Jump to content

Fairey Gannet

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fairey Gannet

  1. From what I managed to dig out - no. Historically, USSR satellite states were given "internal export" version by a general rule, so the middle shelf goodies. But there were Soviet bases in those countries anyway, and they were more of an enclave, with Russian personnel, administration, shops and supporting towns sometimes. Some of them were made public in 1992 or 1993 - until then they were not even marked on maps. Such bases could have Soviet-tier equipement, that would compliment more basic models of given satellite state. Also, Ukraine and Belarus for example had status of SSR, but for example Czechoslovakia or Poland - did not. I could not find any specifics on verisons of 29 they did use, but they probably could have something better in Soviet-era. But, that was general rule and there could be exceptions, so I stand to be corrected, and I will be happy if somebody will point out, that my info is low quality! After 1992 however, some of variants, that were not part of Warsaw Pact and non-Warsaw Pact export stock could surface... Myanmar has some 9.13's, more modern variants were sighted in Syria as well. Algieria uses 9.13S version, Peru has 9.13SE, Belarus upgraded recently some up to BM standard...
  2. Yes, there is some variety in nomenclature. 9.12A was Warsaw Pact, but non-Soviet version, with downgraded radar (2 out of 5 modes) and IFF, with E-502-20/04 Turkus datalink. NATO called it either Fulcrum-A or Mig-29A to point out first generation of 29's. 9.12 was Soviet wariant with N019 Rubin radar, 5 radar modes and E-502-20 Bierioza datalink. Now, 9.12B was another export version, but it was for non-Warsaw Pact states, lacking IFF, datalink and having downgraded radar. That thing was called MiG-29B, but it was not formal, and in the West only. Instead, Fulcrum-B was pinned on MiG-29UB (9.51), trainer tandem without radar. So yeah, in the West A was used either for 9.12A or for 9.12, 9.12A and 912.B... That is why I referred to 9.12 with (A), just for safety reasons. I am unsure what 29 we will get down the road, but because that law I mentioned I assume it can be 9.12A. If they will happen to lay hands on 9.12 outside of that restrictions... maybe. But it will be Fulcrum-A regardless.
  3. We will see, but things are moving into the right direction for dynamic campaign. As for the MiG-29G... Well, that was codename for 9.12 (A) used by Germany. Granted, they had an upgrade in the 90's to make them meet NATO standards, and the engines were tuned down to extend their rather short lifespan... But it is the same version. As Russian Federation has a law prohibiting gathering information about military equipement on their soil, all models used by USSR/Federation alone are off the plate. But A variant, as well as G were (and still are) operated abroad, so devs can gather info about them. I don't think I saw G mentioned, sadly, but it is not impossible, technically at least. If it be worth time and effort to put another version in the pack - that is another story.
  4. Yeah, you have to reset that piece of... gyros before. But if you can do a fix in some cloud opening, then you are able to deliver goods with an acceptable amount of collateral damage even in the soup.
  5. You are on point. I would rather have well-polished, well done 2000C than 2000-5 with a lot less realism due to sensitive information. And i think that 2000C will get some buddies to play along with - there will be MiG-23MLA and full MiG-29A at some point also. So there will be, along with MiG-21, some more red jets that are in the same time bracket. Since dynamic campaign is being worked on, that can also help. But even the weather update changed a lot. Suddenly dropping bombs on INS waypoints is very useful in IFR, feature that wasn't so much prominent before.
  6. DCS is a great sim, and you are getting good, solid airframe simulation out of it. However, and this is where it fails, planes by capability and design are fulfilling the role in doctrine. That doctrine is not modelled right now, so many planes are used outside of their original purpouse. I have to stress it though, it is MP we are talking about, SP missions can be tailored to airframe capabilities. But I keep my hopes up for dynamic campaign in the servers. Right now we have kill-counting score fest. That is fun and we all know there are good servers, with nice missions and setting. In dynamic servers, I presume, it will be more important to fill the objectives, and that doesn't have to mean kills. Posturing shots from an escort can keep interceptors away from ground pounders, and you don't have to actually score a hit. Ground attack delivering payload unharassed is the goal, and keeping enemy at range is more than enough. There is ton of actions without lethal outcome, that can be a success or failure, and I hope that there would be a formula to count and award rather operational success, than personal score. After all the latter is usually a byproduct of the former.
  7. If I could buy 2000-5, of course I would, because I love Mirage planes. F1 is on my list as well. But I think I know why C can be sometimes a bit frustrating at the first glance. DCS, as a simulation, fails in some aspects to recreate the bigger picture. Yes, 2000C lacks in A2G, but in reality SEPECAT Jaguar would do the heavy lifting in ground pounding, 2000C would be cover and support to a degree. But we don't have Jags... Radar is not that flashy, but the GCI would do vectoring to intercept, putting 2000's in best position to attack. Same as MiG-19's and 21's in that respect. We don't have complex vectoring... And main enemy 2000C would tangle with at that time was MiG-27 and early variants of 29 like 9.12. So there is some pairity, but not many birds from 1977-1990 right now. I mean - not many variants, using F-16 Bloc 50 without some weapons is not equivalent of F-16 Bloc 5. I think F-16's, 18's and other modules people consider to be more capable are actually less context-sensitive. You can do more with the airframe yourself, and you don't need to rely on external features. And some of those features are lacking at the moment. I know there will be overhaul of those implemented, but as it is now, M2k can't be utilised to its full potential, as well as other dedicated interceptors. Not to mention, that actual work they should do is clipping bombers, and servers are rarely including such scenarios. Not to mention, only thing that matters in most servers is kill count, not objective completion. You don't get points for stopping bombers or forcing them to drop and bug out - and that would be an operational success. I know that also can change with dynamic campaign. And I hope for that!
  8. There was no direct help, but studies of the FW-190 contributed to Ki-100 developement. Japanese were not so kin on the airframe itself (other than being a yardstick for their own project), but they studied closely engine mounting solutions. They also didn't had intention of simply making a copy of that piece, they just examined it and used as a reference to save their time on researching something, that was potentially already solved. Also, they did a lot of cross-referencing their own designs with other nations, and that practice was established well in the mid-war, so it was just fitting in their way of comparing their solutions.
  9. Well, good I reserved some cash for F1 and MB-339A. Otherwise... I mean food is overrated anyway, who needs that. I will call that "Mirage diet - kilograms disappearing like a mirage."
  10. Fairey Gannet

    M-2000C WIP

    Great! I love Mirage, and I am very happy to see it being developed and refined. It is great, that she is still being pushed to be as close to original Baguette, as we can get.
  11. Fast alignment was a nice option to have in multiplayer, that is for sure. But I actually didn't used it anyway too much - in nice weather I used low accuracy alignment, and it worked for me in VFR. I like to go all the steps anyway, as real pilot would. I like Mirage, it fits me, and I don't mind waiting those few minutes.
  12. Well, I also love MiG-29. Slick, sexy beast. And I would also like to see it as high fidelity module, the sooner the better. I know MiG-29A is planned, and maybe it is even in some developement as we speak. But this FC3 MiG-29 is not bad either! You get professional flight model, and that is quite challenging. Weapons and sensors are working as they should, even if the inner workings are simplified. And you get S version, that can't be high-fi, because it was (and is) used by Russian Federation, and you are not allowed to gather data on that. MiG-29A we will get will be probably 9.12A version (Warsaw Pact export) or 9.12B (outside of WP export), the latter being more numerous, but also lacking lots of equipement. Those versions are open for study and modelling. I understand your frustration, but we will have to wait a bit for that high-fi variant, and it won't be the best MiG-29 version around either. But in that way your FC3 MiG-pack can compliment that module nicely, when it comes out. And until then, you still get nice worth for your money, as you get 3 versions and something to train in.
  13. That is good question, but honestly I would say this - choose an airplane, that you like, and you know you will use. In whatever manner, but to get your money back in your enjoyment and knowledge. There are series of plane overviews on YouTube, so you can get some info about specific modules. Now, to be more precise I will tell you about my modules that fits your warbird-to-jet progression. I invested in trainers (L-39, C-101), and I am having blast with them. They can do some fighting, but I have much fun learning systems and general aviation. They are also forgiving planes. That floats my boat here. When it comes to simple jet, MiG-19P is something I really like. However! Bear in mind, that it is work in progress, and Razbam has many things planned still for that module. I would say though, that if you want Sabre or MiG-15, I am not sure, if you want that one in your stable. It is basically those planes, but supersonic. It has some missles, very limited ground strike capability, and simple radar. I love the plane, but I am not sure, if it is worth to buy 1st gen and 2nd gen, unless you really like the plane itself. There is simply not much extra capability, for the money you are paying. If you are looking for something more modern, F-5E Tiger II is nice step into supersonic world. It basically has all most of avionics you will get in later planes, but in more simple iteration. It is fun to fly, capable dogfighter and nice ground attack options are also there for you. The latter ones needs some practice, though. It is easy to fly, as it was designed to be first supersonic jet for many air forces in the world. I think you will like it. Staying in 3rd generation, Viggen is actually pretty easy to learn. Yes, it is different than everything else, but it is designed to be easy to operate. If you like capable strike plane, with some air-to-air capability, that is nice choice. I discovered that a lot of people are having troubles switching to that plane from F-16's or Hornets, because of different logic behind systems and the way of use. You will not have that problem. I started fresh, and it was smooth for me. In 4th generation Mirage 2000C is actually pretty simple. Don't get me wrong, it is well-done module, and it has many options to use. But it is not too complicated. I would say, it is F-5 +, and on the Viggen level. It is more air-to-air oriented, but you have also competent payload to choose, when you want to do some ground pounding. Radar is modern, IR missles are very good. You will be lacking BVR capability, but in guns/heat-seeker knife fight you can go toe to toe with other planes and still come on top. Those are airframes I am familiar with. I would say, that you can master them in 30-50 hours, with Mirage and Viggen being most complex (but in a different way). I won't speak of other planes, as I am not competent enough to give any sensible advice in that manner. Hope it helps!
  14. Ah yes, C-101 is really top notch and I use it with great pleasure. There is no single switch or function that was left out. Even if simple, comparing to 4th gen fighters, I think it is actually most in-depth module in DCS. Aviodev really pushed bar with that one, and their Mirage F-1 is no brainer for me because of that. And 101 is quite capable light attack, with really nice range of munitions. Setting up night attack with illumination rockets is challenging, but really fun. But what I really, really like in this thing is nav equipement. You have everything, from ADF to GPS. I started to deploy any kind of munitions after I learned how to navigate and land in bad weather and at night. No point in that, if you can't find your way back and end sortie in one piece. And 101 is great teacher. I really love her.
  15. No problem, friend. I was dead scared when I was trying to get into DCS myself. Head tracking is a must. Luckily, it's not very expensive, and later on you can buy VR set or experiment with better trackers. But if you want to spot targets, keep an eye on enemy while dogfight, pay attention to gauges and MFD's, search switch to flip... Hat switch or numpad just doesn't give you reaction you need, and you have to let go either stick or throttle just to take a quick look, or you have to sacrifice hat switch. And usually it is better to use it as a trim hat. It takes some time to get used to tracker, but it is rather intuitive. I myself found proper calibration for me in just a few days. I don't own personally nor F-16, nor JF-17, but I've checked them out. Both fall in the same bag of lightweight frontline fighters with massive flexibility in munitions to use. I think F-16 performs better in terms of manouvers, however JF-17 is overall more modern plane. I found it more intuitive, basically you can just use 3 MFD's for all essentials. Munitions are great in both planes, so matter comes down to personal taste, really. F-16 is still in early access, so it lacks some functions, but they are being implemented. JF-17 was released almost ready, though there are also some stuff being implemented. That is not really also nor good or bad - lacking some functions mean, you can learn the most stuff, and then just get to know new options, as they come. There is "Grim Reapers" group, that has tons of videos on every plane and helo (and more) - Buyers Guide is the series you want to check out. That covers every module: price, quality, range of stuff it can do, flight model, ease to learn... And also there are tutorials for every functionality. This and Chuck's Guides and you are good to go.
  16. Hey, bro, nice to have another pilot! For tips and tricks - remember, those are mine, highly subjective ones. About plane - take what you like and what you want to learn more about. I actually found FC3 planes more difficult to learn, since they are all operated by keybinds instead of flipping switches. I liked to memorise layout of cockpit more, as it was more intuitive to me, even if I had to deal with increased workload comparing to low fidelity models. I still own MiG-29 as separate FC3 plane, because I like the plane. I will however write some more personal opinions later on, maybe they will be of some use. About joystick and inputs - if you would like some no fly-by-wire stuff, warbirds or rotors, rudder pedals are useful. In 4th gen - not so much, you can get away with twisting grip. Tip - you can buy used (or new) Thrustmaster pedals for racing wheel and the adapter (T.RJ 12 it is called) from its jack to USB 2.0. You can use them standalone this way - this is a good start. Also, you can upgrade to simple HOTAS like T.One - nothing to write home about, but it is good enough two piece set. Oh, and keep your simple stick to operate radar, FLIR or other stuff. Pretty useful. I've posted my layout here: My tip for controller - set deadzone (1-2) if you have strong return spring, but try to avoid curves. At first they are making things easier, but you are getting somewhat messy input - delicate in the centre and severe later in the movement. You can however desaturate Y axis in more touchy frames (Gazelle I have set for 50% both pitch and roll, since it is quite light on the sideclick). Later on you will learn to manage your moves better, and you will get feel for each airframe. I discovered, that my delicate inputs are more messed up by strong spring rather than movement itself. Small deadzones fixed that for me. Head tracker is very useful, but you can buy cheap clips and use PS3 Eye cam (with IR filter) for it, coupled with OpenTrack freeware program. You don't have to go all TrackIR or VR to start. I prefer sideclip rather, fits well on the headphones. Headphones with mic are useful, because of SRS. It is free radio, that allows you to talk with others in multiplayer via your radio equipement. I use Creative Sound Blaster X H3, and my clip (triple AAA battery powered) is velcro mounted. Cheap solution, but effective, you can just take it off as you please, and stick back with different angle if you desire so. You can buy sticky velcro just about everywhere. Personally I wanted to complete my setup, even if it is cheap, to get used to pedals, tracker, HOTAS and so on. Now, when it is done, and all planes I have can be controlled without problems, I can upgrade pieces according to my needs. As for planes in particular, there are of course matter of personal taste, so I speak only for myself. Good all-rounder to get the grip for rather simple, yet fully modeled jet is F-5 Tiger II. Nice to fly, competent and it won't get obsolete, because in multiplayer you can fly on serves, where you don't have to face 4th gen enemies. Even then however, you can pull up some tricks... Mirage 2000C was my first 4th gen fighter, it has some drawbacks, but it is good, solid plane with nice A2G capabilities, very agile and deadly in Fox 2 and guns only fights. When comes to ground attack I fell in love in Viggen - it is different than anything else, but simple in use and competent overall. If you like going 950 kph under wires, between trees, and land on every road, this is your bet. When joy to fly comes as quality, I love C-101 EB/CC and L-39C/ZA. These trainers can actually pack nice punch for their size, and you really learn how to fly. C-101 has campaign and great in-depth tutorial missions. Same goes for L-39, but it also has separate "Kursant" campaign to hone your airmanship even further. Hornet is no brainer - it can do all kinds of stuff, easy to fly, but can be overwhelming with possibilities. I personally not like it too much beacuse of that. F-16 is now a bit less complete (but it will be soon), and if you want nice and agile, land-based fighter - go for it. JF-17 is very modern, intuitive and capable lightweight bird. I think A-10C is undisputed king of A2G, it is complex module but you have tons of funny things to drop on the enemy. As for rotors, I own only Gazelle. It is touchy and requires a lot of attention, but it is simple machine and agile as hell. However, this one I wouldn't recommend, unless you like the bird. I think there are some other helos better for beginners, but you should ask somebody more competent. But hey, Gazelle is my first rotor ever, and I managed to tame it, so you can do it also! But remember - you don't follow exact path of aviation student in the sim - you don't have to start from something basic and gradually make your way to more complex airframes. You can have a few well learned ones, no matter how complicated they are. If there can be some advice - you can aim for one of each kind, if you are interested in aviation in general - one warbird, 1st gen/2nd gen, 3rd gen, 4th gen and one helicopter. That way you learn a bit of every era since WW2 up to 2000's. But you can go only in favourite period as well, It is really up to you. Trainers are fun, but it is another craft to master, and it doesn't always translate to combat skill in more advanced planes. I like them, but because of general aviation reasons. For me, they helped me to cover the gap between Great War and WWII and Cold War jets. You basically just need to learn about quality of module you desire to make your choice more aware, that's it. Hope it helps!
  17. Yes, indeed! My only concern, truth be told, is not about the frames themselves, rather the way they could be fully explored. Multiplayer (SP campaigns can be tailored more neatly) is basically score-fest as it stands now, and to be honest it rarely replicates conditions of that era's conflict. Without proper setting we will get many things wrong, in my opinion. I mean, you know where I am going with it. I really hope for more Cold War Wings, but I also hope that dynamic campaign mechanics also could redefine multiplayer in the way, that all quirks and qualities those aircraft had could really shine. I think though, that solid portion of 2nd/3rd gens and more solutions from dynamic campaign can be actually way to go.
  18. I would love to see some late '50s and '60s birds in DCS. Not only 100's series, there is a lot of nice planes around to pick up: J29 Tunnan, Saab 32 Lansen, Hawker Hunter, J35 Draken, Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Mystere IV, Mirage III and V... lots and lots of pretty birds out there. But one small problem - nobody would fly them now. From 2nd gen we have lonely MiG-19P, that doesn't have a match: for Sabre it is too modern to catch up, for F-5 it is too obsolete. And many of those airplanes are by design interceptors: they really shine when doing what they were designed to do - hunting down bombers. So having that kind of role separation would require nice MP overhaul to be interesting. I know there are servers that operate this way, but you also would need to buy at least 3 modules to cover the dedicated roles (intercept, dogfight, ground attack), not to mention learning to semi-competent level. Don't get me wrong! I love the era, and I am all in for 60's birds. I like their limitations, the technology, the variety, before it was killed by one-size-fits-all multirole. And from business side of things it could be nice idea, to have more dedicated modules to sell. But on the other hand, probably lot of people would buy modern 4th gen, that flies pretty similar to the other "aerial calculator", and can cover a lot of various tasks. Having said that... English Electric Lightning is coming. That would be first match for MiG-19, considering timeline. Maybe we will see more 2nd gen? Mirage F-1 was competent 3rd gen (also lacking representation in DCS a bit), and it will be nice addition. So maybe, 2nd and 3rd gen birds will gain some attention? I really hope for it.
  19. As subsimmer, I would love to see some ASW and patrol aircraft in DCS. Maybe incoming of more maritime-focused maps like Marianas or South Atlantic would give some more room for such aircraft. However... to fully implement post-war planes, we also would need modeled sea enviroment: ducts with duct sound trap, thermal layer, convergence zone or (Cz) sound velocity profile (SVP), shadow zone (Sz) sound channel, ambient noise, biologic contacts and such - just basic oceanography for maritime enviroment in any era. And those parameters are changing constantly. Then... every underwater craft would need to have modeled sound profile, sound propagation pattern, anechoic tiles effect (if present). Not to mention MAD, or magnetic aerial detection systems for the planes, sonobuoys (active and passive) for both planes and helicopters. And whole new set of weapons. It is Sonalysts territory, and their sims aren't user-friendly stuff. I am mentioning all that, because in Cold War period main use of maritime aircraft was ASW (and most DCS stuff is Cold War really), and that would be a whole new game by itself, if we would like to see that aspect in accord with DCS's hight standard to realism and fidelity. Then again, most of those planes would need real multicrew (or brilliant AI), and player would have to accept many hours of flight to achieve... well, usually nothing. I don't think Cold War planes related to maritime duty will be a thing, maybe as AI asset. As for WW2, there may be some chance of such craft as they were used in slightly different manner, but i wouldn't hold my breath for that. If something, then probably rather small, with one pilot. Probably though, when comes to naval aviation, SH-2 Seasprite (or something similar) could be a thing, as it would share a lot of core gameplay with other rotors... Then again, sub detection. As much as I love the idea, I don't think it will happen, sadly.
  20. Hello, fellow simmers! On the starting note, I'd like to point out, that happy owners of big pieces like Warthog, X56 and similar will probably not find my solution very interesting. This tip is adressed to not-so-happy owners of simple and cheaper kits, that can struggle with too many essential bindings. Well, maybe Viggen solution will be somewhat useful, so in case you are Viggen fan, stick around. However, if you have simple kit, that may be guide for you. 1. They are too many of them! So, you bought reasonably cheap piece, just to start DCS. Maybe you upgraded from old stick, maybe you had it from different sim. After initial flying, especially with more modern aircraft you may start to struggle. We have tons of commands: flight control, comms, countermeasures and other essentials that beg to be binded, but options are limited. After severe triage, we still have to use keyboard shortcuts or try to click someting very small and fiddly in the cockpit. I know it happened to me. 2. I thirst for more! Some planes have more radar commands than some earlier simulations used to fly the whole plane - or many of planes. And radar is important. Some other demands specific commands to be just under finger. Yes, Mirage, I'm talking about your quick Magic selection, CMD forward/aft/depress modes. In real life: great solution, in the keyboard world: hellish nightmare. And some are just full of sticks. Flight stick. Radar stick. Rb05 stick. You know what I'm talking about... At this point I was ready to admit defeat and accept, that I will never shoot anything manually guided or will die looking quick (and only) Magic selection, probably with really stupid face, and Fox-2 up my... exhaust. 3. Revelation... ...came to me, when I was looking at this damned Viggen's radar stick. Another stick... Another stick. Another stick? Another stick! I took out my old AV8R-02, plugged... 4. Many Lives and Tall Tales of Not-So-Great-Stick-Now-Reborned-In-Glory. ...and it worked. I do two sticks flying now (I know how it sounds), one is fairly basic HOTAS, one is fairly basic joystick with throttle. Sounds fiddly, but actually is much easier to fly planes with complicated radar or specific commands, that like to eat away those precious button binds. After setting up Viggen, I went to Mirage, and moved back to F-5 to just see how it works with something simpler. For reference, I own Thrustmaster T.Flight HOTAS X combined with AV-8R 02. I know, sad stuff, but for Rise of Flight and my beloved Great War kites it was more than enough. Below I present examples how I use second stick to control radar, as well as binds I use on those widow-making 12 buttons of main piece. Rule of thumb is: I try to set binds close to original airframe layout. Viggen: HOTAS: On throttle: as in real plane there are comms, panic release, airbrake, fast IR missle select, missle uncage. Base buttons are for automatic throttle and gear up/down toggle. Axis paddle for zoom out/in. On stick: reference button, weapon release cover, trigger and trim hat. RADAR: Throttle axis bound to radar elevation, main stick is responsible for moving radar stick and EP 13 sight, POV hat for Rb04 control stick. Top buttons are for fixes: T0, T1 and TV, main trigger is for terrain avoidance. Base buttons are: passive recce, radar rage up and down, gain up and down and memory mode. 4-position small hat changes radar modes: A0, A1 and A2. RADAR stick, POV hat and throttle curvatures: 25. Throttle curve regular, NOT the slider, center is at 50%, 100% is down, 0% is up. Note: I bound NumPad keyboard to CK 37 input panel, so I can enter weapon TAKT commands just with keys. It is easy to do, since layout is pretty much the same. Mirage: HOTAS: On throttle: CMD forward/aft/depress, Quick Magic II select, Quick gun select, PCI neutral. On the base of throttle: Magic Slave/INS update, Magic unlock/NAV update. Paddle is for zoom in/out. On stick: weapon release, autopilot standby/trim reset, program and panic release, hat for trim. RADAR: Throttle axis for radar elevation. POV hat is used for TDC movement, main trigger is TDC depress/lock. Top buttons are IFF interrogate/nose wheel steering, STT/TWS toggle and TDC Mode S, else Z. Base buttons are for azimuth wide, middle and narrow, 1 Line, 2 Lines, 4 Lines scan. 4-position small hat changes radar range (increase/decrease (up-down) and PRF three position mode High>int>Low and Low>Int>High (left-right). In this setup I don't use main stick. RADAR POV hat and throttle curvatures: 25. Throttle curve regular, NOT the slider, center is at 50%, 100% is down, 0% is up. F-5E Tiger II HOTAS: Throttle: comms, flaps cycle, airbrakes cycle, gear up/down toggle, missle uncage and aileron limiter toggle. Nosewheel steering toggle and drag shute on the throttle base. Paddle... you know the drill, zoom in/out. Stick: trigger detent one, trigger detent two, weapon release, chaff-flare button. RADAR: Throttle for radar elevation, trigger for ACQ. POV hat is TDC movement, main butons are Dogfight Mode FWD, AFT, CENTER. Base buttons: RWR search button switch, sight cage switch, radar range selector increase/decrease. RADAR POV hat and throttle curvatures: 25. Throttle curve regular, NOT the slider, center is at 50%, 100% is down, 0% is up. Sa-342 Gazelle HOTAS: Collective (throttle): comms, landing light in/off, flare dispense, auto-hover, auto-hover w/manual collective. Landing light retract/deploy on the throttle base. Paddle - yes, still zoom in/out. Sideclick (stick): weapon release, autopilot standby on/off, magnetic brake toggle, trim reset. Hat for trim. TV stick: POV hat for camera control, trigger for HOT3 missle release. Main buttons for the targeting laser, slave to view function. Base buttons: brightness control up/down, contrast control up/down, zoom in/out, invert symbols (day/night). 7. Give me more rudder... but not too expensive! Well, there is solution - you can buy pedals from racing wheel sets. Maybe you have them, or you can get used pretty cheap. I bought mine for around 30 euros, slightly used. Thrustmaster also provides T.RJ 12 adapter to change from default connector to USB 2.0, so all Thrustmaster pedals can benefit from that (and perhaps some other too). And yes, using that you don't have to have the wheel - you are using them standalone. All you need to do is: Bind axis separately (for left and right pedal) to one command (rudder). Mark them both as sliders and reduce Y saturation to 50%. This way each pedal uses half of the total axis travel, in 50/50 split. Then invert right pedal. You are good to go! 6. Red Deadzone Redemption, or overcoming the nasty spring. Ah yes, some joysticks have a nasty return spring, that makes your moves somewhat excessive. Or just are not super accurate, high quality pieces. Usually people set curves on joy, especially short stick, to gain some control for fine movements. However, that comes at the cost of translating your wider inputs. It is the matter of personal taste, but I discovered, that small deadzone (1-2) for pitch and roll usually is enough. I try to keep my input linear with this little deadzone, so my stick controls stay uniformed in all ranges. However, it does go well with slight curves (up to 10). Only exception is the Gazelle, that is pretty touchy bird - here I just desaturated Y aspect of both sideclick input down to 50%. 7. Too long, didn't read. Or did you? Also known as closing notes. Well, I can't take credit for inventing HOTAS/HOSAS combo. My brain is too small for such a breakthrough. However I can tell from my own experience, that using some planes just became much easier for me, and without spending metric ton of money for new HOTAS right now. I mean, you still need to let go throttle and change stuff, but in real plane you also have, and I found it much smoother in general. And ambi-dexterious simple stick you can buy dirt-cheap, if you don't own it already. For Viggen it is perfectly viable and realistic solution even if you own Mighty-HOTAS-Of-Many-Knobs. In real Viggen you use stick to control radar, as well as little controller to guide your Rb05. It is actually quite easy now to land those things on target. EP 13 targeting is also less tedious, as TV fix and screen mode is close by. And you can bind your keys and switches to something more important. Curves about 25 give you nice precision when it comes to aiming, moving waypoints and fixes. NumPad for CK 37 will give you more flexibility to use TAKT modes for advanced weapons - layout is basically the same, just / and * can go for In/Out swich, + and - set for rotating the knob. I usually put my controllers in order: throttle, radar stick, main stick, as in real plane. For Mirage it also works pretty decent, as Mirage's radar needs a lot of care and attention. I guess it's where TLC and TDC meet. It is not a bad set of sensors, but amount of tuning can be scary for newcomers. And without that, you are half-blind. Deadly place to be in at best of times, especially deadly for Mirage and it's limitation in BVR. Since a lot of controls are moved onto the side-stick, you have now a lot more options to bind those quick-selections and combat modes onto your main throttle. Resuming scan after dogfight is pretty easy now, even changing range in combat modes. TDC is easy to control with top hat with curves, as well as radar elevation. I put it in order: radar stick, throttle, stick - contrary to Viggen, you need those quick-selects closer and usually more often, since you will try to use those good Fox-2 you have and nice radar modes. I didn't found any use for main stick, so there is some field for experiments here. In last update Mirage got many axis controls, so you can go crazy. For F-5 I just wanted to know how, or if it will improve things, rather for fun. It is not complicated radar, and doesn't require a lot of binds. However, I found that it is much easier to control notoriously sensitive elevation and TDC, having dogfight modes at hand is also pretty useful. RWR search/track toggle button nearby proved to be big improvement, since you need to cycle manually through those modes, and frequently so. I didn't tested other aircraft yet, but I think that kind of setup can have some benefits for them also - Gazelle can utilise second stick for TV guided missles targeting. Probably in FC3 planes it could also be easier to control TDC and radar functionalities as well, as they all rely on keyboard. You can always leave out stick and use buttons on the base, using it as makeshift control panel for essentials. So, if you don't have a lot of switches and buttons, here is a solution. It may not be perfect (well, except Viggen), but I hope more complicated, or demanding aircraft will be less intimidating for newcomers. And that it will be somewhat less mandatory to own an expensive controller right from the very beginning. Especially if you are just starting, having worse results because of technical limitations can be frustrating. I know for me it was. Hope it helps!
  21. Looks... well, just like an instant purchase to me. My wallet is ready.
  • Create New...