Ala13_ManOWar

Besides, you all are missing the most important point here, MiG-17PF variants are… really fugly . Who wants that .

I believe I've seen people complain in the past the ground clutter disappeared from MiG-21's radar, maybe it's just back now?

Yeah, no, I meant more literally, it actually happens the very same IRL. Sometimes lighting plays a trick on you and you literally stop seeing that contact right in front of you, maybe a glare, maybe colours matching surroundings, but you just stop seeing it. I don't really know why, maybe multiple reasons, but it happens. And my experience is in GA mostly, so mainly white planes, and still it happens. Of course there it is not a question about online scores, but for safety reasons you should care whenever it happens. Maybe, and I'm guessing here, it's some sort of psychological effect where your brain keeps looking that last spot you knew and since it mingles with the environment, even for a fraction of a second, you stop seeing it just because for a time your brain keeps searching for a different thing than it looks like afterwards, or something on the like. The problem with replicating that kind of effect in a PC game is, how do we know everybody sees the very exact same under the very exact same circumstances on a myriad of possible hardware and software settings? Is that even feasible? Ok, that's a different question. Yes, here I believe the trick is on one's mind. Reacquiring a contact after having lost it, that, while affected by the aforementioned effects of course, is more of a mental and training thing. Same for the second scenario you set. Once lost a contact one freaks out and of course as the old adagio said, when you can't see a lost contact it's on your six. In the case of a bomber as you say, it's usually you're closer to it than you think, hence you can't see it without perspective, not to mention the loss of track about situational awareness, the position your contact is, the direction it flies, and same to you so you make guestimate where it should be… and it isn't there. I believe that's more related to how the mind works, and the fact that we're mostly in front of a screen with a tracking device. It'd be nice to know if people using VR also report a better overall situational awareness than screen players with regard to that, though I believe that can happen also IRL. A very interesting question, indeed, but I don't really think I have an answer. I only know those effects are mostly realistic, no matter how annoying they are to all of us. The crucial matter to me is that we're sure those effects are the exact same to everyone so it's doesn't play a kind of exploit to some while others only get annoyed. It should be annoying to everybody as it is IRL, so we all are even on multiplayer.

Yep, we agree. My point is, among other considerations, for instance that effect of "disappearance" due to matching lighting with the surroundings, even though the contact can be even really close to you, actually happens IRL, exactly the same. Maybe it could be tweaked a bit? Could be, I guess. Can it be assured it happens in the exact same manner on every PC/Screen available and to every user? I hardly doubt. Hence, the effect itself happens and is realistic, a lot, though if it doesn't happen in the exact same way to everyone it's a real bummer with regards to online "competition", which is what I mentioned. Bearing in mind the "competitive" side of online game, it makes sense we all should see the same. Totally agree with that. But just saying "it's not realistic" as some say is just a mistake from people who might have not flown ever, or even if they have they didn't pay attention to that detail, so it's actually a depart from the real problem which should be making the sighting equal to all players. But realistic? It is absolutely realistic. Annoying in an online competitive environment where you know anyway VR people (for instance, but many other factors also play a role here) see better than you? Yes, totally annoying. But that's not because it's unrealistic, the problem with DCS spotting is precisely it's so real, not the contrary, but we all don't use same hardware, same graphic settings, same all and sadly that makes an insurmountable difference among players. How could they tackle that? I haven't the faintest, I'm no software developer.

I'm quite aware about what primary and secondary sources are, I was a science student but I've also studied History . But you didn't get what Peachmonkey explains. Just show it mate, just that.

And it is, indeed. IRL you don't see a damn thing up there . It's just that being a game, and mostly a combat game, competitiveness makes people want to see things which just pass unseen IRL. On top of that, the hardware problem, not every hardware is the same or shows the same, either on screen or VR though VR is better since proportionally its pixels are humongous compared to high resolution screens. A bit of everything and probably more things I'm not even considering and there you go, "spotting in DCS is bad", even though it's the most realistic out there with regards to that.

Or the Sun becoming a Red Giant sooner .

The 262 is still coming at some point, it's not ditched, we just don't know when it'll happen.

It's Channel's map area, hence kind of "low detail" despite it doesn't look like so (no Dover Castle, it's already on Channel map).

I believe yes, during wartime there was a night light curfew due to night bombings.

Why don't you? If anybody has any information good enough, pertinent, enlightening, whatever, just SHOW IT UP mate. I would like to see it, actually, it's not like I'm against any change in my mind. On the contrary, should any new info show up about whatever it is which used to be believed and now something proves it wrong, I'm always willing to know and learn. But if someone chimes in to a knives fight showing off your gun, you better make good use of it!! What are you seeking saying I know better yet now showing anything to support you? You tell a name. The first one, BTW, is called good science, in case you wonder what kind of dark sorcery I'm talking about .

Name them, please. A manual saying this can be used means nothing at all if it was never used. My car's manual also tells there're weird things in my car, they're there but I don't care nor ever used them. That means a module of my car should model those because it's an "historic" option even though whatever it is was never ever used? Define what means "historic" for you, please .

No way a twin engine aircraft the size of the Mosquito is more nimble than P-47. The P-47 is a heavy aeroplane moved more than well enough by it's monstrous engine, that doesn't mean it's heavier or it would be nimbler than a twin engined twice the size aeroplane. Of course Mosquito moves worse. And size, and torque for two engines aren't adding to its nimbleness.

Nineline made a comment, indeed, which to my understanding meant Ugra kinda made this map update by their own choice and somehow without telling ED, so I guess when ED actually found out this was happening the map was already almost ready and ED hadn't much margin to manoeuvre the thing knowing they had their own map which was probably done in the first place to compensate for the lack of detailed Channel (as well as sort of Tech demonstration, it was a blast of detail when Channel first happened) region on the available maps. So, before there were no maps of the area, now there are two of them. And yeah, the impression I got after that comment was sometimes third parties aren't very communicative about their plans even to ED itself, but now ED shows as the "bad guys" having to tell them not to detail the same area as their already marketed product. As we know they have plans for the World map and they have to find out a technical solution to somehow join maps (even from different publishers) on top of the generic World map, so it'd make no sense to have several similarly detailed areas on different maps that would clash later on. I guess ED could just "drop" or transform their work into another map, or something like that, but then again ditching all their previous work rendering it useless. Not to mention since we already bought something different, would they be economically able to "gift" again that "transformed" (so a new product) map to every customer who already bought the Channel map? Now there's probably no simple solution to that, but I understand no one wants to throw all their work away, and it's all a matter of communication between third parties and ED, but ED itself is the one looking bad now because of that, or as we say in Spanish, "who needs enemies having that kind of friends" .

Nope, just updates the name in the module manager and so.

Thanks for the picture . @jackdthat represents exactly this, Definitely better explained with a picture . Hope it works for you.

If you bought after updating probably it needs to update again. Wouldn't know, but makes sense it does re-update or something like that.

By any chance, are you on Steam? Steam users have been having problems with this update, Steam platform has it flaws either. What places/aerodrome/s are you at on the screenshots you posted? Are you definitely at a place where you certainly know is inside detailed area? Remember now you got aerodromes not seen before, but they're on the low detail area.

I just read changelogs, those are there . But yes, I'm awaiting for the update either, I really like the module.

Not closing, if you practice and get used to it, I guess, but yes right eye only since the sight is lined up to it and if you are unable to do it like that, well I guess you could close your left eye if the "don't close your left eye police" never catches you in such a flagrant offence . I guess it depends on every individual but that effect you mention, well in cameras and so I believe it'd be easier to happen that on your brain (like movie theatre's 3D glasses, some people get used to them, some don't). Anyhow, even if you practice, get used to it and all (as said, in VR I know it's an option and you can do it like that, I don't use VR though so never tried) one has to remember every time (till one's used to it) your aiming eye is the right one (IRL also) and it'd be a bad mistake to forget it while one tries to aim both eyes or even left one. I don't recall where I read that, maybe Galland's memories, maybe Heinz Knoke ones (quite posible), any other or both, or even maybe some articles or whatever, can't recall really, possibly several sources to be honest. I recall though that sentence (some memoirs probably) "remember to use your right eye", and the under G's it's not easy to keep it like that. Anyhow, it's been discussed here at the forums and that's how I know VR have that option implemented, one eye, the other or both, to your liking, IIRC. Even in VR you have to get used to that, so there's the both eyes option. And it happens in every German fighter, both 190s also are like that, it was their thing for a reason unlike centre mounted sights in Allied aircraft.

You got it wrong, German pilots did aim with their right eye only mate (not easy to keep it like that under G's, many times told by veterans). That illusion you mention is just that, an illusion, don't know where you got that from, but they had to use their right eye only and there were no magic glass making the right eye sight viewable and usable for both eyes. You can mimic that behaviour in VR, but on screen there's no way for that, just no way. Old sims might fake that just putting the sight in the middle, but it's just false. So you have to use the change position option when the sight if unfolded or centred view if you would want so for any weird reason. Then again, auto option is fine if you don't want to be messing with the sight every time.

No, you bought a map years ago and now you got an updated v1.5 for free (they've been too generous if you ask me), the low detail areas from before now are still low detail but detailed nonetheless since it were just barren before and now it has a low detail but detail after all, including aerodromes you didn't have. If you see that kind of graphics inside the previously detailed area something is going on, do a repair (or several, sometimes it helps even though it looks like it does nothing), check FXO and Metashaders2 folders deleted, all that kind of usual stuff. If you got those screens outside the previous high detail area, yeah, that's what you get now, but bear in mind before there were not just "low detail", there were better said "no detail", nothing at all, not even grass. Now you have something to see (even in low detail) and you're compatible online with people who bought the upgrade, including all the aerodromes. Inside the previous high detail area in your N1 map, it's updated and similar to N2 in detail.

Pitot heating, yes, but static vent has no heating, usually. Wouldn't know how that froze in a sim, anyway.

No worries mate, sometimes it happens we get lost in translation . Here you didn't get what I was trying to explain. New technology (their internal tech, not other, for their own graphical engine, for their own platform, all that, but it'd be unique for this, not shared with any other game out there) would be needed to merge the maps into one, which is what most people are asking (and I'd like to see as well) but turns out to be two maps not necessarily using the same internal tech (because it grows and expands since Channel map first appeared) and from two different developers each one making their own use of those tools. I'm no programmer but from a developer's perspective, not that easy, not that good result, not that straightforward. Anyhow, another thing I was trying to explain, it probably would need another new tech also since the two maps merged together, even if feasible which currently it isn't, would probably exceed the current size limits the maps have. Almost every map until now has been bigger and more detailed than the previous one (new internal tech they were developing, yeah), size and object count has being increasing all the time, yet, how the sim internally works, they aren't allowed to make a map as big as they would like. Not only tech limits (which they try to expand with those new tools they make available for themselves and third parties) but such a map would be impossible to manage for your system. Performance is another really big issue they have to tackle, and it's easy to see now with this release. I don't have much of a problem performance wise with new N2 map, but I'm still on screen, some people are getting varied results, some can use it 2D but in VR is impossible for them (performance), some see all kind of strange things and poor performance so it's unusable for them, some see not bad performance but that until they get into big cities, some… If they'd somehow "merged" the two maps, or simply "allowing Ugra to model Channel area together with the rest of the map", as you suggest, it'd be great to have that map (and weird to those who bought Channel as a separated map, not to mention campaign creators having to adapt their work to a different map no matter how close it'd be, they would probably have to start from scratch) but it would only worsen the performance issues some people have. Believe ir or not, current maps are all in some limit of what they can do with their current tech, and that's why they keep expending it all the time. For instance, Vietnam map is said to come at some point (so many people crave for it), but they need new tech in order to make it as big, as populated (rainforest, Ok, but still object populated) and as detailed as such a map would deserve to be. And all of that, as I explained also, while you keep using the sim all the time because you don't want to stop using it, but it's like a surgery performed on a living, moving and exercising subject. I don't envy them mate…

All of them are fighters, at first, all of them can carry bombs though A8 is closer to a ground pounder with the variety of weapons available.