AndyHill

Hm what's that line 58 edit for?

One of the things I've been hoping for for a while is a debriefing addition for DCS that would show you what went wrong if a mechanical failure occurred for one reason or another.

Flying with a triple screen system I found the default values for CameraViewAngleLimits rather restrictive, I think the actual values are 20 to 105 degrees. With this kind of settings you are constantly rather zoomed in and with max zoom you get a real Hubble view. I prefer to use 60 to 140 degrees respectively, I hope it's not considered the most horrid form of cheating ever anywhere. Unfortunately this change probably needs to be done every time you update, so it's a bit of work. IS there any chance this could be a setting in the MiG-21 specific options? For example Camera view angle max and Camera view angle min or something like that. It seems to me that DCS doesn't handle the view angles quite right when it comes to screens with different width, so this might actually be somewhat useful. BTW, if you wish to change these settings they are in DCSWorld\Mods\aircraft\MiG-21BIS\Entry\03_views.lua and change the CameraViewAngleLimits

I've been struggling with the flaps thing myself, trying to set them to the Warthog throttle flap thingy. It would be easy to do in Target, but I try not to have different profiles for different planes in DCS so it's a bit more work. On another note two things to think about as far as keys go: 1) How about some toggle keys like gear up / gear down for certain functions like the gear? Separate on/off is great for many things, but sometimes you could really use both when setting up your controllers. 2) Various button covers, gear locking pins etc. are of course great to model in the clickable pit, but what happens when I use them on my HOTAS for example? If I press the jettison stuff key I bound on my HOTAS does the simulator assume that I must have access to that function already and open the button cover for me automatically? I kind of think that might be a good idea considering how much harder it is to find the thing with TIR and mouse and then mouse click over in a virtual pit compared to reaching out and touching them in the real thing. I think I could program these to the controller (as long as there are separate cover on/off functions, otherwise there's a risk of desyncing), but again I wouldn't mind if I didn't have to.

Personally I'm all for immersion and that's why I was so interested in giving the Rift a go even though I of course knew beforehand that it's not currently in a usable state. I've got quite a bit of hardware, but its purpose is not to make me better (I gave up on that a long time ago) but make flying more pleasant and more immersive. That's why it was kind of surprising to see how much the Rift improved my flying abilities (at least in some ways). As for being able to read gauges I think your idea does have some merit at looking at gauges should be pretty easy already with the improved DK2 tracking (which I haven't tested myself). However, I don't think it's going to be enough to make the Rift usable in the long run. For the purposes of this test I forgave the awful resolution (because it's not the point at the moment), but for real use you are going to need much more resolution than it has right now, even just to really feel the immersion. Even at the point where you are able to read gauges and HUD comfortably you won't see out extremely well so I'm not sure if it's good enough to consider the Rift baseline usable at that point, but my guesstimation is that it will be. Luckily I also think that that kind of performance just might be attainable with the best screens available for the consumer version, but that remains to be seen. If you have a chance to try out the rift in a simulator or just get a ride in one of the demos I suggest you try it out. It's a really interesting experience even though it's not close to being ready for everyday use.

Good point about the noise of wind rushing against the canopy. That's something I'd like to have instead of the external engine sounds in cockpit that tend to go all weird at mach speeds.

I've been quite happy with the MFG pedals and if you're looking for something to complement a Warthog set, they kind of fit the description.

I did some testing with the Oculus Rift DK1 in DCS and I thought I'd write about it on the simulator forums I frequent (since I was really curious about reading about OR myself earlier), but it ended up becoming a pretty major story so I turned it into a blog post. If you're interested in my experiences with the device and my infinitely wise assessment of its potential, check out this post: http://anttiilomaki.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/oculus-rift-in-simulator-gaming-potentially-the-most-disruptive-tech-since-trackir/

FINELAND

I have played some RoF and yeah it's pretty good as far as visibility goes, but that's probably largely because the speeds are typically about 1/10 of what DCS planes have. You have vastly more time to scan the skies with the limited FoV, resolution and FPS on a computer screen. It's going to be interesting to see how well BoS with the same engine and many times the speed range handles the issue. Still, one of the best examples of all time is the ancient Sturmovik and here's the infallible formula for complete success: - Add settings for dots that are rendered WHERE THE PLANE IS, as in NOT SEEN THROUGH COCKPIT AND CLOUDS. (DCS does not have this yet) - Add very good settings for adjusting icons (DCS already has this, wohoo!) that are RENDERED WHERE THE PLANE IS etc. (DCS does not have this yet) - Enforce the server settings to everyone (you can of course always opt for no icons also) (I don't think DCS does this yet)

Server controlled icon settings would be a big deal, because if I've understood correctly enabling icons at the moment opens a real pandora's box even if you'd just like to have a black ' at < 8km for all aircraft.

Bingo. Ideally we should have a spotting system that replicates human abilities in air combat as a whole, not just some parts of it. The viewing area, resolution and framerate are all massively inferior in front of a computer screen, which leads to an unrealistic experience in air combat situations. Thus, having some form of icons might make the experience as a whole more representative of the real thing. However, this is a controversial subject. It is true that there are no floating texts or dots in the air in reality and it might be preferable to many to not have any kind of assists. This is why I think it would be important for the developers to consider this suggestion: Make the multiplayer host's icon settings override the icon settings for all players (unless they have turned icons off completely, which must always be allowed). This way the game host gets to choose a level playing field for everyone according to his view of what's best and the players get to choose what kind of servers / settings they like. I believe strongly that this is a very important feature and the only way to solve this issue to everyone's satisfaction. We already have pretty good setting options for icons so it's a good start (we really need dots / icons that are NOT rendered through clouds and plane parts, though!), we just need the next step that is replicating the host's settings for all.

One of the best mods I've ever seen. However, it seems that some of the painted city textures still remain. Is it a bug, my own fault (as always) or is there still some modding to do? And thanks again, this improved things vastly and should be the default mode. (note picture below)

This mission is totally epic and something DCS World desperately needs.

1) Fly the chopper 2) Start reducing altitude and airspeed 3) Land not too rough 4) Check your location 5) Decide that's the correct place

But is he talking about the same thing I'm thinking about, since I might have experienced the same thing? I kind of think it might be the guy on my left kicking at the controls every now and then. He used to mess with the controls whenever I tried precision maneuvers but now that he's pretty much stopped that he's just found a new way to keep me on my toes.

The first time I grabbed the controls I knew it was going to be hard to learn but worth it. Flying the Hueay is definitely a skill and mastering new skills is always oh so rewarding. For some reason it's been a bit more difficult than for example in Black Shark to get to grips with the chopper's reactions and handling, but I suppose the FM is still being tweaked and I'm not an expert in helicopter flight anyways. This is a video recreation of my first attempts at hovering: Here are a couple of shots of recommended landing locations:

!

At least I had the fortunate opportunity to provide some good news to Jim when he was looking for reviews on Black Shark and I was able to forward him a very positive one in a Finnish gaming magazine. If only we could focus on rejoicing the life lived instead of mourning its end.

I've had a fair bit of success with VAC - even with my lousy accented English. To me the best way to utilize it is clear: it needs to be integrated directly into DCS World as an option. All the contextual stuff would just work always and all the callsigns etc. would be correct all the time. It's probably not even a huge amount of work, since if I've understood correctly, VAC already comes with a pretty good API. Maybe ED could even contact the guy who did VAC system to help. Just exposing the currently active radio options through Lua would enable some enterprising soul to create such an interface, but I have a hunch that it wouldn't be much more work to integrate VAC directly.

I'd like to know the answer to this one as well. Obviously for the HOTAS Warthog this has already been done, but it would be great to have similiar ability for other switches as well. If this is already possible through Lua for example, please let me know and I'll take a look.

Actually the issue I've had is that at least in the original Lock on, pretty much any tank was perforable from any angle, it just took more hits to down a T-80 from the front quadrant. With a focus on CAS action in the DCS series, it would make a lot of sense to focus on ground units' damage model (subsystems modeling, ability to disable tracks, guns, sights, acurately modeled penetration and other hit effects etc.). I don't actually remember if such things have already been mentioned, but this might be a good time to remind us and perhaps even share a bit more info if such improvements are to be expected.

It could make multiplayer setup much simpler if the AI could fly any position even adequately. I don't know if it's currently a factor, but it would really, really help mission creators if the AI could just take over all planes not flown by flesh & blood pilots.

I'm one of the strongest advocates for dynamic campaigns, to me the element of novelty in each mission and the uncertainty of what is going to happen are very important factors in simulating the fast-paced decision making processes of a military aviator's job. Personally I even prefer separate single missions to linear campaigns, since the only real difference is the fact that you need groundhog day your way through the missions to get to the next one in a campaign. Single missions can have a similiar level of story to them so it's not that much of an issue for me. With that said, I was very positively surprised by just how well the back and forth flowing BS campaign pulled me in. The simple fact that you can win or lose a mission - and thus progress forwards or backwards - makes a world of difference. There's an element of randomness in the missions as well, which helps somewhat. Reading about the campaign engine before BS release didn't have me excited, but in reality the campaign is surprisingly entertaining. It's not as good as a good dynamic campaign, but if Warthog has a comparably well crafted campaign there's a good chance you'll be well entertained. Now if the campaign only worked in multiplayer mode... I've seen many dynamic campaign projects for different games rise and fall, some with better success than others. I've flown a lot of them and analysed them, with many different simulators, I've even tried to assist in some project by offering my (practically infinite) wisdom (I can't code worth ####). I've also followed a number of simulator projects over the couple of decades of simming "hobby" and especially thanks to my dynamic campaign fetish it has been somewhat frustrating at times. I believe that probably the best way to create a dynamic campaign would be to start an open source project with a liberal license so that any aspiring simulator project could adopt the technology, make sure their internals are compatible and perhaps contribute code for the project. I've noticed that many if not most companies like Eagle Dynamics are mostly interested in creating the planes, flight models and weapon / equipment modeling. For Eagle that's certainly understandable, because of their business with real world air forces, they probably aren't very interested in intricate campaign systems. There are a number of individuals around the world who have already created more or less functional dynamic campaigns. Usually they even share their work for free, but since the code isn't available (I haven't checked, but I don't know if any DC project has released the code?) the pace and continuation of the projects is entirely up to them - and how could you even ask for much from people who are doing the work for free in their spare time? Basically I think a dynamic campaign engine might be a challenge to commercialize. It takes quite a bit of work to create one and the audience is fairly small. There are different ways of approaching the problem and I've seen some pretty impressive stuff emerging from fairly simple campaign engines, but getting to a level where you get truly immersive missions in a sensible strategic context automatically will take time and effort. ED seem to be improving the mission editor with every release and I guess that might one day lead to a Dynamic Campaign System in DCS. ED is also big enough to make a DC themselves, but I doubt they would mind if they got a lot of the effort for free from an open source community. For smaller teams a freely available campaign could be a gift from the gods. Another interesting task for such co-operation would be standizing or creating suitable middleware to make sure that all exotic hardware (the world is full of interesting gizmos that usually only work with Flight Simulator but would be fun to have in for example DCS as well) works in every sim that supports it. The project could start with some funding and steering from ED and other interested sim developers or it could be just one guy who starts typing code and uploads it to Google Code or Github or something similar. It's probably best for everyone that I'm not the code guy, but I'll certainly do what I can to help in the design and other stuff. Hm. Could be quite interesting actually, what do you guys think?

I thought I'd say thank you for creating the mission. We've had quite a bit of good old fun with some buddies flying it online. I even made a movie out of it - it's nothing special and Windows Live Movie Maker destroyed the project before I could even really start editing it, but if you want to take a look it's here: Thanks again and keep making good missions, please.