chaos

Much appreciated and it helps a lot with the porpoising but... now you're limiting maximum control deflection once you start mucking about with the -x and -y saturation (ie. you're no longer able to extract maximum roll or pitch rate). I'm in need of a full size Force feedback stick

pitch & roll: deadzone 4, curvature 10 Yes. Never took to it. I cannot take-off much less -land that kite with the narrow track. It also exhibits the porpoising behaviour that should't be there IMO. I've been wanting to try force feedback for a long time and I do believe it would go a long way to solving the unstable feeling of the flight-model. Problem is that the vast majority are using a "normal" stick and rudder. It should work for those folks too. I don 't get why the jets are totally fine. Stable as a rock and a joy to fly. There's no reason why WW2 birds cannot. You can hit the numbers spot on. You can have the model follow the performance curves within a few percentage points and making it feel like you're flying a kite in a winter storm. However, I appreciate all the comments and suggestions! maybe it's just me but I do find it frustrating. DCS WW2 could be so much better if the "feel" was there...

I have all of them and rarely fly them. The P-47 is my "favorite" but even that one is too unstable for my liking. I love WW2 aircraft but DCS isn't doing them right as far as "feel" goes... IMHO. I wish it was different because there's a lot untapped gameplay in DCS regarding WW2. Great terrains and unmatched fidelity. It just falls short...

I get what you're saying but it shouldn't be _this_ hard. There's too much porpoising. IMHO it needs a lot more damping in the pitch axis especially. The point of any fighter, WW2 or modern, is to have a stable platform to use your weapons. If you're fighting the controls instead of the enemy you're doing something wrong. I've adjusted the axes but I can't make it behave.

So.... I haven't been "critical" of any early access module that I've bought over the years... but it's hard to _not_ with this one. My first impressions are "somewhat underwhelming". It is early access and it needs a "bit of work". The biggest issue I have right now is the flight-model which makes or breaks it for me personally. I'm not a fan of WW2 aircraft in the sim because they all feel way too twitchy for my liking but this one takes it to a whole new level. To the point where I find it unflyable. The art work is good enough and the sounds are OK-ish. Again, I don't want to be too critical and I want the developer to continue developing this. I'm sure they put a lot of blood sweat and tears into it but... we're not there yet....

I read the patch notes while downloading it and was pleasantly surprised that improvements were made to the flightmodel. I always thought it was a bit off, especially in the low speed regime. What a difference a patch maketh! The feel is now so much better without the "rubber-banding" and exaggerated adverse yaw. It has now become one of my most favorite module of DCS. I haven't been using it "in anger" but flying around and doing aerobatics is so much fun now. What I didn't notice in the patch notes was adjustment to the trim settings. Trim can be adjusted much more accurately now... or is it just me? Well done Heatblur!

Yes, but...! We all know that Soesterberg en Twente in the Netherlands were the backstop that kept the Russians from overrunning the UK. So, the Netherlands definitely need to be modeled first.

It's not a show-stopper but an option to not have hot-air balloons flying would be great. I can see the use of 1 or 2 air-race circuits on the map or even harvesters in some fields but I doubt anybody would feel the need to go hot-air ballooning during WW3 Besides; if I see balloons I feel like punching someone in the face. Probably some unresolved issues from my youth

Great map, tremendous detail, generally good performance but could do with less saturated colours. However, doing dead-reckoning in an F-4, I am consistently off by 10deg. or so. For now this method is unusable and, considering it was a one of the primary ways of navigation in the 70's early 80's, this needs to be addressed if at all possible. Some confirmation that a possible fix is in the works would be greatly appreciated. I am still happy with my purchase but this should be corrected.

*BUMP* As we're flying older aircraft, such as the F-4E, it becomes increasingly important to have a flight-plan available to navigate by heading and time (dead-reckoning). I bumped this existing thread but it would be more suitable in an F-4 or other 3rd gen aircraft forum. I'd like to build a flight-plan in an excel sheet that lists, amongst other things, the heading value. If I can copy waypoint coordinates from my "Editor Flight-Plan", I can calculate the headings between these 2 waypoints. How does DCS copy the waypoint coordinates created in the editor and transfers it over to the aircraft navigation system? Anybody with more insight into this? Heatblur lists waypoint coordinates in their kneeboard and I am curious how they go about it...

Yes, it is annoying and I wonder why they put that limitation in there. A little bit more control on where the fog/haze is present is hopefully forthcoming once they flesh out the dynamic weather in DCS.

Well done, ED! Personally one of the most highly anticipated features and the fog looks absolutely stunning! Already looking into creating interesting missions with a twist to it...

AB detent On or Off... If I retard the throttles to idle, after the salute, the engines remain at the MIL or AB power setting. I know... It is a moronic way of doing things but this needs to be fixed pls.

From the latest newsletter... Improvements that are hopefully coming in '24... "Weather. The weather focus for 2024 will be on a new fog system and towering clouds with appropriate line-of-sight blocking." Woohhooooo!

There are some tables in Chucks Guide on the F-1CE/EE (page 346). Look here -> https://chucksguides.com/aircraft/dcs/mirage-f1 It's tough to get the parameters right upon release but it's all good fun... CCIP is for wimps!

Don't bother with fog settings. It's part of the old weather system and doesn't play nice with current weather settings. Still waiting for fog/haze to be updated to current standards. Would love to hear where it sits on the list of priorities. Been asking for this since the "new clouds" -update came out but it has been quiet ever since.

Not so sure about that. The price is "ridiculous", especially if one needs to upgrade the gfx-card as well.... however... My main issue has always been the lack of mixed-reality in normal consumer-grade vr-headsets. I always fumble looking for the gear lever never mind interacting with the up-front-controller in the F-16/18. The XR4 allows the use of button boxes to seamlessly integrate because of the passthrough feature. Granted, this is no longer a hobby but a money-pit and I am not sure if I'd actually buy it. It is getting interesting though after the VR industry has been at a standstill for many years now. I'm looking forward to the reviews...

On the waitlist but euro4000 is a chunk of change... my RTX3080/8GB probably needs to be upgraded to a 4090 as well.... yikes!

As per title. If I load up on external tanks and bombs and leave the Config Switch in the CAT1 position I should be getting an amber "Stores Config" on the warning panel, no?

I was hoping some of these problems would be fixed in 2.9 but alas. To be fair, ED never said it would and so we just have to wait a little bit longer for limited visibility to be properly implemented. It certainly is one of my favorite things to looks forward to....

The 100ft BA was a mistake that I didn't catch on to until you pointed it out. I meant to set it at 1000ft. Onto further testing, thx. [EDIT] Just confirmed that it was indeed the BA setting. Still get the audio of bomblets exploding underground but that is a minor issue...

See attached .trk file. CBU-97's dropped from F-16C on convoy half-way through the track. It seems to be on target but all bombs are going through terrain and exploding below the ground. This problem is not consistent but has been happening more than once. AMD 5950X, 64GB, Win10 Pro (22H2), RTX 3080, Samsung 980Pro NVME drives Syria, Single Player, Multi-Threaded version DCS, User Defined mission Stock DCS, A-4C MOD installed but not used in this mission. F-16C_MT_Convoy.trk

5950x in pancake mode... No discernable performance in- or de-crease. New mission created, no mods. F-16C in Syria and Caucasus. STD version avg fps 55 / MT version avg fps 56. Just for kicks I created a mission in Caucasus with me up against 40 Mig-29S in MT. Starts off with about 60fps... in middle of the furball down to 8fps. Something is screwy here... It's like MT is not enabled at all. And yes, Im starting it DCS from the MT directory... Any ideas?

I have the 5950X and the sim starts just fine. I do not see any performance gains so I will try to disable SMT next...

Thanks for the clarification. That totally makes sense now since VRP is, well, just a reference. It should not _have_ to be overflown. It can just be a visual aid to locate or stay away from whatever you desire. The use of VIP/VRP has always been a little bit of a mystery to me. I understand it was mostly used in a GPS-less environment. Anyway, thanks again.