Trying other planes apart from Flanker

[Hodo]

43 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

I think it would only be a few.  There's not that much to remove.

 

 

It's merely the foxus, that's all.

 

 

You don't have an MLU M2K.  Did you notice MICAs or anything other features that the MLU would have anywhere?   The aircraft you have does not equip an HMD.

 

 

And possibly the triple maverick rack, or at least, add the damage that launching from it causes.

As for the F-18 yep, it can haul 10 ... it just doesn't.  That's a mission design issue and player issue.

And sure, the Su-25T has always existed in some state that we don't really know of.

MiG-21 should lose the Kh-66s, and there are probably a few other things to go around.  But as you can see, not really that many.

 

In any case, none of those particular things does what putting the VTB where it doesn't belong does:  enhance SA.  The same reason we turn off the 'minihud' feature for FC3 first for example.

 

Only 8 Su-25Ts were produced.  They went straight to the TM model which became the Su-39.... And later canceled in 2000.

 

The Su-25SM became the final upgrade of the Su-25 along side the Su-25KM which is a full glass cockpit version.

[Neurus]

Regarding players who consider the Mirage Radar Repeater a "cheat" that "they don't understand" or "can't believe it's allowed", let me tell you:

 

It helps ME, see the radar, because my eyesight is ... _used_ (I'm 45  years old) so without that, I wouldn't even bother to play the mirage, because even with TrackIR and a Warthog hotas (which I both have and use), Zooming in to the small 1440p display is not real, practical, nor mimics the real-life experience of being in a cockpit.

Now before you go jumping to "what do you know about real-life experience in a fighter jet" the answer is: not much, for I am not a fighter pilot, but I do have real-life flying experience (I'm a private pilot) and so I do know how instruments are "seen" in real-life (in my limited PPA experience).

 

Without something like that, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the mirage. Plain and simple. So please let people enjoy the game. It is a game after all.

 

[draconus]

23 minutes ago, Neurus said:

So please let people enjoy the game. It is a game after all.

That's great that you can turn your head to the other side and still look at the radar but why use that in the study sim genre of game?

[Ironhand]

31 minutes ago, draconus said:

That's great that you can turn your head to the other side and still look at the radar but why use that in the study sim genre of game?

 

Because it helps him enjoy the sim in the manner he prefers?

[GGTharos]

Yep, but here both thigs are very valid.   Yes it helps him enjoy the game, that's great.  Yes, it completely unrealistic and not entirely wrong to identify it as a cheat that allows more easy than it ought to..

[probad]

well if you need it to play, fine.

but if you need it to win, thats not very sporting, and shame on you.

[Ironhand]

5 hours ago, probad said:

...but if you need it to win, thats not very sporting...

 

  @ Neurus,

 

It’s ok to use it as long as you agree to be shot down every flight...

 

Sorry, just couldn’t help myself.

[Cmptohocah]

I would say give the MiG-29 a spin. If you manage not to crash it whilst taking off, it will provide you with lots of fun.

Agile, speedy and very nice looking airframe it is. Has no DL like the Flanker and the radar is quite limited, but in a dogfight it's like a shark.

The S variant carries R-77s and you can hang 6 of them. At higher altitude and on a full burner it will go Mach 2.0, but not for long as the fuel capacity is modest.

[Neurus]

On 3/16/2021 at 8:36 PM, Ironhand said:

It’s ok to use it as long as you agree to be shot down every flight...

LOL... I mean... some people believe the game is "very close to the real thing" still.. right?

 

On 3/16/2021 at 3:13 PM, probad said:

well if you need it to play, fine.

but if you need it to win, thats not very sporting, and shame on you.

This is a ridiculous take to me, but if that makes you happy, please be my guest.

 

[Ironhand]

@Neurus

 

Oh, we all have similar attitudes about something or other. The whole simmer/gamer attitude in the DCS community reminds me of the refrain from that old Chris Kristofferson tune: "Jesus Was a Capricorn".

[Fri13]

On 3/16/2021 at 2:14 PM, Neurus said:

Regarding players who consider the Mirage Radar Repeater a "cheat" that "they don't understand" or "can't believe it's allowed", let me tell you:

 

It helps ME, see the radar, because my eyesight is ... _used_ (I'm 45  years old) so without that, I wouldn't even bother to play the mirage, because even with TrackIR and a Warthog hotas (which I both have and use), Zooming in to the small 1440p display is not real, practical, nor mimics the real-life experience of being in a cockpit.

 

Everyone will will lose their sharp eye sight at some point, some might not much, but for some it might impact a lot.

This is one thing that I do agree in these displays simulation that they should be designed with to option: Realistic and Gameplay. Where one can have all the glare, all the smudges, low contrast and everything as realistic manner wanted with the tiniest fonts and blurriest graphics. 

But we as well need the option (for what ever reason) to make them more readable, clear and even with export option to be on single display as overlay with push of a button (press a button and all displays are enlarged to half of the display in corresponding positions, release a button and they are removed). 

 

Is it cheating? Yes. 

Is it unrealistic? Yes.

Is it wrong? No, if it makes 1) playable and 2) in multiplayer everyone is given the right to do so.

 

Already alone the zooming and the trackIR are cheating and unrealistic. One turns head in 340 degree angle without any G forces, any physics etc. One zooms in with 10x binoculars, inside a cockpit or outside etc. But hey, if everyone is given the same unrealistic capabilities etc, so be it. But here again we should have mechanics in the game that allows to restrict or disable those for multiplayer competitive and realism reasons. It goes both ways. 

 

So when I said it is a cheat, it is a such. There is no way around it as it is not realistic thing. But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. One can cheat themselves, or they can cheat others, or everyone can cheat everyone else with same manner, it doesn't matter as long no one thinks it is "realistic" (cheat themselves). 

 

On 3/16/2021 at 2:14 PM, Neurus said:

Without something like that, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the mirage. Plain and simple. So please let people enjoy the game. It is a game after all.

 

Sure, just like everyone can not have a fully loaded HOTAS, or motion platform, pedals, a VR, a 1500 € GPU etc etc. It is a game and it is meant to be enjoyed. 

 

Let me tell you short personal story.

Personally I have gone from one corner to another corner without visiting the third corner. (Desktop to VR, without building a full home simpit for single individual aircraft).

And there was a time (long time ago) when I binded everything to everything there was in a HOTAS. It was important to get a HOTAS with "more buttons merrier" thing. It was to get a largest display front of you (65") in all details etc. Back in the time only the KA-50 was out and later A-10C was released and I was made all bindings for the KA-50 with as much proper layout as much (left / right side of cockpit etc) and so on.

  

But, with the VR I found one thing, I don't need anything of that anymore. The 3D modelers and texture artists are my tools to enjoy the realistic cockpit. It was a eye opening experience to realize that all I need are actual flight controls, a joystick and the throttle. At the time the DCS virtual "gloves" didn't exist, and then later on for long time they didn't do anything than just move around cockpit with VR controllers, but it was a sign that something amazing will be coming. First it as a mouse cursor moving with the HMD and clicking around with two buttons in HOTAS as left/right click. And then after Oculus touch controllers has been enabled I have been using just those. No more mouse, no more keyboard, no more nothing else than HOTAS and touch controllers. 

 

It goes even so far that I don't anymore like the 3D pilot model in the cockpit, because my hands are the virtual gloves in the cockpit. So when I see the gloves floating and body is stuck to HOTAS, it is immersion breaking thing. I am happy that many loves those 3D pilots in cockpits and so on, but I can't use them anymore.

Eventually I ended up to portable, minimalistic "virtual simpit". I have a flight chair, built-in PC in to it. I have centered and extended joystick (VKB MCG PRO) properly in the seat and two throttles (for helicopter and for fighter layout, so vertical linear pull/push and horizontal). 

 

I don't anymore see validation for any "button boxes" or trackIR, external displays, mouse, keyboard.... Just give me a AC power plug and it is all in one chair that takes 85 x 50 cm floor space. The chair is based to F/A-18C and Su-27S seat angles so slight mixture. It allows perfect head turns as chair height from the floor is 84 cm and seated height is 28 cm from the floor. Weight is about 20-22 kg (have not weighted but based just to 25kg hand weights I have), so I can transport it to anywhere just back of my car. (now my idea is to make one more for Co-Op flying). Next task is to build a motion movement platform, but I need to integrate it to that, and I am against it as it adds considerable weight to it. So now transportation becomes a problem. But based to many sources and tests, +/- 3-5 degree tilting is more than enough to generate very believable experiences (better than larger motions). Why I am considering a the much hyper JetSeat (butt shaker) instead, but I have not had any experience with such so have not bitten the bullet. 

 

What really has changed in the years is that I started to value more about the real history of the aircraft than what popular culture makes out of them. I got more interested about engineering of the aircraft than flying them. The technology, the design choices and all engineering decisions why something is inside cockpit as it is in them. Like it is interesting how huge difference there is between a F/A-18C three displays positions and sizes, compared to F-16C tiny displays at so below inside a cockpit. The history how F-16C engineers purposely made the aircraft difficult to be modified and upgraded, and regardless of that it turned to be likely most modified and upgraded fighter in US inventory, with all the challenges that it was made so difficult. It is fun to go through the checklists, it is fun to learn the design philosophy in the different aircraft that "why the **** they put that button there?", so DCS World really delivers to me a "Study Simulator" for the cockpits, functions and all it.

 

Would everyone else enjoy from it same way? No.

Should everyone else need to enjoy it same way? No.

 

Maybe one day more people would start to respect more about the realism by the limitation. "I can't read that" or "I can't see there" are realistic experiences. There is already a big difference requiring to grab a joystick with left hand so you can operate something on the right side of the cockpit in mid-flight, compared that one just press a combo button on throttle to do so (example Hornet LTD/R switch) without any real life challenge that real pilots has. 

 

But everyone is some point coming to age when their necks don't turn so easily (with the Rift S I can look 360 without problems, on a chair that doesn't rotate, where I don't need to grab anything etc) and their visions are not so great (might need to have correcting glasses anyways), can have hand shakes, or just pain by doing something.

And that should never be the reason stop enjoying something that can be done safely, seated at home. 

For many it will be hard time to retire, then your driving license might be taken away, your children's start to fear that somethin happens to you and deny your movements etc. It is not fun.... It is a life, but it is not fun. 

 

 

[CSL_Ondras]

Back to the original topic: definitely Mig-29. With PFM it is a blast to fly. It is, at least for me personnaly, plesurably sensitive (some say unrealistically too much, but its probably more about short sticks we have.. ehm I mean joysticks :)) with immediate response to pilots imputs. It is powerful beast with ability to quckly decelerate, but then quickly accelerate... and at altitude no other A/C (in DCS at the moment - well, if I am wrong, someone will surely correct me) goes from Mach 1 to Mach 2 faster. I do not use any curves on any axis, only those landings I still have to practice: https://youtu.be/MDsIfcP8ilo

 

Shame you didn't like M2000, because it is also a blast to fly.. each aircraft may have its quirks and limitations, but what makes it all interesting is to learn to ovecome them...

 

O.

[scoobie]

Hi, OP was asking something different, so sorry for messing up the thread, but I'd like to chime in a tiny bit to what @Neurus wrote EDIT: and @Fri13  two posts above.

Whoever doesn't use VR and has worn-out eyes - DCS gives you those "fixed views" (I can't remember how they're actually called in DCS). Those: rCtrl-Num_0, then you select "fixed view" Num_1..Num_9, then turn off "fixed view mode" by rCtrl-Num_0 again. Using them exactly this way is obviously PITA, but that's one of the reasons why some smart people came up with those "supplementary software" for joysticks (Joystick Gremlin etc.).

Now, for me it's only a single tap on the radio hat on my TM Warthog throttle and I get a close-up on left MFCD in A-10C, or right MFCD, or the radio frequency dial in MiG-15, or whatever wherever, depending on a module and how I set it up.

I don't "abuse" such views, but when I just can't see something - tap, it's there, tap, I'm back with TrackIR.
It does work, it's quick, easy and lets me read those tiny TAD symbols.
Really - it's a valid option to consider.
That's all, sorry again!

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by scoobie

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, scoobie said:

Whoever doesn't use VR and has worn-out eyes - DCS gives you those "fixed views" (I can't remember how they're actually called in DCS). Those: rCtrl-Num_0, then you select "fixed view" Num_1..Num_9, then turn off "fixed view mode" by rCtrl-Num_0 again. Using them exactly this way is obviously PITA, but that's one of the reasons why some smart people came up with those "supplementary software" for joysticks (Joystick Gremlin etc.).

 

I did use those back in the time of Lock-On, totally worth the time to place a 9 different view points to NUMPAD, but it was then hassle to edit files to save the positions etc.

But it was best option to get quickly seeing around. 

 

So if any other module is challenge because "I can't see what is written there" then viewpoints is the way to go. They can be for glancing something and then return to main view.  

[Top Jockey]

On 1/20/2021 at 11:54 AM, B_Tank88 said:

The Flanker is the first jet that I tried in DCS and after years of flying it, even though my A2A skill sucks, I can comfortably say I am very comfortable flying it and I understand how to operate it very well.

 

I didn't try anything else until recently, where I tried the M2000C and then gave the Tomcat a go during it's trial. I just didn't gel properly with any of them. I really, really miss the radar/HUD integration and the position of the HDD radar display that we have in the Flanker. I can fully create a picture in my head without looking down and this adds to much more easte to creating a picture, for me.

 

The position of the M2000C's radar display requires me to look down and I just really struggled to get used to this. There are also simple things, like using degree values intead of a bearing arrow to determine target vector in the M2000C that just seems to cost more mental concentration to create a picture. These things add up to make a big disadvantage for me, and I just feel right at home again when I fly the Flanker.

 

The Tomcat with its extremely basic HUD is a real turn off for me. Simple things like not having airspeed and bearings in the HUD, again I really struggle with.

 

Does everyone else feel this way or is it just me? Am I too reliant on these Flanker ergonomics or am I missing something in the M2000C and Tomcat?

 

 

Interesting points.

And even more because you've mentioned specifically 2 pertinent examples: the Mirage 2000C's Radar display and the Tomcat's HUD.

 

About the Mirage I'll agree that, its Radar display is in a low position, and worst: I find it very cluttered and the symbols are not as easily understandable as in the F-16 or F/A-18.

 

... on the other hand, about the F-14 A/B's HUD, actaually it's those old, archaic symbols which I enjoy the most in it, as they are part of its charisma.

(Otherwise, for 'modern' HUD simbology, it already exists on: F-14D, F-15, F-16, F/A-18... which for me looks very much the same.)

 

So I guess this is one of those kind of matters, where besides functionality a little bit of personal preference also comes into play.