SonofEil

They’re all likely subject to what’s called an embargo. It can either be a smaller part of a broader NDA or its own agreement. It can even be just a “gentleman’s agreement” with no formal contracts involved. Believe it or not, the latter is actually very common when it comes to early press access. For the sake of fairness the embargo will lift for everyone at the same time, so when it does expect a shit ton of super rad videos to flood YouTube. I do wonder if the embargo has a hard expiration/publication date or if they’re all waiting for a go-ahead from HB. In my experience with other media, embargoes almost always have hard lift dates, if for no other reason than to avoid miscommunication and hurt feelings. I have exactly zero experience with software publishing though.

Personally I never liked the colors in 1.X. To me it was like playing with a mild case of cataracts. The whole Caucuses map was very much showing its age, from textures and lighting to terrain poly count and 3D ground detail. In fact, other than trees the 3D ground details in Caucuses are still glaringly bare when compared to the DLC maps. And yes, there are absolutely situations where 2.5 looks hyper saturated and cartoon-ish and coastline gradients are unfortunately non existent. But overall 2.5 has been a net gain, a long needed improvement that’s still a young WIP. Regarding all of the other too-many-to-list improvements that ED has promised for years and years and failed to deliver: I don’t think it has anything to do with a lack of caring or lack of desire to see DCS be the best. I find that suggestion pretty insulting, especially when all evidence points to the contrary. Everyone involved with DCS, from the directors to the testers, are clearly passionate about flight simulation in general and DCS in particular. The problem I think is a serious lack of resource availability combined with a constant underestimation of the scale of the difficulties in retrofitting an old legacy program into a modern graphical environment.

Let me state upfront that I can’t see myself ever going back to 2D. VR is revolutionary, a totally different experience. That said, since all of the positives have basically been said ad nauseum in this and countless other posts I’ll give you some of the negatives I’ve experienced. 2D envy! Yes, believe it or not I sometimes experience 2D envy when watching a YouTube tutorial or dogfight video. This is mostly because of the resolution issue in VR. I watch a video and the sim looks absolutely gorgeous, crisp and clear. I go play in VR...and that crisp cleanness just isn’t there. You do get used to it to a degree, and the benefits of immersion can’t be overstated, but I do occasionally wish my sim looked like the ones in the YouTube videos. Which brings us to -> I miss playing on max settings. It goes back to the sim looking gorgeous. My rig could take almost anything DCS could throw at it in 2D. In VR my sliders and settings are sitting at the bottom third of their ranges. FoV, while generally increased from a 2D monitor, is still very limited. The most accurate description I’ve heard is that it’s like looking out of a scuba mask. It’s very much like that. VR headsets, even the ‘comfortable’ ones, are not comfortable. As far as I know no manufacturer currently makes a headset with any fans or ventilation. Often during a DCS session my face under the mask is a sweaty mess. Just the fact that you have a big mask strapped over your eyes for prolonged periods isn’t the most pleasant thing. I currently fly with labels on. It’s a necessary evil in VR. I hate flying with labels. It’s a lot more ‘work’ to fly in VR. With TrackIR you can easily spin your virtual head like the Exorcist girl. In VR it is hard to look behind you, and looking behind you is extremely important if you’re in a knife fight. There are some people who switch back and forth between VR and 2D (Wags being one of them) and even a few who don’t feel that VR is advanced enough to justify the switch. For me personally, the benefits of VR outweigh the negatives, but I wanted to make clear there are some not-insignificant trade offs.

Yeah I had to poke around to find it a while back. For future searchers: On the HSI page click DATA on the top right. You're now on the WYPT subpage, click UFC on the left top. On the UFC click ELEV. Select either Feet or Meters. Done.

Yes! You finally got to try it in VR! There’s really no comparison with monitor/TrackIR. Yes you lose resolution but the sense of depth and scale is remarkable.

Man am I glad I found this thread, I was really concerned that my 1080 was about to let the smoke out. The flickering shadow thing looked very much like a card death I had a few years ago, and the holidays have made sure that I don’t have funds for immediate replacement. Really glad ED is aware of this. Yep. I noticed popping clouds are back as well. : (

GA’s work has always been excellent and I was really happy when you brought him on board officially. This video is easily one of his best! (Really oddball choice of music too...but it works!) I hope all of the ED team gets some much deserved time off for the next week or two! Really excited for 2019 and the Viper!!! A million thanks guys!!

‘Eagle upgraded to full module’ was on the unofficial roadmap for a few years, wasn’t it? Am I misremembering that or was it removed? Didn’t a forum member also find that all of the cockpit switches were actually animated, but the animations aren’t enabled in-game? There was speculation at that time that behind the scenes work was being done to bring the Eagle up to full module standard. Again this was all like 5+ years ago. It’d be an instant purchase for me too but I’m also not holding my breath. Edit: Found the cockpit animations.

I don't know what the context is for that Oculus forums post. Is the poster in a game environment, Oculus store, Windows desktop? And the "create another camera" thing makes no sense to me, but I also don't have an Oculus. My mouse stays where I put it in 3D space in the Windows VR environment. It's only while inside a DCS aircraft cockpit that my mouse pointer tracks with head movements. DCS menus or Mission Editor, the mouse stays put in space. Decoupling the mouse from head movements was the first thing I asked about when I went VR (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=219399) because it should absolutely be an option. Just do the same thing you do when you lose it in other VR environments or even multimonitor setups. Wiggle it for a second and there it is.:thumbup:

Just out of curiosity, would ED allow qualified 3rd parties to augment the existing NTTR map or would they have to develop their own Fallon-centric terrain module?

That’s more what I mean, it’s not any Navy squadron’s primary training area, but there is a lot of Navy/Marine temporary rotation through Nellis, Red Flag or not. I lived there a year and TDY’d a handful of other times and I don’t remember there ever not being a Navy/Marine aviation presence on base. Contrasted with some of the other bases I’ve been stationed at where you’d rarely, if ever, see a Navy aircraft, Nellis was a beehive of other services and foreign birds.

Fallon would be a great addition and appropriate for the current and upcoming modules, but NTTR and Nellis are still perfectly realistic bases of operation for naval aviators. Besides the 4+ Red Flags held each year, of which US and foreign navies play a large part, there are still year round testing, training, and operational planning missions involving army/navy/marine aviators at Nellis/NTTR.

Yep, I once flew as far west as I could on NTTR. I was extremely surprised to find that Edwards AFB and east Los Angeles/San Bernardino are pictured on the map. The resolution is like 100m/pixel or something ridiculous like that, but they’re there and it got my hopes up to maybe one day have Edwards as a flyable base. I think even Wags has said in one of his interviews that the new maps are built with the potential for expansion. ‘Potential’ being the key word obviously. I also think he explicitly said there are no near-future plans to expand the maps as tech and hardware limitations dictate the map sizes to a large degree.

This is my question. Is that a WIP thing or a permanent, realistic implementation of MAV functionality?

I mean, yeah, true, but the AI and wingmen themselves are fundamentally unreliable to begin with. I don’t use wingmen in any module for anything other than bait in most circumstances. They’re basically glorified decoys and always have been, so the fact that the AI F-18 still can’t refuel without my forcing him to with a little config edit is kind of a non-issue for me.

Yeah, I know some people don’t like it but it’s honestly hard to complain about the Warthog base and stick. Mine is literally ten years old now and has been thoroughly abused. Friends, children, random accidents and general clumsiness haven’t been able to kill it yet. Not a single component has needed replacing and I only re-greased it about a year ago. (I actually should have done that a lot sooner but oh well.)

I wish I could and I’m sure they are. Unfortunately they do such limited runs it’s like winning the lottery for the ‘privilege’ to purchase one of those bases. So far I’ve missed out on vkb’s September and November allotments and the next scheduled availability is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ according to their website. Vpc is just always out of stock. Always.

Wow, any word about the Hornet stick? We’re well into another holiday season and this sucker is still missing.

Can confirm it works...usually. I’ve been modding the comm for a couple months now, wingman will successfully refuel in most circumstances, but occasionally not. And I’ve been unable to determine what’s causing the occasional failures. (He’ll just say ‘unable’.) Either way it’s a good little mod to have since this seems like back burner stuff for ED.

Oh I don’t doubt that you’re real world correct. In my causal DCS testing though I’ve found the 7 to have a noticeably better ‘bite’ than the 120. It’ll only take one 7 to at least damage/disable tankers/awacs, whereas I’ve had to fire up to three 120’s before for the same effect. Against fighters the 7 will typically cause disintegration whereas they’ll sometimes continue flying with damage after a 120 hit. Again, my casual in-game experience. I load 7’s if I’m going after anything big and seem to have more success that way.

I see you’re new to the internet. Welcome! (I kid of course!):) I actually agree with this policy in a general sense for the reasons you mention. Comparisons between sims don’t really help. If I were a developer I’d see “X sim does Y thing better” and think, “Yeah ok, it’s not like we’re not trying here.” I’m sure the producers and devs are well aware of what the competition is doing. I do think the actual rule is a little too strict. Mention of past products in a reminiscent sense should be fine, or even suggesting a different product in a segment DCS has no interest in (civilian). Against the letter of the rule, yeah, but generally I think the moderators do a good job of taking things in context and letting innocuous mentions slide.

Other than the aforementioned warhead size. ; ) If you’re going on a tanker or awacs hunt bring the 7. In game it takes multiple 120’s to bring down the big birds.

Ok, I see now. Other early access modules have always stated it clearly on the product page. At least it was half price.

Really? On the product page? I don’t, and a word search doesn’t show any results. EDIT: Looks like the US has a different product page?

I purchased the Yak yesterday from the DCS store: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/planes/yak52/ I noticed a number of bugs on my first flights and came to the forums to have a look. Apparently everyone here thinks this is a beta product? Neither “Early Access”, “Open Beta”, nor any other similar terms are mentioned on the Yak product page. This is being sold as a completed module and I purchased it expecting as much. (My fault for not checking the forums first I guess?) Anyway, a lot of the bugs I experienced were reported at initial release back in August, and while not game breaking it certainly seems like it’s in a beta state. So ED, what is the actual status of this module and is it still being actively worked on?