ARM505

Afternburner detents/gates/throttle travel is one area that the otherwise excellent DCS control bindings setup could be substantially improved. At the moment, every aircraft has separate key and axis binds - that's excellent. BUT, the point on the throttle axes that enters Afterburner is hard coded. For throttles with physical AB detents, this (at the moment) relies on pure luck for them to just happen to be the same. For most of the aircraft, this is fine, but there are exceptions. The Mirage F1 for example, on release didn't line up. Later they added the option to select the percentage at which AB was activated in the 'special' menu, but others don't have this. The FC3 Mig29 for example, will light up it's AB's before you reach the same point of throttle travel. So: What they should add, is an AB 'detent' line that can be set in the axis setup, per aircraft. Otherwise you have to resort to juggling custom mappings, which have the downside of creating non-linear throttle travel, and are a pain to adjust. The same can be said for creating custom axis ranges on your throttle software, or physically moving your detents (I have a Virpil CM3 throttle, I can loosen the screw, move the detent, and tighten, but why do this from aircraft to aircraft when a software solution per aircraft is really the answer?) Then we can talk about button mappings to 'push through' the gate etc, but it's a separate issue.

Me, I'll keep giving more of my money to ED, and less to Valve. But I acknowledge the business case of the mass market access.

Valid points. But something to note: 30% is a lot. While DCS may certainly benefit from the relationship with Valve, a 3rd party like Razbam may decide that they don't. As is the case here so far. DCS (the core) is already benefitting, they may decide that the rule of diminishing returns has been reached, and ride it as they can with what they think will be a popular product in any case. My perception is also biased as I used ED's launcher from the beginning, and was running sims since before the Flanker days, and have followed them since they existed - ie. not reliant on Steam, despite also liking Steams ease of use (put another way - I like sims, and I would have found ED, regardless of platform).

Oh, and while I'm at it (and I don't intend this to be a debate between the two, but I will chip in my personal experience, bearing in mind that I have 200+ games in Steam, but have used the ED launcher since it's birth) 1) Download rate via Steam is excellent, but unless an ED module has literally just been released within the hour, the P2P method of the ED launcher is also excellent. 2) Ok. Steam offers the refund within two hours (and no doubt other plusses), but since I've never, ever used any of this, I'm not sure how much of an advantage this is - with ED modules, I always know exactly what I'm buying, so it's hardly like I'll return them anyway. 3) Steam - two clicks. ED - enter CC details and pay. 20 seconds vs 60 seconds. Brutal. 4) DRM via Steam. DRM via ED. Offline modes available via both. I'm not sure what the practical difference is for you, the user. 5) Since this is a personal opinion, and I have no need to switch languages, this is irrelevant to me. 6) See point 2 - I've never refunded, either with Steam or attempted to with ED. 7) I fly on specific servers, not with specific people. The value of this point will vary wildy from person to person, for me it's value is zero. 8 ) Valid. If ED dies, I'm not sure the Steam version will work, but I'll accept that. If anybody bought the Steam version of the Hawk, let me know if it still works please. 9) Yes, most have Steam, as do I. Even so, the ED launcher is so unobtrusive that calling it 'annoying' is stretching my imagination to breaking point, but fine - different people have different tolerance for these things. 10) The discounts from miles and specials via ED have more than satisfied my need for 'cheap', and if ED and it's 3rd part devs get more, I'm fine with that. I'm struggling to believe that modules are cheaper on Steam (despite their cut) in general, but that's my problem because I lack the data. 11) Again, click on 'run DCS', game updates if updates are needed, or I run the deliberate update. Despite Steams ease of use, I have never, ever, been frustrated at DCS's launcher. 12) Irrelevant in the case of only using the ED launcher. tl;dr - my personal opinion. Others may find themselves in the same situation. It's not a 'cult', it's just logical. And again, if Steam is taking a cut, then it's less for ED and associated developers, so it is ENTIRELY logical if they decide that they cannot accept that cut, and not offer discounts on that platform. 100% logic.

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.