ARM505

For a niche product like simulators, I'm more than prepared to run one more launcher. As you say though, each to their own. However, I fully understand that in the case of this niche product, payment to a 3rd party, non-contributing (let's be real here) piece of software may produce adverse financial results to those who choose that option. You are paying for your (perceived) convenience. Again, just IMHO.

Random question: can Steam users migrate their existing modules etc. to the ED launcher/installation method? I've always used the ED launcher, and recommended its use to those who've asked me, exactly because of specials, pricing, access to latest patches/releases etc. and of course not having to divert money to a 3rd party other than ED. The ED launcher is quick, convenient, independant, and flexible. I don't know why people use Steam for this product, and I say this as somebody with 242 games in my Steam library, and having used it since the launch of Half Life 2. tl;dr - if there isn't a path for people to migrate from Steam to the basic ED install, their should be, and people should use it.

Purely for interest/histories sake, I'm curious how long the wrong price was up? 30 minutes, 10, 5, an hour? It'll be a cool little fact one day about the F15E preorder.

Frankly, 'source' or 'documents' don't matter all that much at this stage, because the fundamental underlying model that ED uses cannot incorporate changing RCS values based on anything at all (let alone the discrete parameters of aspect, stores, pylons etc). Why argue about values when the actual model can't really do anything with them, and everything is based on an arbitrary baseline number, with the focus being on relative averages? Unless I'm misunderstanding the core of this debate... A radar rework is a massive undertaking, involving all third party vendors etc - the sooner the better IMHO, but I don't even know if it's on the radar (ha ha, I see what you did there etc.)

From the recent patch notes (my bold): Engine: Flying backwards or having significant tail wind with RPM below 7000 might turn the engine off. Moving the throttle to idle before the RPM are above 300 may lead to fire or over-temperature due to accumulation of fuel faster than before (IMPORTANT). Engine stall can now be caused by moving the RPM back and forth too fast or engaging the afterburner at very high AoA or outside the flight envelope. Engine stall RPM oscillations are now less severe. Engine temperature in overspeed corrected to what is indicated in the manuals (<= 735 ºC). Engine starter sound starts 2 seconds earlier than before. Throttle is clickable now near idle detent position. When clicked it is set to idle cut-off position.

Sorry, off topic, but.....another South African spotted?!

You'd really need to look this up to get details - I'm not an expert by any means, but it's such a broad topic, depending on what class of racing you're talking about. The open, or unlimited class are HEAVILY modified, so to answer your question: They have strengthened components in nearly every part of the engine, anti-detonation mixture added to the intake charge, and boost pressure up to 150 inches of manifold pressure (nearly triple a stock P51), so you can imagine what needs to be done to handle this. You mentioned powerplant, so of course that's not going into the extensive airframe modifications as well. As I said, this is just off the top of my head, I'm only an 'interested observer', I'm sure somebody can go into details.

Now that I've actually run the new patch and observed the 'new' blur, the pixelated effect isn't actually visible unless you pause the sim. When unpaused, the effect moves too fast to really see? So....er......looks fine to me *shrugs* Until we get something like the WW2 prop effects.....

Photo's of the real thing bring up a critical point (IMHO) - do you want the sim to look like a photo, or movie, or like real life? Put another way, comparing photo's of the real life things blurred rotors to the animated in-sim blurred rotors doesn't necessarily help (IMHO). Having said that, we can't animate them at 100% real speed, so blurring is the way to go - it's just that photo's don't convey how we really see the rotor disk IRL. I hope I'm making my point well enough, it's a subtle thing. For example, compare DCS's current WW2 propeller graphical effects to MSFS 2020 - the difference is night and day. Despite having generally excellent graphics, FS2020's props look like they're out of the 1990's in terms of animation, whereas DCS props look brilliant. Or even older models in DCS that don't use the WW2 prop graphics. It's along similar lines IMHO. tl;dr - real rotor disks don't look like moving photos. Edit to add: I also get what the OP is saying, which is a separate point (that the new blur effect doesn't look as good, and is more pixelated than the old blur effect) so apologies if I'm off topic.

It's set up by default as a five state dial. Which I left it as. Frankly, there are already enough buttons that it becomes confusing enough moving between different aircraft, I didn't want to further add to the confusion. Secondly, the programming interface, while very powerful, becomes a little fiddly if you're going to add 'shifted' commands (and five states of them!) as well, since it's all done 'per button'. And it's not very intuitive at all for the more advanced settings like that. Youtube will provide I'm sure, but I didn't. All I did was add buttons in the axis range for the idle cutoff. So, idle cutoff and run, that's two virtual 'buttons' per throttle axis. That was enough for me. But, one tip: The two way red switches, of which there are four, are set up oddly from the factory - they are either 'on' or 'off' by default even though they have two 'physical' inputs as you'd expect - you might want to set them up as two button controls, ie. one input per position. Something to bear in mind. Once you get used to the idea of 'physical' vs 'output' buttons, and the way the software works, it's easier to understand. And then always remember to upload it to the device once you've made the change.

This is easily solved, but involves some extra control bind work by the developer (for example, the Aft-Center toggle, Forward-Center toggle, Aft, Center, or Forward individual keybinds for the F16's Dogfight Override three way switch, to enable it to be used by people with only a two way switch available, but still be fully realistic for those with a 3 way switch) So, any button or control that's 'guarded' could have keybinds for all of the 'open guard and press button then close guard', 'open guard', 'press button', 'close guard', and/or 'toggle guard' actions (there have to admittedly be quite a few options to fully cover all combinations, but I'm sure a reasonable compromise can be done).....that would involve a little bit of extra coding from the devs, but it's doable isn't it? They have to allow decent gameplay, but also cater to cockpit builders - the control keybinds are critical for this, but at least the mechanism is clearly already available in DCS surely?

Most headtracking software can adjust the curves, so make them non-linear. In other words, normal rates for the most common forward angles so you don't have overly sensitive head tracking for normal ops, but accelerated rates passing the 90 degree virtual point. The 2nd option, and what you asked for, is to check your headtracking software for a key to toggle it off. In the Track IR software for example, to toggle it on and off the default is F9 I think. In any case, this will be in the headtracking software, not DCS.

All I heard was.........'the missile knows where it is....

You're not the only one to have an issue with this, so here's another thread on pretty much the same subject, but.....it's a complicated request, because on the one hand some improvement *might* be possible, but how much should the entire cockpit be 'adjusted' from reality to compensate for the problem with current gen VR technology and its known shortcomings displaying very fine detail? The Mirage has one of the most difficult to read HUD's in the game, even in normal 2D - the nature of that generation of HUD? My advice remains the same: bind the zoom key/s to your stick and just zoom in when needed.

Yes, I use the controls software to do things the sim can't as well, as you say - I thought that might be a bit much for the OP, but actually brings up a valid point, specifically that another persons control bindings also won't work properly if they have done things as you said (buttons to axes, commands to press and release etc.) and they just copy the control .lua over, as there will be bound commands that simply do not exist on his setup.

To add to what was already said, DCS has (by far!) the best key and axis binding setup in a sim, IMHO. MS FS2020, IL2 BoX, the other IL2.....they're all MUCH less flexible and less intuitive. DCS even breaks it down to 'Stick' and 'Throttle' options, once you've bound the obvious axes, just open up those tabs and bind what would be on the stick and throttle in reality. Then you can expand on that as you learn the module. Plus, to refamiliarise yourself with a module after a break, you just open up the control setup, and start pressing buttons - it immediately shows you what that button does. And it's so much quicker to remember if you made the setup yourself, plus you can be consistant across modules. The only disaster comes when some screw up somewhere, or more likely a change, deletes ALL your bindings, for every module. That's a pain. And I've yet to figure out how to save ALL of them at once. I've been simming since the days of the ZX Spectrum (lol, if Flight and 'Fighter pilot' could be said to be 'simming') and trying to use other peoples control bindings is just painful.

I Why would it give a launch warning? Am I missing something on how this missile works? It's a SARH missile isn't it? Edit: never mind, read the other thread, apparently there would be no launch warnings. So, not 'awful', but 'correct as is'?

Ah, ok, I didn't have my rudder trim move. Just the rudder flapping from side to side. Will check when I fly it again.

I wouldn't call it 'trim' as it's not really ending up moving one way or the other and staying there, but the rudder is definitely twitching from side to side, yes. It's like the yaw damper is on steroids, and is constantly trying to compensate for the slightest yaw, even caused by tiny little bumps on the ground.

Seconded, thanks Fearsome-13! I put two screenshots up in the screenshots thread, it's a beauty.

The wobbles are gone, it seems to fly like it should now. I'm nowhere near smart enough to test for book speeds etc, but it's also slower at sea level, back to a more plausible level. No more speed records.... Also, BOKKE! (SAAF paintscheme now has correct Sprinbok emblem, colours, insignia placement etc - good job!)

Much better. It's always going to be dark, being black of course, but everything stands out as much as one would expect. Good job.

This isn't a TGP issue of course, no need to mention that really, but the issue is the 'granularity' of the trim. Sometimes, even with the shortest blip of the trim hat, you'll end up rolling either one way or the other. Sims have always suffered from this compared to real aircraft, which are almost always easier to trim in reality. It's the mathematical quandary of never being able to zero out 0.0002 roll input which still has results in a sim, unlike reality where things seek equilibrium more readily it seems. Plus the instant trim rate compared to real aircraft (electrically controlled trim being 'on' or 'off', which in the sim means 'instantly at full rate', unlike reality). What ED should probably have, in all electrically actuated trim, is a slight 'ramp up' time at the beginning, where the trim system gets up to speed (slow as the full speed might be). This would allow for very fine electrical trim inputs by short blips (like reality).