Ala13_ManOWar

IIRC, some video in the past was already recorded in Vulkan, but you can't tell the difference in graphics from DX to Vulkan.

We all hope for the MiG-21 v2.0, be it a paid one alla ED Ka-50, A-10C II, and the like, or however they think it could be feasible, but for me, despite all the harsh from some users, it's been a great module since 2014 and it still is for the time being until some upgrade happens, if it happens. Count me on the other variants train, I'll be willing for some other ones for sure. I always said, even many years ago, I couldn't understand why people would be wanting modules for current aircraft were they can't be modelled at full whatsoever due to the classified info about them, but cold war aeroplanes should be all of them feasible to the highest standards with open and available resources. I believe those MiG-21 variants would fit perfectly into that environment, and apparently only from a relatively short time until now people start to realize what I already told so many years ago, cold war era is feasible and has available info... so I'd rather prefer those modules modelled to full extent instead of lacking "secret" things. I believe either from the module feasibility perspective as well as from an online servers missions one, in any cold war period mission MiG-21 fits that like one hundred percent. So, whenever it happens I want it, let's hope Corsair is a huge success (another one I'm willing to) and they can expand their team or something allowing them to give us more modules in high quality like those are/will be.

The subscription system has been mentioned, suggested by more than one fella before. I don't think most people will like any kind of persistent subscription, and ED said in the past they won't do such a thing. And it makes sense, the subscription or any other similar method (like "premium" accounts, for instance) has been abused by other developers into pay to win games instead of skills. But I don't see a hardcore flight simulator in that kind of league, TBH, it's a different product meant for a different public who aren't willing to convert the flight sim they like into that other kind of "game" (despite they all are games in the end, yes, not my point here).

You're forgetting the initially so called F-110 Spectre is also a Century series aircraft technically speaking, but since it's already almost there I won't complain .

Pues, de momento hasta que lo corrijan, sí que parece que desactivando algunos hilos del procesador, no hace falta que sea en la BIOS, soluciona el tema. Tiene subtítulos para quien no se maneje. Eso es algo diferente a lo de arriba, es problema del sensor de las gafas que cuando detecta que te las has quitado da ese CTD. Aunque sea un apaño puedes tapar el sensor temporalmente hasta que se solucione, y te ahorras los crasheos.

Sí, no es la primera vez que pasa. Algunos antivirus no están muy actualizados.

A good replacement for long disappeared VEAO module is VNAO T45 mod, actually. Easy to find and download at their discord.

Funny you post a pattern which shows exactly 1000 feet harmonization/convergence while you say it's wrong…

Yep, many times it's been asked, many times answered. The harmonization (not convergence) from American stuff is 1000ft, 300 yards, with a very well studied pattern that will pepper the target either if you fire at 600 yards or 150. It's done like that on purpose, obviously. The RAF harmonization pattern is 250 yards. The German one is 600m as per historical references, but it works well either at 300 or even more than 600 (well known some pilots fired at that distance to bombers even before gunners had a firing opportunity), but that's because most German stuff had nose mounted weapons. The tricky part is Bf109E in 1940 also had 600m harmonization, even in the wings' cannons, and so Fw190A-8 has even in the outer wing cannons. But Dora and 109 with nose mounted weapons are perfect as they are. Just, and I know ""just"", fire at range and it works really well. Yes, the gunsight setting is up to you . Obviously you should set your sight to the wingspan and speed of your target, so it can't be set in beforehand and in an absolute way to always work. But if you care to set the sight every flight it works quite well.

I'll take it here. Yes, but no. Since in modern day we know the issues, flaws, quirks, and what not from those instruments (but either this or that equipment, system, engine…) so that the modern day operators usually modify this or that little, tiny, stupid, thingy and that instrument, that system, that whole engine which was known at it's time to be unreliable for whatever reason, all of a sudden works flawlessly with no further trouble. But that's due to 80 years of knowledge mates, not because at their own time those whatever hardware it is was flawless, on the contrary back in time those were brand new inventions and many times were flawed by default and by design. It's just we know better nowadays how to make them work properly, not to mention some spare parts, even if it's an original instrument or whatever else piece of hardware, it's rebuilt-refurbished with brand new modern spare parts and those work a zillion times better than original ones. It's like (silly example, but example after all) "look, how good this aircraft starts up now, back it time they weren't able to start it up Ok at once", but it can be related to just the battery is a modern one and it works… If you get my point. Anyhow, the American instrument should be caged from time to time IIRC, the British instrument (from which American one derives, again IIRC) is the one which should centre itself with just some level flight time but it doesn't quite well. Whatever it is anyway, don't mix the two of them because we're talking P-51 here but I believe they don't work exactly the same way. Anyhow TBH I don't know internal functioning of those to tell it's good or badly modelled internally.

You guys don't get it at all… I've said many times but I'll one more… THESE AIRCRAFT WEREN'T SUITED FOR INSTRUMENTAL FLIGHT. Do you wonder why? Modern airworthy examples usually don't equip WWII original instruments, they wouldn't get their airworthiness certificate if so, as well as they don't equip old radios, old range finders, old nothing, they are equipped with VOR/ILS, modern radios, modern instruments with no flaws like old ones had. It's no bug, it's how it worked back then whether people like it or not. It's a simulator for a reason. It's the only simulator for a reason…

Very well known to exhaustion story. But you're getting it wrong, it's the other way around. We aren't at the BoB in 1940 with wrong assumptions because it was all a new thing with fast highly weaponized aircraft, we're flying 1944 aircraft with well studied, very well studied, scientifically studied, harmonization patterns from factory because of stories and experiences like that one, and many more. No pattern of yours or anybody else will be better than the factory studied pattern, it won't never, ever, be better than the perfectly scientifically studied factory pattern. Period .

If we follow the charts posted in the thread this one comes from the design was like that, stick forces charts from various sources and countries tell stick must be pushed most of the flight envelope. The problem is a hardware one because most of us at home don't use long sticks which would be way more appropriate and would help with the constant pushing issue. I do use a long stick and flying the 109 isn't a problem at all. But joysticks on top of the table held with your wrist only… that's a huge trouble. Hence, realism is the trouble after all…

Yep, immortal might be. It's the same, just don't detect collisions, either with ground, weapons or whatever. But remember it's not only your personal options, those can be forced online and in a single mission either so the option might be scripted into de mission if you don't edit it manually.

Usually way that up high there's not enough humidity for carb to create ice, so it's fine and normal as Saburo said. It'd be really bad at lower altitudes with visible, or even not visible, higher humidity and there is where one should use carburettor heat.

Didn't that happen whenever you have flight collisions off?

Not like I pretend to correct such a polyglot, I'm not even close to that, though some things are said out there… https://ielts.idp.com/prepare/article-grammar-101-feminine-and-masculine-words-in-english And not only for ship mentioned there, which I was unsure, but even though it's not mentioned I know it's the exact same for aircraft. You know, when you learn a language those kinds of tips and tricks are usually all around. That's why I got to know it in the first place. It might be a literary, poetic, or whatever it is use so I guess a rare use, but I know aircraft is for sure no matter if people use it any more or not. P.S.: and sorry for the punctuation, I guess I don't follow New York Times' manual of style nor any other and punctuation rules are different in my mother tongue .

But K4 as they explained has plenty of resources and it was a heavily studied aircraft in the after war period, even more than earlier variants as they explained. There're NACA tests, wind tunnel tests, there're everything. Not so with other examples, and even with a well known aircraft as the P-47 is, look what they had to go through to make it happen. K4 FM isn't "disputed", it's gorgeous, it's only the Luftwhiners wanting an invincible machine in their twisted minds who aren't happy to find it's "just" an aeroplane with aeroplane quirks going on, but that's true for any other module they don't pay attention to. The module itself is gorgeously made and researched as anyone can see just reading the documentation available, one ""just"" have to read it leaving our own bigotry aside. An IA sample on the other hand is a whole different kettle of fish, they don't nearly need as much resources as for a full module, the problem with that is a different one. The problem with IA for those aircraft happening is the moment the public see those beautiful 3D models done and in IA condition, the moment people will start demanding asking, "hey, we already have that, just make them flyable"… and you know, "just". But I'd be delighted to have all of that and more in game? Yeah, of course, where do I sign for that . And that includes a properly made DCS level BoB scenario, of course it does.

Yeah, you seemed to imply it's an easy task, just that. Anyhow since we know quite a lot of things are going on there, and I'm sure it won't be all of it anyway, yet let's hope we get a relatively fleshed out theatre by the time we get it since there's one map, two aircraft planned and assets already on the work .

The "not too much effort involved in that" is only your assumption. Any module, or map here, is a LOT of work mate. It's not ever just copy paste this and that as many people seems to think. It's really a lot, and it was since a lot of time, not a new thing, Corsair aside which isn't even related since it's a third party module. The assets pack BTW is coming, the Corsair comes with it as they have already told a zillion times. It's not only the plane itself, it'll be coming with Carrier, with naval and ground assets which we've already seen plenty of screenshots. Yeah, "not too much effort…", I don't think so…

Nostalgia aside, probably makes no sense… I've tried in the past to install the old LOMAC and previous software (old discs lurking around, you know) out of curiosity and… No, it makes no sense, it feels stupid having the same map and aircraft in very good and current quality to go flying those old maps and aircraft, old menus and GUI, old and limited options, but mostly the same at least in the surface since they aren't the same at all, so… quick installed, quick saw it, and quick uninstalled… Yeah, you have the Crimea map in old versions, but it's so old and low quality by today standards it isn't worth it. The old half of Caucasus map makes even less sense, you have all of that available "for free" in DCS with way better graphics.

It's possible you have an Nvidia Control Panel profile active that you forgot about? It's weird there's no MSAA active at all, despite in 4K and depending on your screen size you might not even need it since it's probably crisp enough by resolution itself.

You all wanted realism? Welcome to real life…

Here. You'll have to log into your account first.

Exactly my point time ago, you've been quite more straightforward than me though…