Wrcknbckr

It might have something to do with the configuration of the screens. When configured with equal resolution it looks much better. It worked for me. Visual artifacts on a 2-Screen setup (Workaround) - Clouds and Weather - ED Forums (eagle.ru)

The new clouds don't seem to like 2 differently configured screens. As long as width/height and aspect are the same for the primary and secondary screens the clouds look OK, the rear view mirrors are OK and water does not look like the Syrian desert. I wonder if this is inherent to how the new clouds are implemented and this is something that can be avoided in future updates...

That's good to know! I'm on 3840x1080 on 2 screens. Primary screen is messed up -even worse then yours, the secondary is OK. I'll try play around with the ratios.

Are any of you running multiple screens? On my primary screen I see jagged edges, masking, water looks like land, whereas on the secondary screen(s) it's OK. Was wondering if it's something on my side or more of a general problem (latest driver and .fxo file generated).

I run a 2-screen setup where on the primary screen strange visual artifacts appear using v2.7. It looks like the new clouds mask certain areas of the view. It only happens on the 1st screen, the second screen is alright. In Cockpit-view the cockpit frame is masked, in addition the rear view mirror is black whereas the right mirror is ok on the right screen. In the outside-view the aircraft body seems to mask clouds... I installed the latest drivers (466. GTX1050) and emptied the fxo directory. New .fxo files were generated but to no avail. Is there anything else I could try to solve this? The 2.5.6 version is still ok with the same setup.

I honestly think the representation of a propeller or rotor is the hardest thing to accomplish in a visual. I'm also impressed by the movie. I think due to the large range of RPM's a solution for a rotor will be completely different from that of a prop. Considering also the monitor's refresh rate and GPU frame rates it's quite an accomplishment as it is already (not even mentioning the challenges for VR...)

Very nice! Makes me want to pick up the Harrier again!

Might be this Historical mode filter in the options that prevents adding assets from different eras.

I'd say that every aircraft has its quirks and requires different points of attention. It may be the position of the probes (the Harrier has the probe behind your left shoulder) but it may also be the refueling method either basket or boom. I only have basket experience. Harrier I find easy but I have given up on Mirage (it seems a deadband is hardcoded so I cannot adapt control curves to my liking). Bigger tankers are easier (KC130/135 and IL-78). At the moment I'm struggling with the F-14 and S-B3 combination, which is more difficult due to the low speed and also the small tanker dimensions which limits the cues for keeping position. So basically never a dull moment in AAR...

I also only use stick, including F14. To me, any deadzone is killing for AAR.

My idea of adequate learning AAR is best explained by an analogy with an athlete training for jumping a 2m high bar (or AAR). I don't think it makes sense to put a trampoline there (magnets/tractor-beam/adapted controls etc.). Sure he's able to jump the 2m... but not without the trampoline. He doesn't get a feel of what is needed. In the same way the player is deprived of the 'original' controls that he knows from his normal flying. More effective would be start with the bar at a lower height (formation flying). That way he can progress in his own time, according to his abilities and improve. That said, I miss an intermediate in the training sessions between flying/weapon delivery on one side and AAR. AAR is a target that is too far set. Out of nowhere the player has to be able to position his aircraft within a 10x10 inch square. Clearly that calls for desperation at first. How about first do a training session devoted to formation flying. I think a lot of players have no idea how they wobble through the skies (at least I did). Flying in formation you get to know your abilities to position the aircraft at will - without having to worry about fuel (the stress factor). Meanwhile you adapt your axis curves to you liking (do all players know this can be done?). This alone presents a perfect training environment, no additional programming effort on ED side needed (apart from creating a formation flying session). I have flown the Harrier AAR training session and couldn't get a transfer completed - that was after completing >50 successful AARs in a self created training mission, so this training session I think is not really the easiest for a beginner and could be improved for that purpose...

Oh I'm sure those "manly men" are willing to share tips and advice to those in need or even desperate, since they've been in that same position before...

OP's suggestion of a limited flying box with auto-refuel seems the easiest and fastest way to introduce a workaround. I think the main difference of opinion starts when all kinds of helper functions are suggested (magnets/tractor beams/skill-level based control systems) that are either not helpfull for learning, require large coding efforts, or are not in line with ED's way of thinking w.r.t. realism/fidelity.

Training wheels prevent you from finding your balance.

Good luck with that. As mentioned in a somewhat equivalent topic (on introducing autopilots for WWII aircraft) ED's reaction was: 'We are actually considering removing game flight and avionics, it is not used very often and creates more problems than it solves'. Guess the unlimited fuel option is here to stay. Maybe the 'bigger area' option could be considered, but you can forget about adding helper functions. I am curious if players would consider migrating to MAC for easy AAR...

The Mig-19 IS rolling slowly to either side if you apply asymmetric power. It may not be so much as other jets cause the engines are placed close to the aircraft's symmetry plane, contrary to for instance the Tomcat where the lateral position is much larger. For the Tomcat It is even advised not to use afterburner on take-off because if one of the engines fail you'll be in trouble because of asymmetric thrust.

... perhaps because it should be off when you want to run multiple screens.

If real pilots have hard numbers I would believe it. If it's a feeling I would disregard. Not because they wouldn't know, but because their experience is in a completely different environment. One in which an acceleration or deceleration is actually felt in the pants. Something that is missing in our fixed-base sims.

I guess your expectations are to high. It's not supposed to lock (IRL). It's not supposed to (exactly) follow the beam. You kinda 'steer' it a certain direction. Point the pipper to the right and it will pursue a slightly right course, point it to the left and the GROM will sorta go left ways. The further it moves, the weaker the radar signal and GROM's response to that. There's a reason it wasn't so successful I guess. Works on latest Beta but I have similar experiences on Stable. (Working does not mean I hit targets...)

For a moment there I thought you had an argument along the lines of 'DCS has merchant ships equipped with laser guided rockets, so why should we not allow autopilots on WWII aircraft that never had one'. Anyway, I think that pointing out these flaws in the modelling have a much, much bigger chance of being implemented than fantasy devices on an aircraft, and so it should.

Strings, elastic bands, knees... you name it. You can still use 'm today, no need to develop codes for.

Ah, now I get it! For the 'right' combination of settings the clicks will be accepted. Just for 'wrong' settings, causing damage IRL, clicks are simply ignored. TY for clarifying. I'm all for the damaging functionality with working clicks, though it'll probably generate more posts...

Not sure what is not working or bugged. I had no problems using the clickable ARK-5 functions for the Mig-19 in the training sessions (and elaborated upon in the training videos (mission 5) You also need to be aware that the assigned freq. scale is dependent on NEAR/FAR mode. For NEAR you'd have to set the freq. scale on you left side (instead of the one on the right). Might that be the issue? Mig-15 was to long ago for me for comparison.

The free2play period indeed is to short for in-depth knowledge of an aircraft. You'd have to read the manual or do all training missions to fully understand the ins and outs... To adjust the frequencies set the mode switch to ANT. To actually use the ADF, switch to COMP. You also have to be aware of NEAR and FAR modes. BTW changing frequencies is still very annoying with the mouse and hard to do during the flight. In the training missions for the weapons I would set the frequency on the ground but then you have no aural feedback to tune the signal (yet).

This I would recommend too. If I remember correctly it was refueling over the sea. I missed the ground in my peripheral view. I think refueling at low altitude above solid ground would help in the spatial awareness and would also be beneficial when the tanker is in a bank.