ARM505

Suck it up and wear a cap. It is, by far, the simplest, most comfortable solution. You'll be putting *something* on your head anyway, and since you don't use a headset, there is nothing else to put it on. Which means you'll be wearing some dorky contraption, or a baseball cap which is comfortable to wear, and for which the clip is specifically designed to easily attach to, and whose position the TiR software is specfically written to track. I'd be very curious to see what else is even possible, that doesn't resemble a cap.

Asking the real question. With 100% maintenance and flawless weapons (ie. they never just drop into the water, everything works every time), a single incoming subsonic missile should be managed quite readily. This is after all the main threat all defensive weapons have been designed to defeat. I would expect nothing less. The fact that DCS allows magical safety for aircraft at super low altitudes (based on what I have seen, and why I quoted the above) is leading to confusion here, as people assume the same treatment for missiles. The whole idea of 'radar clutter' is overblown to a degree. Even with older radars (my only actual experience), sea skimming missiles show up quite distinctly as they get closer.

Just to add, since I have the same problem: Even though the GS (for Ground Speed) checkbox is checked in the mission editor for both CV and helo, the helo still passes/falls behind the carrier. ie. With the GS box checked, wind, density altitude etc should have no effect, but 25 kts for both CV and helo still results in a split.

I get 60 fps + on the deck in the F14 on my old PC, all options high or close to it, some fps hogs like SLR and higher MSAA values turned off, which is amazing for the level of detail and calculation running in the background. This is on 2560 X 1440. It's still playable at 4K. But OBVIOUSLY when you try and run the huge, double images of VR it will suffer. ANYTHING that wasn't specifically designed to run like that (ie. lower poly count, lower draw distances etc) would. That's why there's a VR setting in the gfx options, and it turns everything down massively, and still struggles. VR is a new thing, and the performance hit is HUGE. If you're underestimating that, well.....that's like saying 'My PC can't do 8K at 100 fps! Bad devs!' This is silly.

Well, this is a step up from the original Falcon, which I played :E I too didn't think we'd see an F16 in DCS. Well done ED, damn fine work getting it out the door. I look forward to the evolution of this bird. Not surprising of course is the usual 'it's released too soon, not enough content!', after the 'release it now!' of course, 'flight model seems off!' (lol, *never* seen that before in my 30 years of simming). I guess all I'd say is chill everybody, *everything* is a work in progress....

Same. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/threats/malware-encyclopedia-description?name=Trojan%3aScript%2fForetype.A!ml&threatid=2147724345 Not much detail there, but Windows Defender seems pretty sure of itself. A 2017 entry as well....

What an incredible module. This is an amazing testament to what is possible nowdays, and I can only imagine the amount of work that went into this. Absolutely top class. I've been simming since DI's 'Fighter Pilot' on the ZX Spectrum......so nice to see what can happen nowdays!

I now preposition my task manager to be on my 2nd monitor, and it shuts down DCS. But that's ^^^ good too.

Same problem for me, black screen on exit, significant CPU activity, and the DCS window hogs everything and won't let the task manager get 'in front' to shut down the process. Clicking 'close window' on the process in the task bar on my second monitor returns a 'not responding' error of some kind.

The Ka50 has slid around decks since day one of release. And the Huey, despite being on skids, will eventually slide off decks as well. It's clearly a problem with whatever system they're using, and no doubt hard to solve.

The aircraft bucks and shakes under power when trying to move off on the carrier deck, and clearly requires far too much thrust to get rolling, but then once rolling it seems to behave better. As it slows down it starts to get glued down again though. This isn't a reversed axis problem, it's clearly the sticky/bouncy deck problem that's been around for ages in various shapes or forms. It's obviously a tough problem to solve, multiplayer probably makes it worse too I would guess? Good luck to them solving it, it would be lovely to have smooth taxiing in these super confined spaces! Edit to add: When doing the F14 startup tutorial yesterday, for some reason the aircraft taxied as it should! But other times, it's stuck down......weird.

I have the exact same problem as the OP - when exiting DCS, the screen will go black, and there is signicant CPU activity. This will continue indefinitely. I agree it's not F14 related, but it's only started doing it recently. I have two monitors, the cursor can move to the second and act normally, but clicking close on the DCS task only returns 'not responding'. I can't access task manager, because despite being able to run it, I cannot actually click on it because the black screen of DCS take priority all the time. I get around it by CTRL-ALT-DEL and signing out, then logging on again. It's a pain.

The Boeing 737 FCOM's, FCTM and limitations section give no limitation on taxi speed, only recommending that 'if taxi speed exceeds 30Kts, use caution when using the tiller'. Or something like that (working from memory here) That's my story, and I'm sticking to it :D And yes, GS readout is used all the time I reckon. Gotta know just how fast is too fast....

I hope my following question is relevant to this thread: But does anybody else have quite serious problems lining up due to the weird ground handling on the CV's deck? The plane jitters a bit when coming to a stop until the sim decides you've actually stopped, and the 'weathercocking' effect when turning throught the wind is pretty extreme and a bit weird and counter-intuitive; for example, I find when the wind should be helping the aircraft to turn, it stops turning and NWS LO doesn't have enough authority to turn it. Even HI struggles, and the aircraft gets 'pushed' sideways a bit. Often, when viewed in the F2 external view you can see the aircraft sliding sideways and doing strange things. Thankfully there's some leeway allowed in the lineup. But to me, the deck handling needs some work.

I play on 4K and it's still hard to see, or mostly impossible without a lot of zoom. So it's not going to be improved by upping resolution to anything currently practical. Also, inb4 'But you should only be in the groove at max 3/4 mile only anyway, so no worries' :D Some nostalgia: Jane's F18 from the year 2000 had a zoomed in IFLOLS view in a separate window when in the groove:

I found the sounds really good. Distinct and accurate sounds for avionics, cockpit air con, wind noise, APU noise, engine noise....really great. If I did want to complain, it would be that even though I have 'helmet sounds' ticked, it doesn't sound like I'm wearing a helmet, which would dull the higher frequencies of the wind noise and cockpit environmental air sounds (heard when recycling bleed air sources from on to on with engines running after start).

I actually love the way this plane is like a real plane that has bits not installed yet, it's like a prototype that can be flown and all the mechanical bits are there, but half the avionics functions don't work because they haven't physically installed all the boxes or something. A real WIP feeling of a real test aircraft. :)

Short trim lesson: Fly by wire aircraft like the F16 will hold their attitude and don't need trimming. The Su25 requires trim. The default trim keys are Control and the , . / and ; keys. Control ; will trim nose down, Ctrl . will trim nose up, and Ctrl / is right aileron trim with Ctrl , being left aileron trim. If the nose constantly wants to rise, tap Ctrl ; a few times to try trimming nose down so that it flies level. Launching weapons from one wing only will mean a lateral mass imbalance which will need aileron trim to compensate for. Any change in pitch, speed, or thrust will affect the relationship and require re-trimming. Practice just flying around, it's easy to get into but has a colossal amount to learn.

I haven't checked mine, but I'm just going to chip in here and say that often gauges get rotated in real aircraft of that age so that when everything's running as it should be, the needles are all pointed roughly in the same direction. It really helps being able to scan in once glance and easily being able to see if one parameter is out of whack. That being said, it could be a bug. It would be a bit odd for one gauge to jump out after an unrelated update, but stranger things have happened :) I do seem to remember seeing this earlier, but again..memory....fuzzy....

Probably the same number of people who call the Warthog the 'Thunderbolt II'? :D

*Has PTSD episode with flashbacks to Warthunder Ground Forces...*

Perhaps I should clarify - People knock FSX for having poor FM's, but if you're planning on operating a B737 realistically, you won't be stalling it - hence my comments on what you need it to do. As for the real sims, I'm pretty sure people here would be able to pick them apart too. Basically they'll be trying to recreate what we're supposed to be on the lookout for - stick shaker or aerodynamic buffet, all the correct instrument indications (PLI's, ASI in the red etc) and then a realistic outcome (rapid ROD with corresponding alt loss for example, slow engine spool up at high alts etc) with the correct response to proper recovery procedures and the correct pitfalls (ie rapid nose up pitching moment on spool up etc). Interestingly enough, on renewals and prof checks, we almost always recover IMMEDIATELY on the stick shaker, ie we never let it progress to a full aerodynamic stall. Only when we're specifically told to hold it in until the stall do we feel the actual buffet, or during high altitude stalls where you'll feel the buffet before the stick shaker. But of course the full aerodynamic model is done as accurately as possible. So, to answer my own rhetorical question, the full Level D does require a high degree of fidelity, and delivers what is needed. But I can pretty much guarantee it would still be given a big ripping by quite a few PC sim fans! Because it's still not exactly like the real aircraft, just 'close enough' :) P.S. I haven't made any videos so I can't claim credit for that! The MiG21 is an awesome purchase anyway....so that's a win anyway!

The thing is, you need to look at what you need the thing to be able to do, or do realistically. I fly B738's for a living, and I don't stall them. So how realistic do I need it's 'edge of the envelope' flight model to really be? I have the PMDG model, it's very good too, and in 95% of situations it's close enough as to be bang on. If I want to start high G turns, riding the stick shaker kind of stuff, barrel rolls and trying to exceed Mach 1, it may be less realistic (not that I would know!) but it doesn't really need to do that stuff at all to provide a realistic experience, because the real aircraft never do that (sure, it would be nice, and it does do a good enough job there anyway). Combat aircraft sims on the other hand, have a MUCH higher bar to be met - aircraft must be able to be flown to the absolute bleeding edge of performance AND be simulated at that same edge with varying degrees of damage. I'd say the job of the combat sim dev is considerably harder, it's actually amazing what ED have achieved IMHO. The same with rotary winged flight, it's all about the FM details and how it translates into the actual sim. Even stuff like Dodosims B206 for FSX doesn't compare well to DCS. A2A warbirds for FSX/P3D are, IMHO, really well done, and frankly better than DCS when it comes to the 'feel' of sitting in an old cockpit, but don't compare all that well at the extreme outer 5% of the flight model on the other hand. The bottom line is that DCS is both required to, and DOES satisfy the far tougher demands placed on it. I'd be amazed if anybody who's put both FSX and DCS through their paces would think otherwise, or dismiss it outright.

Taildraggers during the take-off, landing and to some extent the taxi are very dependent on the seat of the pants feel, something a sim cannot give you. That being said, I find the 'damping' effect of real aircraft to be more consistent. Something with the difficulty of some sims (the DCS taildraggers for one) would have had a brutal reputation IRL, and frankly wouldn't have been released to general service as they were :) Car racing sims (IMHO) suffer from a lot of the same problems, despite their frankly excellent physics (I'm enjoying Assetto Corsa right now, very nice Nurburgring!)

"And we're out of beta. We're releasing on time! So I'm GLaD I got burned! Think of all the things we learned! for the people who are still alive." Thanks. Now it's stuck in my head again!