APG-63 Discussion

Even if F15C in DCS had a fully clickable cockpit / simulated systems, when it comes to BVR, it would still be handled by HOTAS (slewing, tracking, locking etc.). That's what HOTAS is for..to reduce the workload during the combat engagement. Most of the "clicking" would be done on start-up anyway..

I thought this thread was about a radar.

RE: click-pits.

 

There has been significant research on the matter of analog/tactile feedback in the cockpit, and simulating it on the ground; given my own design work, it's a natural segue in development of rules and modelling. The consistent finding is simple: you can't trade analog for tactile, and vice versa, and generate an accordant level of workload. The workload increases exponentially at each level of change.

 

When a pilot turns his head (if he needs to), reaches for a tactile switch, and actuates it, the feedback is immediate and specific to muscle memory. Switchology in the cockpit is designed (and in some instances, aircrew-modified- examples being taped over or flexible hose installed on top of specific toggles) to allow hands to differentiate on the fly without touch. Your keyboard, depending on the model, has at least two specific points to aid in this. Further, the length and shape of specific keys do the same; so does the arrangement of keys in home made or purchased panels. Array them in the static pattern of your choosing, and within a matter of a few short hours of consistent exposure, your brain makes the link as to how far forward the hand must go, which way the arm must move it, and how to activate the control.

 

Clickable cockpits do not in any way represent this; each usage of the switch is different, based on view of the cockpit, and the starting position of the mouse, both the pointer on the screen, and its location on the mousepad/surface.

 

You can never build the repetition and muscle memory that a combat pilot does over time. You can learn to remember specific patterns visually, but never actually gain the load; in fact, your brain is being forced to do MORE WORK than the pilot.

 

You *can*, however, generate the consistency in workload in a comparable level of mental stress with a keyboard.

 

The flipside of this the same reason that a keyboard is borderline masochism to fly a simulator after 1994; you cannot gain the recognition of movement and relative stick position in the hand by way of using the arrow keys. Hanging on a specific G limit is incredibly difficult, because of the "off-on" nature of the switch; as we know, stirring the stick is a much finer, granular operation.

 

Clickable cockpits are useful for *visual* learning- not cockpit-workload learning. You are better off using the keyboard, or a set self/pre-made toggle panels for the actual function, because you will be generating an appropriate level of mental stress. Using a TrackIR to look at a panel in the virtual pit, and pressing the key combination by feel on your keyboard, is a more comparable experience.

 

And as to "complex-key combinations", no one ever said you couldn't re-map. In fact, if ED thinks programmable HOTAS ownership is more prevalent than not, I'd suggest they reverse the order of operational priority- that is, the startup/system actuation be single keystrokes, whereas consistent in-flight combat operations be done with chorded keys and/or DX keys easily modeled on the throttle and stick.

Edited May 19, 2014 by lunaticfringe

Switchology in the cockpit is designed (and in some instances, aircrew-modified- examples being taped over or flexible hose installed on top of specific toggles) to allow hands to differentiate on the fly without touch.

 

Yeah, they used to do that in F-4s in Vietnam for the missile selection switch, because it was put in a fairly inconvenient place. So they put a bit of hose to extend it so that they could find the switch by feel only (ie. not taking the eyes off of the ennemy in the middle of the fight).

 

And as to "complex-key combinations", no one ever said you couldn't re-map. In fact, if ED thinks programmable HOTAS ownership is more prevalent than not, I'd suggest they reverse the order of operational priority- that is, the startup/system actuation be single keystrokes, whereas consistent in-flight combat operations be done with chorded keys and/or DX keys easily modeled on the throttle and stick.

Just to mention, clickable pits usually (and should) allow you to map each switch to a key, so you can do that without actually clicking. Clickable pits are more about the underlying systems modelisation than the actuation of the switch. And the option to click the switches, even if combined to unique keystrokes for each switch (which is actually the case with DCS modules), has to stay, if only for cockpit familiarization as you mention.

So all happy families again:)

 

Back to the APG63 discussion...

Clickable pits are more about the underlying systems modelisation than the actuation of the switch.

 

Your contention puts the cart before those horse, as though a switch must be triggerable via mouse-click before the model can be built to use those functions. This is false. Check your OSB options in A-10C or BMS.

 

And the option to click the switches, even if combined to unique keystrokes for each switch (which is actually the case with DCS modules), has to stay, if only for cockpit familiarization as you mention.

 

Again, backwards. The ability to see the switch *actuated* is what is required for cockpit familiarization, not actually *clicking the switch with a mouse*.

 

Don't confuse the issue; full radar and systems modelling can be done just fine without a clicky cockpit. It is a nicety, and nothing more.

As a matter of fact, all of the "systems" are modeled on the F-15 PFM. If you read the documentation, even though you don't have to click fifty switched to start the engine, all of the engine processes and etc are modeled. I would hardly call it "simplified."

Unless we are talking about very early WW2 piston fighters, NONE of the extra switches matter once your in actual combat, as everything you use is on the stick or mapped to the keyboard. I like clickable cockpits for the sake of cosmetic and historical authenticity, but they do not make you any more skilled, unless you consider it skill to memorize what to click in what order to take off and electronic boot up. It is completely ludicrous to argue otherwise.

As a matter of fact, all of the "systems" are modeled on the F-15 PFM.

 

You mean the "engine systems". When some people in this thread said "systems", I assumed they included the radar (thread topic), comms, nav, countermeasures etc.

The radar ECM and etc are modeled.... Or I've been locking on to targets with magic

The radar ECM and etc are modeled.... Or I've been locking on to targets with magic

 

You've been locking targets with a mediocre representation of what the APG-63 can actually do. You've been "protected" by an even more mediocre representation of what the TEWS can do.

 

Just because you've got a B-scope doesn't mean it is right, or even close to being effective.

Yes and more yes. And the same applies to the a-10 and other clickable modules. Many electronic systems are this way due to inadequate information to model them. When ED got permission to export the a-10 as a civilian buyable module they had to remove quite a few features at the behest of the USAF. This sort of thing applies to clickable and unclickable modules. It is the main reason the missile AFM is under-modeled . Buttons has nothing to do with it.

Edited May 20, 2014 by USARStarkey

I'm not saying buttons have anything to do with it. However, when specific functions of the radar are missing that are clearly capable of being discussed on the white world side of the house, with full descriptives and symbology available for public consumption, that argument doesn't hold water.

That part is true about the specific functions. But what I was primarily saying is that this sort of thing applies to ALL of the planes in DCS. Clickable or otherwise. ED has specifically stated that some systems functionality and other capabilities were removed from A-10 for example. The Su-25's laser system has a contrast sensing feature that it doesn't possess in real life due to unavailability of the system at time of development. Yes, some things that could probably be implemented are just downright missing. But a great many more things are missing because the information required to actually model them is missing. The AFM for the missiles is a result of this. Simply knowing what something is capable of, and getting to do that in a computer simulation in a manner that is actually a simulation are two different things.

Edited May 20, 2014 by USARStarkey

When I can pull pages out of the Dash-1, weapons employment manuals, and Fighter Weapons Review pre-classification, and they are still maintained in the jet based on the modeled timeframe, the access/permission excuse does. Not. Work.

 

Stop repeating the same thing over and over. We read your argument the first time. It is not in play in this conversation.

Ok let me get this straight. In my last point a I specifically stated that some things ARE just downright missing. Either you apparently cannot read, or you need to have your eyes checked. The primary example of something in which the information to model it perfectly is not available is the AIM-120's, unless of course you have suddenly acquired sensitive information regarding the guidance logic of the AMRAAM(in which case I'm sure the Chinese are quite interested, assuming they aren't already ahead of you.)

I AGREED with you regarding the APG-63's capabilities after your first post. That is what "yes and more yes means"I at no point claimed that the APG-63 in game was modeled perfectly, merely that the Radar existed and is modeled as a "system." My POINT(imagine i'm speaking slowly here so you can understand) is that regardless of the clickable option, ALL of the aircraft in this game, for one reason or the other lack systems functionality in some areas. I listed 3 examples of things which are wrong due to information gaps. None of them were the Radar. Nobody is or ever was arguing with you about missing radar functions. I am comparing issues with clickable and non clickable planes. You mentioned you aren't arguing they have anything to do with it, in which case I'm not sure what your ranting on about at this point because that was all I was ever trying to Get across. If you don't have an issue with that, then there was never any reason for you to respond to me in the first place, as I never once stated the APG-63 lacked function due to limited information. More to the point, what was being debated originally about 6 posts ago was the existence of the systems with respect to buttons or no buttons, not what capabilities they have. This is why your very first reply makes no sense in the context of the conversation. I stated that Radar and ECM were modeled as a response to clarify on a previous post which was talking about the complexity of systems corresponding to the clickable functions. Nobody was debating the accuracy oe capability of the system compared to real life, as that would have nothing to do with the original argument regarding whether a clickable system somehow required more skill. When I mentioned the PFM engine systems being modeled beneath the hood, that had nothing to do with the radar. I was pointing out that just because you don't have buttons, doesn't mean that nothing is going on underneath. You then come out of nowhere on how the APG-63 and TEWS are a mere shadow of their performance, as if that has anything to do with what we were talking about.

 

Lastly, YOU stop repeating the same thing. YOU do NOT get to tell me or ANYONE else in this forum what is and is not "in play" in a conversion. Get off your high horse.

Edited May 20, 2014 by USARStarkey

Your contention puts the cart before those horse, as though a switch must be triggerable via mouse-click before the model can be built to use those functions. This is false. Check your OSB options in A-10C or BMS.

 

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I meant "what people think of when they say 'clickable cockpits' is more about systems modelisation" (example: a clickable pit without systems modelisation would be... strange).

 

 

Again, backwards. The ability to see the switch *actuated* is what is required for cockpit familiarization, not actually *clicking the switch with a mouse*.

I disagree with you. I wouldn't say you are "familiarized" with the cockpit if you know that pressing LALT+RSHIFT+o actuates the CAS Pitch switch. Clickable pit allows you to know where in the cockpit each switch is located, and that's what I call "cockpit familiarization" (which is different from "avionics familiarization").

 

Don't confuse the issue; full radar and systems modelling can be done just fine without a clicky cockpit. It is a nicety, and nothing more

Sure it can. But I don't see any good reason not to add the clickable part. Only people who have built a fully functional home pit can get away with the "full system modelisation but no clickable pit" (no, remembering 200 or so key bindings won't do).

There really isn't a need to remember so many key commands in the F-15, with any sort of decent hotas setup. I currently have the the TM Warthog, but have gone through some others. Under the current level of modeling, I only use the keyboard for the rearm/radio menus and to open/close my canopy. All of the F-15s mission critical functions are on the stick and throttle pretty much as it is anyway. While I have no issue with the idea of a clickable pit in theory, in practice its completely unnatural to actuate switches with a mouse, especially while airborne. Its something more logically suited for a touch screen. There happens to be an immense amount of leeway in Sim A/G, compared to A/A, to make a mouse a passable substitute.

While I have no issue with the idea of a clickable pit in theory, in practice its completely unnatural to actuate switches with a mouse, especially while airborne. Its something more logically suited for a touch screen. There happens to be an immense amount of leeway in Sim A/G, compared to A/A, to make a mouse a passable substitute.

I agree it is not natural to actuate cockpit switches with a mouse, and is fairly uncomfortable while in flight. The problem is, is there really any alternative to actuate all those switches?

I agree it is not natural to actuate cockpit switches with a mouse, and is fairly uncomfortable while in flight. The problem is, is there really any alternative to actuate all those switches?

 

You missed the part where I mentioned a touch screen I guess. The real problem about that is that there was never a huge market for a 24"+ touch screen monitor, before Microsoft tried to force touch on the Desktop world with windows 8.

With decent head tracking (oculus rift) and some kind of glove - that's the clickable cockpit dream.

With decent head tracking (oculus rift) and some kind of glove - that's the clickable cockpit dream.

 

If that ever comes true the way I think of it I don't know how I'm suppose to get free time for real life XD.

With decent head tracking (oculus rift) and some kind of glove - that's the clickable cockpit dream.

 

I was thinking of something more realistic, that actually exists. More importantly what would work with the sim as is. With an OR and a glove you'd then need an in Sim representation of a hand that maps to said glove, else it would translate very poorly. Then you'd have to hope that glove wouldn't be obtrusive to operating the actual controls. Track-IR, with touch screen is logical, direct, and functional now.

and some kind of glove

 

Made me think of Michael Jackson flying an A-10.. "Master Arm, shamone! Gun/PAC Arm, heee hee!"

 

Unless you want to build a pit, some combination of mouse clicks + keyboard + HOTAS is as good as it gets for the forseeable future, and it's kind of pointless to discuss it further. Especially in a thread about the APG-63.