Andurula

Thank you for reminding me why I hate coming to this toxic forum. How else am I supposed to interpret these settings?

Honestly, the whole, "No force from mission, use mine" option is a disaster for a mission designer in my opinion. No matter how you curate the options to create a specific scenario or "encourage" a specific skill set, anyone can just click a box and say, "I don't care what the mission designer wants, I can use any crutch or cheat I want". In single player it does not matter obviously. But if I want to run a server that requires people to use some real life skills like navigating without having an F10 map showing you exactly where you are and everyone else is, why am I not allowed to? It won't be a very enjoyable experience for some that are okay with the server turning off labels if the people shooting at them just override the settings and turn their labels on. What stops someone from turning on invulnerability or unlimited weapons? If you don't like the settings the server uses, don't use the server. Why are server owners forced to relinquish this level of control?

Are you sure it was failing because of an overspeed? I would have to go back and look at the details but I remember those big round engines had a problem when there was insufficient load on the thrust bearing at otherwise normal operating speeds. It was something about the oil flow through the bearing was stopped when in an "unloaded" condition. Keeping some power in and forward thrust generated was the solution.

And around and around it goes. Use DCS the way you want to. There is no wrong way. Just because you don't find something useful doesn't mean someone else has to feel the same.

I think I can though because I know of professional flight schools that use MSFS to train their students for certain parts of their education. That distinction in wiki doesn't exist in reality. Like you say, it is a very blurry line between the two realms.

I think we are basically on the same page here. I dislike the "more serious game than others" concept because (IMHO) there is a TON of fun to be had by going a bit deeper than reading a Chuck's guide and slinging AMRAAMS. I don't regard that as "more serious" but simply "more fun". The most fun I have had in DCS is going through the "Fighter Fundamentals" handbook and recreating those exercises with my friends. From there a world of real world exercises and tactics that can be accurately recreated in DCS if you have the background skills. (Robert Shaw is my God) It adds a whole new level of depth and fun.

That may be your idea of a simulator but that is not the definition of a simulator. Game publishers do like to throw that word around like it has another meaning so I can understand the confusion. Would you call a Boeing 767 full motion simulator a game? No. Could you try to perform a loop in the 767 full motion simulator just for fun? You wouldn't be the first. DCS isn't on par with that level of simulator obviously but it does offer more simulation than say a Link trainer so it certainly could be used as a simulator. It is all in how you want to use it and neither way is wrong. All these arguments/discussions come from a position that how you use DCS is the only right way to use it. [edit] I am just going to add an edit because a quick Google search doesn't always show the old Link full motion simulator so people may not know what I was referring too. The old LInk 16 was a full motion flight simulator that was a plastic airplane shaped box with the "sacred six" analog flight instruments installed. It was useful for training basic performance maneuvers and introductory instrument flight.

This whole, "are trainers useful in DCS" discussion that goes on endlessly is so pointless because ED doesn't know if they are making a simulator or a computer game. They try to market DCS as both and the two groups of people they attract have very different motives and ideas for how the client should be used. As a "game", sure trainers may not have a "point" besides being fun in their own right. You can grab an F/A-18 module, read a Chuck's guide and be slinging AMRAAMs in half an hour. As a "simulator" there are aspects of instruction that the trainers excel at that the more "advanced" modules cannot replicate. Very few people in DCS really care about those aspects but they are relevant to some. For the vast majority of DCS players, "you don't know what you don't know" and they are fine with that. At the end of the day, it should be easy for people to do what works for them but for some reason, this endless fight goes around and around because people feel that THEIR way of using DCS is the only RIGHT way to use DCS. For some people, a trainer makes sense. For others, a trainer is a waste of time. Trying to impose your view of how DCS should be used and what modules are useful is never going to work when people are trying to get very different things out of it. To each their own.

I am on the NTTR map trying to enter coordinates into the GPS system and I can't find any explanation for how to switch the default "Easterly" coord option for a Westerly. Any suggestions?

I updated ten minutes ago and got the same threat warning from Windows Defender and the F-14 has been disabled on my client.

My "annoyance" is not that you can't use the Mossie with the gear horn not operating correctly. My annoyance is that you can't fly it the way the aircrews in WWII used to fly it. If you use typical cruise settings, as has been written by many sources, the warning horn is on. Of course you can push the throttle up and fly faster but you give up the range and endurance that real Mossie crews worked with. In the end, it is a sim versus game thing. If you don't care about flying an accurate model in an accurate matter - and honestly most DCS players don't and that's okay - then it is a very minor quibble.

The problem is the horn is on at +7 boost. No amount of throttle control curve or saturation is going to fix it. How the cable is rigged to the carburetor is not important. The important part is rigging the warning horn switch correctly. At the moment it is not. This is a software fix, not a systems modeling fix. They don't model the systems in THAT much detail.

That may be true but it doesn't make it right. I put hundreds of hours into my liveries. I never asked for the new 3D model. I won't be buying the new 3D model. I am just SOL I know. Lesson learned.

THANK YOU Draken !!! Wrecking all the existing F-5E user liveries doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

I guess I will be the contrarian voice and say that I don't really care about the F-5 cosmetics. Pretty pictures is not why I play DCS. I DO care about the modeling. The F-5E module is by far my most used module but I haven't seen anything to justify me spending money on it so far.