Scrofa

Wouldn't it be cool if they had prepared a solo display of the F1??

I own a 2070 and a G2 and I have the love/hate relationship someone stated somewhat up in the post, but that relationship extends to DCS itself, needing the beefiest PC to run in VR. I have almost everything to the minimum setting, and the trees almost literally pop up in front of my eyes up to a point when flying nap of earth sometimes I have to pull up because the popping trees keep changing the horizon height... The immersion is awesome in VR, though, and I can't think of going back to 2D.

I have noticed on the last SteamVR upgrade that the slider for the resolution has changed. The white mark for the G2 on the general settings is set at 60% now while in the per-app settings the white mark is at 100%. In both cases 100% is 3160x3088, it's just the white notch that changed, for no reason I can fathom. Am I seeing changes where none are?

I'm a bit late for my contribution but I'd say if you're really interested in the game, go for a full fidelity module. Learning where the systems and controls are in the real aircraft is a lot more enjoyable than memorizing keybindings. The best mods are also available free, but they aren't that polished as the official ones. I'd buy either the C101 or the L39, depending on which side you like most and the units you'd like to use (though L39 with english cockpit have kts and ft instead of m and km/h). They are challenging enough that you'll need some time to master the flight and their limitations and then you could start shooting in low tech scenarios. Don't be fooled into thinking that you can't enjoy those scenarios with the not-super-capable trainers. There's less tech involved and you'll be having a though time because you have to expose yourself more (think rockets, guns and unguided bombs) with aircraft that can't get you out of there in a split second. Having the chance to train or even go to combat doing multicrew with other people is also another possibility. Regarding hardware, I own a warthog, pedals and now VR googles. VR googles aren't entry level due to their price and the hardware you need to run them. High end joystick and pedals are amazing for upgrading from a casual setup to a serious simmer, but that can happen given time. Track ir or any of the free or cheap alternatives is the thing that, IMHO, changes the most the feeling and immersion. Whoever hasn't tried 6 DOF and moving around doesn't know what they are missing. When I recommend sims to my friend, that's the thing I stress the most. Get a cheap joystick if you need, don't spend a lot on hardware until you're sure, but get one of the cheap track ir alternatives from the beginning. I hope it's useful.

But you're using the SS 150% that's good for the G1 in the G2, which should have SS 100%, right?

I'm also baffled, and I was about to write just that. If I recall correctly SS 100% is the setting for the G2 in Steam, and 150% was for the G1. Those settings are really high...

4.0 version as of just today. I believe I started with ATAC loooong time ago, in what seems a galaxy far, far away...

I'm going back to the first post to look closely to the initial situation. I add in red some observations. Then going to your second post, Regardless of why this discrepancy is happening, an altimeter is just a barometer and as such doesn't take into account temperature. The scale is related solely with the ISA atmosphere model and thus it will never display real altitude (true altitude) when has moved out of the calibration point, but an approximation. The error is not that high that compromises operations as ground clearing is achieved with visual references, radio altimeter or with altitude diferences that take into account possible inaccuracies due to temperature, different pressure conditions than the departure/arrival airport, etc... Now I have to say that I'm very curious as to why is happening and I'll run some tests on the caucasus map in some aircraft to see the altimeter behaviour. Could you please tell us if you're using the dinamic weather?

Ok, if both are at the same place that's wrong. According to wikipedia, the elevation at Tonopah Test Range airport is 5550 ft, so the C101 would be right and the A-10 wrong. I'm pretty sure the temperature is not taken into account by the altimeter. I don't have that map so I'm not sure the airport has the ground mesh correctly modelled so that different parts of the airport have different elevations according to reality (the "elevation" figure is, as I stated above "the highest point in the runway"). Have you checked any other aircraft in the same spot? Any other map? I'm really curious now...

I'm aware there are ways to go around the problem, including an english cockpit mod. But is not far fetched to think that any fictional operator (and we do make up fictional scenarios here, don't we?) would require a cockpit in other language, and lets face it, english is the most widespread one. Not just saying for my own' sake, I honestly think it would help module sales. As much as many of us love swedish aircraft, learning swedish, albeit a limited amount, is usually not very high in people's wishlist. (not specific for swedish, really, just fighting with systems, aerodynamics, tactics, real-time scenarios when playing is the real purpose of all this and adding a challenging language ...)

+1

I own it but honestly the lack of english cockpit is a bit of a bum and has prevented me to play a lot with it. Probably has made a lot of simmers to overlook it and it is a shame, because is an amazing module of an amazing and really special aircraft, arguably the most exotic in the DCS stable. If it doesn't put you off, I'd recommend anyone to give it a try.

Congratulations to the winners!! They look amazing!

I also don't follow. If I remember correctly, the altimeter is just a barometer in which pressure is showed as altitude, according to a modelled ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) and the pressure at sea level (and thus the zero value for altitude) is set with the Kollsman knob. If you get the QNH value for the airport and you set that value in the altimeter, it should read the airport elevation when you are at the appropiate place (airport elevation is defined as the highest point on the runway). If you are at any other place in the airport (apron, taxiways or any other point in the airport other than that particular spot) the altimeter will show that altitude (=elevation of that point since you're still on the ground). This is true for an airport at any elevation and in fact, allows you to set your altimeter properly even if you don't have QNH information provided by a met office. This happens on uncontrolled airstrips for ULM, etc... You know the field elevation, then you move the Kollsman knob until the altimeter reads it correctly. The pressure showing on the Kollsman window is the QNH. The altimeter doesn't take into account the real temperature and in fact has errors, but since all of them (altimeters) are calibrated the same errors are the same for everybody. Those errors are not that big to pose a real problem for aviation and aircraft don't smash into terrain or other aircraft. To me seems that the behaviour of the module is correct and in fact, I can see in your A-10 picture that your altimeter shows a tad more than 1860 but the pressure is set differently to those pictures on the C101. Go to the A-10 and check altitude with 29.92 and it should read exactly like the C101. And viceversa, the C101's altimeter should match the A-10's if both Kollsman windows are set equally.

Absolutely, my mistake. I'll try to erase this post.

Hi I was wondering if there was any possibility to have a "toggle landing gear" key. I'm aware that some time in the past the request has been made for that regarding the airbrake but it wouldn't work as the real one, because you can leave it half deployed when retracting it. I believe that's not the case with the landing gear, and so a toggle switch would come in handy, specially flying VR. If anyone wants to tell me how they have mapped that on the warthog throttle I'd be grateful. BTW, the module is amazing to fly.

I'm not sure if this has been said before, but what if, specially in the case of early generations of fighters (2nd, 3rd...), instead of the early release of a newer model, came first the most basic model there was? Then maybe adding the variant with radar, with more weaponry, etc... navigation capabilities as they appeared, etc... Like Aerges is planning with the F1...

Aviodev gives 2 models of the C101 on the same purchase. It would depend on the changes implemented between variants. Some variants are very different, others, not so much. I don't think a new variant requires as much rework as some people claim, and the people in Heatblur probably have much more on their plate than just working on a different engine model for the F14. The fact that it takes them one year to release doesn't mean they're allocating 100% of their resources there.

+1

It would really be nice. Though many surely disagree, the possibility of adding these kind of bases to a map that doesn't originally have them would add to possible "simulated" conflicts and scenarios. Some editing capabilities could be added to the mission editor, just as TACANs or FARPs can be created to enrich tactical capabilities... For those who disagree, the possibility of having them doesn't mean the obligation to do so...

Makes sense to want what's most representative of the aircraft in question and would enable use to fly their most usual missions. Special variants should, in general, come later. For example, as much as lots of us would like to fly, let's say, an F4, it would be a bit of a disappointment if it came (at least first) in the recconnaissance variant, right? This is the same.

I absolutely agree with this vision. A small "credible" variation of the real weapons loadout lets you explore other posibilities and adds interest to the game. As long as the aircraft keeps most of its essence, I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea, providing the changes are not so big that the developers really lose a lot of time that could be better used improving the module or making other ones. Of course, they could always add an option box to keep the aircraft "stock". I wonder if all hardliners refrain themselves to use zoom, or labels, or the external map at all times just to keep it realistic.

Ok, gracias

Hi Víbora. I apologize if this has been discussed earlier and I haven't been able to locate it. You recently stated in page 54 of "Bugs we are tracking" that some C101 real pilots flying your model use this setting "Deadzone: 5, Saturation X: 100, Saturation Y: 85, Curvature: 30". Could you please tell us if this values are for stock joysticks or ones fitted with extensions, and what would be the best configuration overall? (the most realistic extension according to the guys who have flown it) Thanks!

Another one on the hunt for 3rd/4th gen fighters, with gauges and tons of trimming to do to master. It would make fantastic sense to be able to go through the milestones in aviation and adding systems and ease of use, but coming from the eras where most of the flying and targeting was done by hand.