Leaderboard

It's not beyond the scope of the simulation. It's a consideration with the real aircraft, it should be the consideration with the sim. The "vocal minority" you're referring to is, in fact, the DCS core audience. If this didn't happen, people would complain about there being no consequence for overspeeding the gear.

Hello everyone, I'd like to provide an update regarding the F-16C manual's status. The F-16C manual has been under review and revision since the first week of August, with a lot of effort devoted to not only new sections for features that have come to the DCS: F-16C in the past year, but to improve the existing sections to the quality expected of DCS Manuals. As such, here is one such example of an improvement: Existing EXT Lighting Control Panel section Updated EXT Lighting Control Panel section Additionally, the intent is to not just explain how to operate a panel, but to explain (when appropriate) how these systems function within the simulated tactical environment of DCS World. Here is an excerpt from the new ECM section. Throughout this process, it has been necessary to review the existing text to: Identify any shortcomings of the existing manual content. Identify any inaccuracies of the existing manual with regards to the current functionality in game. Test the procedures and explanations within the new/revised manual content to ensure it reflects the current state of the DCS: F-16C. This manual revision is intended to be as thorough as possible; but at the same time, we recognize the need to push new and up-to-date information as soon as possible is an important aspect for the players. As such, the plan will be to release these updates in stages, so that completed chapters or sub-sections are released when able. Currently the plan is to release the following completed sections in the first edition of updates: Updated DCS: World Fundamentals and F-16C Weapons chapters. Updated Cockpit Overview chapter. This chapter alone has grown from 16 pages to 40. With thorough descriptions for every switch, button or analog gauge functionality. Updated Hands-On Controls (HOTAS) section to reflect new capabilities and logic. More thorough explanations of contextual HOTAS commands and logic will still be needed in each individual sensor or weapon chapter of course. Updated HUD and HUD Control Panel section. Updated and expanded Defensive Systems chapter to include additions for the ECM pods and more thorough and accurate explanation of the countermeasures logic with regard to the CMS commands on the control stick and the CMDS panel settings (The explanation of the CMDS Modes logic alone is now 1.5 pages to capture all the aspects of its logic, with the Defensive Systems chapter grown from 6 pages to 16). Updated and expanded Appendices to include updated ALIC codes, RWR abbreviations, HAS tables, and HAD threat classes, among others. Additional sections that are currently works-in-progress at varying states of completion, but are also intended to be released in the first edition of updates: New chapter covering the HARM Targeting System (HTS pod). Updated and expanded section explaining the ICP and various DED pages (this one in particular is quite the task). Updated section covering the basics of MFD operation, specifically the Horizontal Situation Display (HSD) MFD format. This final list is not all-encompassing of everything that is WIP, but rather the most crucial highlights that are being actively worked on for completion. After the first update edition is finalized, other sections such as the FCR, TGP, and various weapons will be undertaken as well. Ultimately, this is a labor of passion that will hopefully be worth the wait to all of you fellow virtual Viper pilots out there. Respectfully, Raptor

It should not be: the R530 IR missile was "limited" all-aspect, which means it was not able to lock a target going straight on you, but it was able to lock from the sides. The R550 Magic 1 was strictly rear-aspect. The next update will change current behaviour for both missiles to better reflect reality. It will look like this:

Sorry, I have to disagree. The only way a DTC makes sense is as part of an improved mission planner (not necessarily mission editor - I believe these should be two separate entities). Why would you change your loadout from what is planned? The whole point of planning is to ensure the aircraft is correctly configured for the mission. I can see why JSOW spammers might wan to to do it your way, but for people who want to fly (and more importantly, plan) realistic missions, then a proper planner and DTC implementation is critical. I will feel very short changed if all it becomes is a quicker way to enter LL for IAMs so Air-Quakers can get back in the sky faster. Take the Viper for example - I want the mission planner to be capable of weaponeering, MFD page ordering, CMDS programs, steerpoints, OAPs, VIPs, threat rings (these aren't magic, they need to be entered in planning and are based on intel, not an infallible map), ALOW, Comm ladders, HARM tables, etc. Basically everything which you would input IRL before you step to the jet, not after. TL;DR The whole point of a DTC is that it is a planning tool, not a hot-pit shortcut.

I have also an 8k+ and absolutely love it. I upgraded from a 5k Super and it was a big improvement. What I like about the 8k+ is the refresh rate of 72hz which is much more easier to achieve FPS above it than 90hz. I do not need to use re-projection (pimax compulsive smooth) and get butter smooth experience. The other great feature is the upscaling which takes much less GPU and CPU power to get the images as the HMD uses a 2.5k signal and bring it to 4k. You will not get as much as clarity as with the reverb G2 but the wide field of view makes a big difference, I would never go back to tunnel vision.

For someone so sure you have remarkably little evidence. Ah, but that's right you don't need evidence. You're all singing all dancing sh1t of the world and every word that passes your lips is gospel. Please. Do yourself, and us a favour - 1. Your opinion is abundantly clear; you re-iterating it in every reply does nothing to enhance your argument, it just grinds and will ultimately alienate you. If you seek to be taken seriously and not be disregarded as some bleating fantasist, desist in repeating it and find something a bit more constructive to post. 2. PKs, reports, will serve you 100 times more effectively than feels - a lot of AIM-54 were test launched between its introduction and its retirement to test various upgrades in hardware and software so start trying to source them; HB have stated they are happy with their data so find better data to give HB a revised baseline to work to; whining is not a datapoint.

The TGP in air-to-air mode is extremely jittery and barely usable except when flying perfectly straight and level with the target flying directly towards you. You seem to get better results when using STT instead of RWS SAM/TWS, but not by much. Point tracking the target partially fixes this jitter, but this is hardcapped to <25nm for some reason. Comparing it to footage of the SNIPER XR(Not the same targeting pod, I know! This is the only footage of targeting pods in air-to-air mode I could find) the real tracking seems much smoother No point track https://streamable.com/d6cpmx Point track https://streamable.com/qv1mv2 airtoairtgp_jitter.trk airtoairtgp_jitter_pttrack.trk

I’ll definitely make one as soon as we get the Phantom. I’m also hoping for a Vietnam map announcement by then, that would be really nice.

Here is the E version flight manual: http://thef4phantomcommunity.hispaviacion.es/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Flight-Manual-F4E_c.pdf

Oh look what fedex just gave me first reviews and feedback later today and over the week end ! top notch delivery speed Winwing !!!

Looking forward to Normandy 2, but I do have a wishlist item. This may be way out of scope, but having a European theatre would really be something. Imagine the amount of historical accurate missions we could play once we have more playable WW2 aircraft.

You posted a tacview of 4 F14s at 33kft firing at a range of ~40nm. some even fire the Aim54 at 0.5M... Not the best parameters nevertheless, the Mig21 has to take a strong defensive stance on the first missile. The Missle has done its work here, Just because it's not a kill doesn't mean the result is bad. and in DCS it seems AI have perfect SA. that is also the reason why "a dozen Mig21s" or other were shot down in real life, they didn't know what was coming and in DCS AI reacted perfectly...

The metrics and dynamics involved in the development of a flight model for something so complicated in real life is incredibly hard, now develop that product in a game engine where the goalposts are constantly moving as the engine is updated and bugs and features are removed/introduced. Then add the increased difficulty of having to placate people who would rather complain on the forums in a non constructive manner as opposed to "this is the issue, i believe this is how it should perform" supplemented by approved, ratified and reliable data from reputable sources. I'm sure as the reasonable, decent, eloquent person you have demonstrated yourself to be on your previous posts, where you have in no way thrown the toys out of the pram and refused to at least attempt to understand that people educated or otherwise may be slightly more correct than you, (because you wouldn't do that, would you?) you've demonstrated the issue, now let the people more knowledgeable about the product, the challenges faced in game development, and the patience to deal with people who moan, continue to carry out the fantastic job that they are doing to deliver as realistic a product as possible. Sincerely, An aviation expert

Hi, slaving weapons and sensors to MSI targets and donor targets is on our wish list for later. thank you

Thanks. We note it.

Still useless information. 1. Parameters of launch? Speed, altitude and aspect of launch aircraft? 2. Parameters of target? Speed, altitude and aspect at launch? 3. Did targets defend? Were they even able to appreciate they were under fire? Did they even have RWRs in the export model of that aircraft? This is the nuance that is required to assess the performance accuracy of the DCS Phoenix because all these factors massively influence the PK of ANY missile, not just the Phoenix. This nuance extends to the modelling of the DCS itself; if there is an issue, where does it lie? Is it in the FM of the missile or the guidance logic? Is it in the programmed rocket performance or an issue with the AI? If the Ai is the issue is it the launching AI or the target AI? Or could it be just poor operator performance, launching at envelope limits? Or a bit of all these? A tacview is insufficient data; it may provide a theatrical performance of an undesirable outcome - the symptom - but it fails to allow any deeper diagnostics of why that undesirable outcome occurred - the ailment. A .trk file is the only way deeper information about the varied parameters that led to all 12 of the launched missiles missing can be mined. Run your test again. If all 12 missiles miss again save a .trk file. Then run it again. Save a second .trk file. Give to Heatblur. Then you may have a leg to stand on.

Prepare yourself for an amazing experience. I got the Pimax 8KX a couple of months ago. Coming from an Oculus Rift-S. I can attest that the FOV is worth it. At least in my opinion it is. I only have the Oculus to compare it against. However, my peripheral vision on the Pimax headset feels "right" to me. I wear glasses and the screens far exceed where my lenses stop - which is precisely my RL experience too. I couldn't be happier with my purchase. That video above will save you hours of frustration in setup and tinkering with DCS.

Have you ever played multiplayer? Loadouts aren’t preplanned in most servers, in the most popular ones you get slapped in a clean plane and it’s up to you to load up and configure the plane to your task. Nor are missions ever static, there’s a good chance that somebody else already destroyed the target you planned out, or maybe there are already more than enough pilots performing your assigned task so you have to switch to a more needed task. Flexibility is vital for multiplayer, there really is no way for the mission creator to preplan loadouts in a way that accounts for other players already flying around. I agree wholeheartedly, I’d love to see DTC capable of all these nuances. I think it’s fine to be able to do this in the mission editor as well. But for the love of God, don’t lock us out of being able to program the DTC in-game. At the very least make it the first step after selecting a role prior to jumping in the cockpit. I would cry real man tears if my MFD page ordering was different based on the host’s preference every time I switched servers.

At least modules like this require considerably less time investment to learn. I reckon it's possible to become pretty competent in a weekend or less. It may be study level, but it's a study of a simple aircraft with simple weapons. Definitely more F-5 than A-10C or AH-64! The L-39 is really showing its age now, and the Hawk is long gone. I think this might be ideal for some low-intensity type scenarios, or just general bimbling.

Hi @Jak525 We are bringing some changes to IFF and the way the symbology is shared between the FCR and HSD. Please take a look at Matt Wagner's latest NCTR video. These changes will improve data replication on both screens. I recommend you wait for the next update and try again. Thank you for your report.

Yes, of course I set the mission with zero wind. Furthermore they always fall short, no matter what direction (in case of any wind at least in downwind attack run the bomblets should fall long). They always fall short. The skeets perform as advertised. If the skeets / bomblets are close to the target they do shoot the molten "rod". It's just that the bomblets are not over the target - while the canister hits the target. Exactly, the higher the BA and the speed, the worse the deviation. 0 ft BA is a direct hit! But a dud, of course. What I do: CCIP "just" aim 200-400ft behind it, it's a matter of training, of course and not really satisfying. CCRP... well, do an evaluation of the situation and then plan from where you will attack. Do a (outside the engagement parameters of the SAM) short simulated attack run and place the SPI a few 100ft behind the target (3D on a 2D screen...), turn away, do a re-run and use the HSI steering setting for the exact radial for the attack run (a bit over-complicated, I admit). Usually it hadn't to be so exact, you can place the SPI behind the target from every direction with a bit of evaluation training or even do it while on the attack run if you do a short pop-up (and instant down) with the backdraw that fine tuning the SPI from low alt into "depth" of field is tricky as each pixel represents a few 10ft or so. Yeah, the CBU97 is IMHO the best against single type SAMs. You can carry up to 10 and take out everything, from high alt through the cloud layer to low level pop-up / lobbing and the bombs can't be shot down by the SA-15 or SA-10. Windy conditions can be a problem, though. But don't forget how adrenaline pumping and satisfying a 10-50ft alt attack run is in comparison to a boring "Magnum" employment... It's the most important part that needs fixing, ASAP!

Seems like all the technological changes are coming into alignment around about the same time, hoping that in the next 6 months or so I can get a VR rig that delivers good / acceptable performance with something like the pimax crystal (or even G2) and it will be the last rig I will need for a very long time, especially if the software improves as well. Retired now and don't have the cash to throw continually at this hobby.

Know bug, next release will be patched

I really do not want to stir things up, but i believe that what we are talking about here is Weight on Wheels. No weapons are able to be released while the aircraft is on the ground or gear is extended for some very good reasons. one reason is pickling on the desk would be very catastrophic with ammunition, personal and other aircraft crowding the deck. I remember seeing this on a very old video happening with a sparrow. Two, imagine coming in for a landing and accidently pickling at the round down. give me a practical reason in real life that an aircraft would fly 200 NM with it wheel down to complete a mission, they would not. this would be a mission scrubbing event and the proper procedure would be to RTB and fix the issue. As far as over speeding the gear, i do not see this as the only time this may come up. i have had it happen recently while taking off the deck and lag happening where the aircraft must have hit the deck enough to cause damage to the gear. what was the procedure? immediate RTB and repair aircraft so that 100% of the systems required for the mission were working. As unfortunate it is to redo the four minutes of startup, it proper procedure so all systems are functional. no good pilot would be mission ready with a bent aircraft. landing gear is not just a LED light out or flashlight not onboard. just my two cents Falcon

I feel you. But what must unfortunately always be said in a case like this, this isn’t a finished product. Neither the F-14 or DCS. The Tomcat is in early access. Something that certainly feels like should be made much more explicit in the sales pages but isn’t. Now, it has been Early Access for a very long time, and that’s a whole other toilet full of worms. But part of that is reason 2. DCS is never going to be a finished product. And it’s free for the self same reason. Meaning publishing a finished mod like the Tomcat is a constantly moving target. And one made more complex by the methods of how DCS gets improvements. Which also means the final released Tomcat will only be “final” for one Release cycle because any future changes are un-planable and so can only happen after DCS pushes their updates to their 3rd party with documentation and API, which is historically a very slow process for DCS. We’re now going on 9+ months waiting on the full new missile API to get to heatblur so they can implement it at all. Until then, none of the missiles are really “done” at all. DCS is that 80’s Camaro shell your great uncle keeps in his garage that he’s totally going to get to one day, but currently acts as a badly designed shelf for everything else in the garage. The only way to understand DCS is to look at it from that perspective.

AMD RDNA 3 “Navi 31” Rumors: Radeon RX 7000 Flagship already with AIBs, 2x faster Rasterization and over 2x Ray Tracing improvement: https://wccftech.com/amd-rdna-3-radeon-rx-7000-gpu-rumors-2x-raster-over-2x-rt-performance-amazing-tbp-aib-testing/ ------------------ \ \ ------------------ AMD RDNA 3 “Navi 31” Rumors: Radeon RX 7000 Flagship With AIBs, 2x Faster Raster & Over 2x Ray Tracing Improvement: The latest rumors come from Greymon55, who suggests that AIBs already have AMD Radeon RX 7000 GPUs based on the RDNA 3 architecture being tested in their labs. The leaker didn't quote partners but did give us some early performance estimates which sound really good. We do know that AMD is working on its Navi 31 flagship GPU for launch next month on the 3rd of November, so it is likely that these are the flagship chips that are being tested at the moment to tackle NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 4090 & RTX 4080 graphics cards. AMD RDNA 3 "Radeon RX 7000" GPU With 2x Raster & Over 2x RT Performance? As per the leaker, the AMD RDNA 3 GPUs featured on the Radeon RX 7000 series graphics cards are delivering up to a 2x performance increase in pure rasterization workloads and over 2x gains within ray tracing workloads. It is not mentioned if the RDNA 2 GPU is the RX 6900 XT or RX 6950 XT but, even if we look at the 6900 XT, the RDNA 2 chip offered superior performance in raster vs the RTX 3090 and came pretty close to the RTX 3090 Ti, while the RX 6950 XT excelled over it. A 2x improvement in this department would mean that AMD would easily compete and even surpass the performance of the RTX 4090 in a large section of games. In ray tracing, a gain over 2x means that AMD might end up close to or slightly faster than the RTX 30 series "Ampere" graphics cards, depending on the title. The Ada Lovelace RTX 40 series cards do offer much faster ray tracing capabilities, offering close to 2x gains in ray tracing performance over the RTX 30 lineup. So ray tracing will see a major improvement but it may not be able to close the gap with RTX 40 series. There's no word on new AI-assisted capabilities featured on RDNA 3 GPUs to help with upscaling technologies such as FSR. Reference TBP of AMD RDNA 3 GPUs Reportedly Looks "Amazing" Lastly, the leaker states that the reference TBP looks great and we don't know if that's comparing it against the RTX 40 series or the RDNA 2 lineup. AMD has already said that the RDNA 3 "Radeon RX 7000" GPU lineup will have much lower power figures than the competition. AMD confirmed that its RDNA 3 GPUs will be coming later this year with a huge performance uplift. The company's Senior Vice President of Engineering, Radeon Technologies Group, David Wang, said that the next-gen GPUs for Radeon RX 7000 series will offer over 50% performance per watt uplift vs the existing RDNA 2 GPUs. AMD's SVP & Technology Architect, Sam Naffziger, has highlighted that the next-generation RDNA 3 GPUs featured on the Radeon RX 7000 GPUs and next-gen iGPUs, will going to offer a range of new technologies including a refined adaptive power management tech to set workload-specific operation points, making sure that the GPU only utilizes the power required for the workload. The GPUs will also feature a next-gen AMD Infinity Cache which will offer higher-density, lower-power caches and reduced power needs for the graphics memory. The AMD Radeon RX 7000 "RDNA 3" GPU lineup based on the Nav 3x GPUs is expected to launch later this year, with reports pitting the flagship Navi 31 launch first, followed by Navi 32 and Navi 33 GPUs. A recent rumor also highlighted that the graphics cards will hit retail shelves in December.

VF-213 Is finally finished

Читал уже 100 раз и даже писал. Ответ Чижа - купите 80-ти дюймовый экран или очки VR. Да и вообще, проблема уже неактуальна - по словам Чижа сейчас полно мониторов 8К и шлемов VR - покупай и наслаждайся реалистичной видимостью. Вы нищеброд, играете на маленьком мониторчике и не можете позволить себе огромный экран в 8К (и заодно RTX 4090, чтобы тянула 8K)? Не беда, купите монитор с низким разрешением, чтобы пиксель был размером с кулак, тогда и контакты будут нормально видны. У вас маленький монитор с большим разрешением? Вот вам зум и ярлыки, это же так реалистично - слепой пилот, выискивающий противника через подзорную трубу и ярлыки, просвечивающие через облака и кабину (к слову, в самом первом Lock On ярлыки не просвечивали через кабину).

This is an incredible video I found randomly on Youtube. I was blown away by the quality of the sound effects from outside and inside the jet. Based on real life cockpit footage it sounds so close to the real one. If it's possible for a colaboration with these guys by Razbam to bring those in DCS officially that would lift the module a lot and I'm solid sure that the owners would appreciate a more authenticate feeling of this jet.

Not sure I get the joke? We put a lot of work into the BIT system and most of it works. There still are items to tune and add as stated in that news item. It's an item we are well aware of, but a rather minor one that we will look at when time and resources allow. In the meantime, we have much more pressing matters for the Hornet.

Somebody asked for these so here they are, earlier than I intended. I normally like to see the Mod finished before I do stuff for it but I do like this Sea King so started on it last week: Known issues - The 845 Sqn Sea King is the wrong model, The RN Cdo Version has a simpler wheel arrangement and several other differences, so I had to fit things around what I had and the Sikorsky version fitted the need better than the Westland. Likewise the Westland Rescue versions are also different models so again I fitted things to the model as best I could, sliding doors in a different place etc etc etc - its all a bit of a compromise. There is a bit of stretching on the model so some lettering appears a bit distorted in places, my software could not correct for that, sorry. I DO NOT KNOW HOW YOUR GAME IS SET UP, and there is no point in telling me - So if you have issues with either the flying or the static versions I suggest you check a livery that does work and compare the description.lus in that livery to what I have done and make any changes that might be required. This came about because some of the mod liveries did not work and I made a huge change to the mod to get it to work they way I prefer it, in that process I changed the description.lua's on some liveries to get them to work. There are a couple of different liveries for each one, with a generic unmarked if you want to do your own. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ximab4bghwo8myw/CrazyEddies Livereies for Eightballs Sea King.zip?dl=0

I remember hearing that the release of the module will come "a few weeks/months" after teasers start dropping, so if we saw some sort of spooky halloween Phantom teaser my internal clock would start ticking for Christmas/the holidays haha

Clouds dont affect the targeting pod at all. It will point track through clouds just fine, see clouds.trk WHOT/BHOT/TV selection does not affect point track range, see noclouds_30k_swap.trk. this mission also now has no clouds set. clouds.trk noclouds_30k_swap.trk

Should be very similar in clarity, but the Pimax will have better FOV and extra add-ons you can buy. SteamVR tracking needs additional faceplate attachment ($200) and there will also be a pass through camera module. The capabilities sounds very good on paper but where is the demo unit though. If you want SteamVR tracking then it’ll be $2100 for this headset making this pretty close to the 12K ($2400) which is a much better headset on paper anyway. The big question is can Pimax really execute all this, and why launch two products so close together one quarter apart.

How do you build experience in simulations? Through numbers. Numbers really are all that there is. Code doesn't work with feelings. Even in this case (AIM-54), we can see that numbers are the problem. The missile is currently stuck on old missile code that isn't very flexible, is inaccurate in a number of situations, and seemingly isn't very consistent from patch to patch. HB is doing their job by making a more accurate missile, though they have their hands tied by some unfortunately circumstances. Eventually things will get better. We don't know when this will happen, but eventually the Phoenix will move to the new API and we will actually have it properly modeled. Until then, we just have to make do and wait.

Added to the latest build - find it here - https://github.com/FlightControl-Master/MOOSE_INCLUDE/blob/develop/Moose_Include_Static/Moose_.lua

The physics are the same, though. Note that in DCS, we don't have to emulate the exact workings of the system. IRST is basically an IR camera that's sweeping back and forth and instead of producing an image, it finds spots likely to be aircraft. There's no magic there, PIRATE is just very, very good at this, classified stuff doesn't necessarily enter into what's need to model it in DCS. If the mechanization is known, we can have it. In fact, note that all those spiffy accuracy-improving things about MSI aren't needed in DCS since track accuracy isn't simulated, and if it sometimes makes it in, it'll likely be a random error that's decreased based on which sensors are tracking the target (the physics behind it would be very taxing to calculate, in any case). MSI is also easy compared to IRL, just check which sensors are tracking a given game object. Inner workings of the systems are irrelevant. I wouldn't be so sure about NCTR, this would require image recognition which is hard enough for modern machine learning systems. In mid-2000s even a limited variant would be questionable. It's possible that it can do it at close range from a specific angle, and if the target is against the sky.

Here we go....

Hi @Micr0 This was reported to the team as a possible future improvement for the Supercarrier ops. Thank you.

Yes, normally one SR and one TR. Often even just one SR in a whole network that is spread over several kilometers. In addition, each position usually has infantry, a two vehicles with HMG or autocannons, and 1-2 manpads. But of course these are all things that make using Hydra70 rockets extremely dangerous. You would have to get so close that you would get caught in a bullet storm. By the way, there comes the next problem that breaks the rockets in DCS. HMG and autocannons are ABSOLUTELY ridiculously accurate against flying targets. During my time in the German Bundeswehr I had anti-aircraft shooting. With our 2x MG3 Lafette. And it's incredibly difficult even in a training scenario with no real pressure, no adrenaline rush and a drone slowly flying straight ahead. In DCS all Gunners are just Divine Archers with awesome Aimbots, even on Easy/Average.

Would be cool to communicate to an enemy, or wing man with custom hand signals like these:

The AI is not the brightest bulb in the pack, but it is functional aight_bet.zip.acmiaight_bet_2.zip.acmi This is sadly a DCSism. In real life the rotor blades create a pretty massive doppler return that a radar (depends on the radar) interpret as a steady contact. IRL the first air to air kill of the F-15E was against a Hind they hit with a 2,000lb laser guided bomb, but they _found_ it using the air to air radar. In DCS the rotors return is ignored, and it only considers the speed of the fuselage which is usually within the doppler notch of most PD radars.

Added MB-339A to Steam database. The launch should be later this week. https://steamdb.info/app/2147490/

If extensive documentation on the internal systems and SME access cannot be obtained, then HB will not make the module.

On my setup it is running in VR, never can get a true full screen on the monitor any longer since the DCS update. I had to go back in and re-setup and re-calibrate my Point CTRL system in order to allow for this as it had previously been done with true full screen so all the tracking in Point CTRL was now off. I am ok now just was a bit of a PITB to have to do this after the DCS update when this occurred. I understand now the alt-enter was a Windows function however I maintain that something in the DCS update caused it to no longer work. Perhaps it is only not working for folks using VR I don't know.

Yes, you have to align the HMCS on a cold start if you want it to be accurate. TGP can't be aligned in DCS. But make sure to use CZ more often. Cursor Zero removes the offset that I assume you are experiencing.

RAZBAM Mig-23