world.

 

It's like asking for the Sabre to carry modern Sidewinders because technically it's feasible to wire the pylons for updated IR missiles.

[Fri13]

Every module has some parts that are by purposely made unrealistic by various reasons.

 

- Political (like some of the maps and their areas like Crimea in Caucasus)

- National Security (like flight modeling not reflecting real performance like Hornet)

- Design decisions/restrictions for data (Not available data at all, or some just ignored)

- Community restrictions/wishes (some wants to limit all to specific year without any flexibility that they are making 2005 aircraft fly in 2019 missions, some would want to add functions from other country that was not in operational use on the modeled country version)

- "Just because" with all kind clauses for what for or what not for...

 

IMHO DCS World should lean more toward "Sandbox" than "If it is not written in the 1994 15-5532-2 Ref 7 documentation, then no go!". Meaning that if there is a technical possibility, like it was tested or it is offered in sales, then it should be added to the simulator with all possible information, but let the mission designers to decide is it allowed or not.

 

We should have in the mission editor easy check boxes for selecting various elements automatically.

Based to year, like set mission date to 11.1.2019 and you have all the bells and whistles up to that date, set it to 1.1.1994 and all weapons, sensors, aircrafts etc are rejected from the mission.

If the mission designer then goes to set the mission special rules (like immortality, unlimited fuel or weapons etc) there is option for allowing weapons, aircrafts, sensors etc out of the era of the mission date.

 

How many of those who demand 100% full realism like if the politics denied using specific weapon loadouts because it was too expensive, regardless it was tested and accepted for service and some purchased, are ready to do that for their missions? Meaning, if they set their mission to be in 1990, then they can't fly F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornet at all, and if they go to year 1972 then they can't fly F-14 at all as it was not until 1974 when it made its first deployment.

 

After all, they are going for full realism, right?

So they as well want that ED will decide all the historically official weapons loadout and restrict all the liveries as well for the squadrons etc and players can't do anything about it. As well there should be a AI that decides that what is the fuel, ROE etc that every pilot must follow without any permission not to.... And they will never, ever put Hornets, Tomcats, Vipers etc on the RedAir side, but always only on the BlueAir and on corresponding countries etc?

 

As after all, they are for the realism?

Or do we allow sandboxing?

 

Sandboxing doesn't mean that we must allow fantasies to be happen, like our Hornet is not going to carry AIM-54C or F-14B is not going to carry AIM-120C-5, MiG-21Bis doesn't receive a HMS from MiG-29 etc.

 

Is the HMD offered for the JF-17 we have? Like if we have Block 1 and it requires Block 3, then no go. but if it is offered for Block 1, then it should be available regardless that no one has purchased it for the service.

 

It should be the mission designer decision if they design a alternative reality where some other country would have in imagery history line purchased it and HMD for it.

 

The DCS World problem is that it is not reality, it is not for strict historical situations. But it is a sandbox of the "World" where everyone can create their own fantasy combat and ROE and all. Even every custom made liveries for aircrafts are out of realism etc.

 

That means that DCS World should be specifically restricted to very tight specific dates that are shattered across the history, and never have anything to do with different modules with each others unless they would have in that specific date that developers decided to model in their module.

 

We already have fantasy aircrafts, like MiG-21Bis is completely fantasy module, because when you sit in it, it is like from 2017 museum piece that has not received any maintenance for 20 years. You are sitting in a cockpit that is dirty and ugly has what... And yet it should be from 1972 that is factory fresh with all shiny etc.

 

Everytime the developers weather the cockpit textures etc, they are placing that aircraft out of its timeframe when it was put in operational use from the factory update.

 

The whole reason for "If it is not authentic, no way!" loses its values more deeply each module is observed based by itself and then compared to each other module and scenarios that people build and flies.