But will the AI RIO get a hard on whenever he feels the enemy is close? 
3 Likes
Only as a way to tease his pilot.
DCS has both autorudder and takeoff assistance for some aircraftā¦
Smooth HUD could be just another option.
IMO, when flightsimming on a PC you lack many inputs that real flying will give you. You miss a huge part of reality and realism already. In that respect, flightsimming is both harder, and easier, than real flying. Maybe just different. Absolute 100% dedication to realism (which Iāve just said isnāt possible on a PC based flightsim) may not be in the flightsimmers best interest, and may not convey the experience of flying, in this case the Turkey, in the proper way.
It depends on hardware, for one thing. What kind of PC do you have? What size of screen? HOTAS? Rudderpedals? VR?
A flightsim should be enjoyable to many different flightsimmers, with different hardware.
Optionsā¦ Options are our friend! 
3 Likes
Judging from the RL videos, they havenāt got this down to the full extent (i think somebody mentioned this was acknowledged, even). So the pitch ladder seems to get the same refresh rate as the FPM right now, which is too low. It also seems that the pippers move faster than the FPM(IRL, not so in the sim right now). I donāt think it will be all that obnoxious once it is fleshed out to spec.
4 Likes
BOOOOOO
[edit: J/K. Everybody can fly their sim the way they want to.]
4 Likes
I concur! I would naturally never use help features like thoseā¦ 
I agree with many of your points, but not here. It is the first thing you visually notice when you fly the plane. It is not something that you have to use because your hardware canāt handle it otherwise.
For me there isnāt any viable reason to turn it off.
Of course everyone may have a different opinion. But for me this belongs into the same category as having a switch in the cockpit to switch on the rear turret of the F-14 or the automatic carrier landing of the A-10C.
[quote=āAginor, post:188, topic:1726ā]
It is not something that you have to use because your hardware canāt handle it otherwise.[/quote]
In that case I donāt think you got my pointā¦
A real HUD isnāt 2" wide as it would be on a 20" screen. And if you have a low spec PC and struggle with low FPS and stutters, that HUD may become out of synch with the overall framerate of the sim. Also, in VR, with timewarps here and there and dropped frames and artifacts, a stuttering HUD may even be harder to read than it was in real life.
So yes, it may definitely be hardware dependent.
Iām not saying āmake the HUD look like in Top Gunā 
Again, options! Let every simmer decide for themselves.
5 Likes
Ah ok if that was what you meant I tend to agree a tad more.
2 Likes
A tad more? A measly tadā¦?
Ok, if thatās all I getā¦
The whole realism discussion depends a lot on what hardware you are using.
Just take flightmodeling vs. joysticks. To really appreciate a realistic flightmodel, you need a high quality stick, and rudderpedals. Flying the DCS Spit with a sloppy twist stick may be harder, but not realistic.
And what about systems fidelity? Not realistic without a good programmable HOTAS. Prefferably one that mimics the real dealā¦
Or the whole visibility debate. Depends a lot on the size of the screen and how many pixels you got, doesnāt it?
Realism in flightsims will only be as good as it gets. And that doesnāt mean āas in realityā
So, people may say they fly on āfull realā if they want. But that doesnāt mean the simulation they are experiencing is realistic. Itās quite possibly harder than it needs to be, but not necessarily realistic.
So, my closing comment, if anyone have bothered reading this far, is that there are many varying degrees of realism in flightsimming. Why do one need to draw a line when it comes to any specific detail of realismā¦?
Say it with me, everybody: OPTIONS!
2 Likes
OCTOPUS!
3 Likes
No LANTIRN for the Kitty (for now).
This, combined with comments made by Cobra confirming no Sparrowhawk essentially confirm an early/mid 90s F-14B. This variant was essentially an F-14A with the new GE engines, and iterative avionics improvements that were slated for, and would be received by the F-14A fleet in the early 90s. This almost certainly eliminates the PTID as an option, so the only major cockpit differences between the A and B should be be a dedicated screen for the AN/ALR-67 RWR added to the right side of the pilotās dash (previous versions display the RWR using the HSD screen).
This version should still be able to drop bombs, dumb and PGM, as well as fire rockets. It will however need a Hornet or Harrier in attendance for the buddy lase should you choose to Paveway.
3 Likes
Thank god it will have an RWR. I was worried they would just model two police radar detectors to the left and right side of the canopy.
2 Likes
All F-14s had RWRs. It could be viewed via the HSD screen by setting the switch to āECMā or by setting the HSD to ECM override, which would flip the view whenever something locked the jet up. The RIO had an identical screen in the back on his right side.
The quality of the RWRs isā¦ a different story. The F-14 went through four or five iterations that ranged from horrible, to not good, and ultimately decent with the AN/ALR-67. The Fuzz Buster is a infamous example where the RWR of the time couldnāt detect the radar emissions of the HAWK SAM system, which had become a serious problem after the government of Iran, which had quite a few, suddenly became very hostile. It was however discovered that a consumer grade radar gun detector could. So a bunch were bought and shipped off to the Persian Gulf where we spent the 80s patrolling around and leering angrily at Iran, more or less.
8 Likes
Entertaining and educational!
1 Like
The A-5 Vigilante didnāt have a HUD, it had a āPPDIā - Pilotās Projected Display Indicator, which, for the life of me, I cannot find a picture of.
1 Like
So basically we are talking about adding assets (LANTIRN) further down the roadā¦ like in a packā¦
hits and runs away
3 Likes
Donāt jinx it.
2 Likes
1 Like