streakeagle

Not using key presses has a cost: broken track files. Track files log user inputs. VAICOM bypasses the inputs, so if you use voice to turn on ground power, the track does not record ground power being started and your aircraft never leaves its parking spot

VAICOM would work better by returning to emulating key presses. Ultimately, I was already considering using a VoiceAttack profile based purely on keypresses as I did before I had VoiceAttack or Vaicom. But not using VAICOM would cost the loss of many great features that cannot be implemented using a basic voice to keypress profile. The solution would be for ED to provide their own internal support for voice commands, similar to the way they are making an internal voice chat to compete with/replace SRS.

Recently, a friend with a 3090 finally got around to trying it and he couldn't believe the difference such a small change could make. It isn't like it doubles performance, but there are noticeable changes in smoothness/stability of frame rates and overall image quality. It wasn't like I jumped from 45 fps to 90 fps, but now I have enough overhead that I can use a lot of higher quality settings and maintain 45 fps better than I could before.

I already loved it, but OpenXR took it to the next level.

I have two HP G2 support stories: 1) my first generation G2 failed a couple of months after I got it (one of the original pre-ordered ones). Support was fast in agreeing to replace it, but I went without a G2 for a couple of months waiting for new stock as existing stock was already going out to others waiting for their first headset. 2) when I upgraded by PC to an AMD motherboard, my 1st generation cable exhibited the problems of so many others, not working with the USB ports on the motherboard. Most people got their 2nd gen replacement cable/power supply for free. I was told I was outside of warranty, and rather than argue over it, I spent another $200 to get the updated, compatible cable while retaining the original cable as a spare that I could also use for comparative trouble shooting. Despite the initial failure, slow replacement and problems with the 1st generation cable and the cost to replace it, the G2 has since performed really well for me. With a 6900XT and a 5800X, I get great image quality and acceptable frame rates (more or less 45 fps or better in many cases in multiplayer). If I had to buy a new headset right now, I would probably still go with the G2. I don't know of a petter price to quality/performance ratio.

This appears to have changed. I am still testing to confirm the issue, but it seems that when DCS Voice Chat and SRS are both enabled that SRS periodically disconnects and has to be manually reconnected every time it does so. As soon as I turned off DCS Voice Chat and executed a clean start up of DCS and supporting software (SRS, VAICOM, and Simshaker), the problem seems to have gone away.

I had noticed after the last two patches that I didn't have to go back and remove this file. That was a nice change

It seems that an ebay search for 12v 4000-5000 rpm vibrating motor turns up massage pad motors suitable for the seat? They are fairly cheap, but they all ship from China?

When Gametrix went out of business, I bought a second jet seat to be safe. My original one had at least one motor that was weak or stopped, rather than fixing it, I set it aside to provide spare parts. After all these years, I finally had two motors stop in the newer seat. Both had a broken wire, but only one worked after soldering the broken wires. I grabbed a spare motor from the original seat, now I the newer one is at 100%. I am interested in restoring the original seat, which needs at least one new motor to replace the one I used to fix the newer seat. I think somewhere in this forum are the motor specs. I want to get a new one if they are readily available in the USA.

I use the throttle, startup panel, combat panel, and takeoff panel. However, I primarily fly in VR. So, I don't normally use SimAppPro unless I want or need or firmware update. But it is nice to see someone may finally have found a solution to this problem. I intend to get the entire Hornet MFD/UFC front panel complete with displays, so it would be great to be able to run SimAppPro whenever I want to fly with a 2-d panel/TrackIR to enjoy the displays and lights without a major performance hit.

I can't wait to see the finished product.

I understand another non-payware director is going to eventually be provided to restore free use of the Flak-18. However, the release of the KS-19 with Firecan radar has partially negated the need. Most of the time, I was using Flak-18 as a stand-in for the KS-19.

The original poster talks a good game and has posted some great images over the years, but the only products he has ever sold are some 3d printed rudder pedals and stick grip stands. Even those have been out of stock forever. But if you want to see what could have been and might be if he ever follows through with his promises, there are some great preview images at his website/webstore: Home | Replika Gear

There are multiple ways to handle adding switches. Some of the Tekcreations panels have inputs for missing switches, which might help. When I was building my sim pit, I went with the plug-n-play Leobodnar BU036X USB boards. You just wire up the switches/axes you want and it shows up as a standard USB game controller visible to DCS World and most other games/sims. There is a button only version for those that don't want/need analog axes. Some people used mutliple boards of this type and ran into problems with Windows/DCS mixing them up after rebooting their PCs despite having unique ID numbers. I only had one board, so I never experience this issue. Arduino boards require programming, so they are a little harder to manage than the Leobodnar products, but that also makes them more flexible/capable. If you aren't afraid to get into programming, this is probably a good way to go, as it will give you more flexibility if and when you decide to expand your controls. I haven't had the need to go this route, yet. But it may be in my near future. I haven't used DCS Bios, because I haven't needed it with the hardware I have been using. Tekcreations products have far more functionality when connected via DCS Bios, so that may be a good route for you. I can't really say one way or the other since I haven't ever used it.

This was my only problem with the Jet Seat. I have the sim edition and I used recycled cotton fill from shipping boxes to help pad it out. The cotton fill reduces the feeling of sitting on rocks, but it would take custom cut memory foam to make it comfortable. My seat is a semi-replica of an F-4 Martin-Baker ejection seat using a wood frame with an actual survival kit/seat cushion and back pad. The real seat and back pad aren't much more comfortable than the jet seat sim edition, so pain/soreness is a realistic part of the simulation

Other aircraft are able to jettison their pylons, including the free A-4E-C mod. So, it is simply a matter of implementation.

I was flying the Nevada air-to-air combat tutorial and had expended all missiles. So, I was working on mapping some of the controls used in the mission to my USB panels. I was testing the normal jettison controls when I noticed that the 530D was lit up, while the fuel tank and Magic were not. I went to an external view to verify all of my pylons were empty. I thought maybe I can jettison the 530D pylons. So, I selected the 530D and pressed the trigger. I heard the "clunk" of a jettison release, but all the pylons were still there. Upon pressing the jettison button, the 530D light extinguished. So, for some reason the jettison logic acted as if I still had at least one 530D on a pylon allowing me to select and jettison the non-existent 530 pylons. I understand the mission is old and sometimes old missions cause bugs that wouldn't exist if the mission was opened in the editor and then saved or built from scratch. I assume that some aspects of the mission are out of date and that this one will be edited or replaced. That would be a good time to test and debug the jettison logic after expending all ordnance.

I would assume that the developers are aware, but just to be sure: When I run the new training missions, all of the text is in Russian, whereas all other aircraft use the correct English localization for my install.

VKB hasn't caused any problems for me with DCS. The only time I have had issues is configuring VRS TacPack. If I wanted that software to work, I had to go into the registry and manually alter the name to get rid of the spaces. But I haven't bothered with FSX/P3d/VRS for quite some time, so I haven't had any issues.

I strongly disagree. You can play it out in board games or in pc flight sims. In 2 vs 4 or worse situations, the outnumbered aircraft can and should maintain mutual support. While inevitably some pairs will get separated in a massive fight, there generally have not been any massive fights since Korea. But in both WW2 and Korea, flight integrity was supposed to be maintained as much as possible. The most notable historical example is F4F Wildcats adopting the Thach weave tactics. The F4F had very little chance of winning in 1 vs 1 fights against A6Ms with experienced pilots. But using mutual support tactics, they not only survived but got better than 1:1 kill ratios against an aircraft that whose flight performance was superior in almost every way except in a high speed dive. F-86 Sabres could and did get separated, but if you read the historical accounts, you will find that they were still clearing each others tails even in massive fights where they were outnumbered by MiG-15s. The F-86s and MiG-15s that got shot down were usually the ones that allowed themselves to get separated. Aces are made by getting easy kills against lone, unaware targets, not groups of aircraft using mutual support tactics.

This has caused issues for years. I have had to manually edit the registry to get the VKB stick to register correctly in third party software for another flight sim. I completely forget about the problem until some change makes it rear its ugly head again.

The adverse yaw affects were a function of AoA, not speed. The slatted F-4E and F-4F models virtually eliminated the violent departure hazzard and was in fact the primary reason slats were added. The gain in max AoA and maneuverability was just icing on the cake. After years of flying hard wing F-4s in PC flight sims, I have a habit of using rudder rather than ailerons to roll almost every aircraft I fly while pulling back on the stick. It turns out it makes sense aerodynamically even if the aircraft doesn't have severe adverse yaw affects and using rudder and stick together can get the best possible result. Modern fly-by-wire systems (even as far back as the F-15's CAS) tend to take care of the rudder for you, but I still have a habit of using rudder quite a bit, always watching the slip indicator and gently pushing rudder to keep the ball centered.

I have been using this with my Reverb G2, but my previous gaming PC is still operational. I use a Quest 2 with that one for guests and certain tests. I need to try Open Composite with the Quest 2!

As I bought and installed new Winwing hardware, I ran the software and updated the firmware in all of the other devices. From the previous lessons learned, I never have more than one Winwing device plugged in while updating firmware. I haven't had any more problems since following that practice. Some of the firmware updates added useful features that allowed me to better configure my controls. So it turned out to be a good thing that I updated the firmware. But I haven't bought any new Winwing hardware in a long time, so I haven't run the software or updated firmware versions in a long time. Everything has been working perfectly. I am a big fan of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it!" So I don't expect to run the Winwing software or perform any firmware updates unless I buy the newly announced Hornet panel products (the three MFDs and UF).

The silhouette of the F-5E looks remarkably similar to that of the F/A-18, and there is a reason for that. The F/A-18 is a derivative of the YF-17. The YF-17 used the F-5E as a starting point for its design. Technically the F/A-18E is an entirely new design that looks very similar to the legacy F/A-18C. So, the family has quite the lineage: T-38A and F-5A -> F-5E -> YF-17 -> F/A-18A/C -> F/A-18E. One of the engineers responsible for the F-5E was also key to the development of the P-51, F-86, and F-100, so Kelly Johnson of Lockheed is far from being alone as a huge influence on American military aircraft design. For some reason, Edgar Schmued never got quite the publicity that Kelly Johnson received.