Kageseigi

Thank you for the tip! Do you happen to know if there are any videos available to show that technique in action? Preferably with the control overlay active?

No intent to cause pain was intended, and if it was caused, then you have my apologies. So please allow me to clarify my position on the following... hopefully, mostly void of emotion on my part: Generally speaking, I do not believe anyone is against the growth or expansion of DCS. I believe we are all for it. But that is to say, we are all for the success of the DCS that we have known for years. We don't want DCS to change in its nature. When we have issues about the quality of a module and suggest improvements or changes, ED usually listens, though they may disagree for one reason or another. Many times, it is because there is not enough documented and reliable evidence to support those claims (at least in ED's opinion). It may be frustrating, but at least that is the reason. At least that holds an appearance of quality-control, to set a high standard. The problem is that nobody or their uncle (generally speaking, of course) believes that ED has enough reliable documentation to model the F-35 and/or its systems to be anywhere near authentically or realistically accurate to a high enough standard that DCS has built its reputation upon. So we fear that this will ultimately transform DCS into something that is not DCS as we know it. Unfortunately, it's not even a matter of truth. Even if ED did somehow have full documentation of the F-35 and its systems, that may be the truth, but no one believes they do, and it doesn't matter how much ED says it. So it's not about truth, it's about trust. If ED and its partners could add the F-35 while holding it to the high standards of the past, then I believe the complaints would be few and far between. Bring it on! If they could do the same for the F-22 and the SU-57, please do! I'd love to have EVERY plane that has ever flown included! If you can bring every ship and every tank into the game, that would be wonderful! Being able to fly anywhere on the globe would be amazing! We are not against any of that. Make DCS the greatest, most versatile, and most diverse combat sim in history! But make sure that it stays DCS, living up to those high standards. Unfortunately, too many developers end up killing their geese that lay golden eggs. They take what was once great, and they twist it into obscurity. And it really wrecks us loyal fans... Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Brothers In Arms... beloved franchises that were twisted beyond recognition from their original forms. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, Saints Row... the devolution of what made them great is saddening. We want a stronger, expanded, healthy DCS. But we want it to be DCS, not DCS: War Thunder Edition. We want more newer, advanced planes. We want more older warbirds. We want more Cold War aircraft. We want more maps. But we want them to be held to the high quality that we have come to expect and hope for. That's what makes DCS worth playing. That's what we hope to keep. And that's why the F-35 threatens us... because we see it as the first step to the destruction of what we hold dear. And we want to avoid that if possible. Nobody wants DCS to fail or to stagnate. We want it to thrive. But we want DCS to remain DCS. Only time will tell what will happen. Unfortunately, such controversial issues do bring out negativity. But much of that negativity is from passion. We get defensive about what we love, and we don't want anyone to threaten it. So that is at least one silver lining... many of these protests and arguments sprout from love for DCS, not from hatred against it. Hopefully, that can result in comradery and brotherhood instead of division. Anyway, that's my perspective of things. May God bless you and keep you, may God guide ED along the best path, and may DCS remain true to itself! Amen.

I sense a new Ubisoft is arising

I found an older mod, and I tried adding it to the Saved Games livery folder so it would pass IC, but I'm not sure what modifications it needs to actually work. Is there another mod that is made for that? Thank you!

I only saw one of your four missiles appear to go for chaff. The other three seemed to "self-destruct" for three other different reasons. I wish chaff resistance was the biggest problem the Phoenix had. It seems to be more about supporting/tracking related to notching... almost as if the missile can be successfully notched if the enemy pilot simply turns his head to sneeze.

That looks so bizarre. The poor Phoenix appears to be virtually useless in DCS. Did you have lock whenever you fired all of your missiles? Did you ever lose lock due to notching? It looks like your second missile never went active... or at least didn't alter course at all when it got close. But why not? It didn't look like it bit on chaff or any maneuver... it just whiffed. And did you really shoot down your own missile? How does that even happen? Something seems to be quite rotten. It's a miracle that the Soviets never realized that all they had to do to defeat the Navy's premiere air defense was to fly in a big circle until they were out of missiles. It's like a cat chasing a laser pointer.

Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. 2 Kings 17:18 It is very sad. I've been wanting to buy Sinai very much, mainly because it had all of Israel. But this really takes away my trust and confidence. I'm glad I haven't bought it yet. I truly do hope this change is reversed. I really don't see how it could not be. But alas, what's next? Will Judah disappear also once Babylon... er, Iraq comes out?

Wow, that's very helpful! Thank you for the post! I've been looking for some information also. For example, I can't find out how to find the fuel consumption for the F-4 and F-14 engines. The command "LoGetEngineInfo()" with ".FuelConsumption.left" (or right) works on many modules, but not on those two. Do you have any suggestions? And can you use the model viewer or similar method to find out which commands/arguments are for in cockpits? Such as if indicator lights are on/off? Thank you!

Thank you so much!

Thank you! I'll definitely give it a go! I'm always worried about the IC, haha! I was just testing TrackIR, and discovered that the Roll axis was really causing me crazy issues when I was looking close to or past vertical, so I disabled it, and had much better results. I'm still getting some issues when it is past vertical, though. Do you happen to know if there's any simple way to absolutely lock TrackIR out from giving an output of greater than 90 degrees on the Pitch axis?

Jester is such a complex "person," I'm starting to think that he needs his own section in the Special Options screen so each player can customize what kind of calls they want Jester to make during different situations (via check boxes). That way, all of those options won't necessarily need specific binds or selections in the Jester Menu. I would also like to repeat my request for the ability to ask Jester for a bandit location callout on demand. Perhaps even two different options... one for a focused target, and one for non-focused bandits (if I'm chasing one guy, Jester can ignore him, but keep an eye on my tail). I definitely support support the option for speed/altitude/etc. callouts. Even if it isn't something a real WSO would do normally, it could help us digital pilots... if for no other reason than we don't have the same vision capabilities that real pilots had (whether it be to limited FOV of monitors/VR headsets, lower resolution, or some other factor). Even something as simple as looking down at my airspeed gauge in a dogfight can be a major mistake for me when I'm in a dogfight. I use Track IR, so I can't see my instrument with just an eye glance... I actually have to move my head/neck to bring it into view... and then I have to return my head/neck to exactly the same position to have a chance at requiring a tally on the target (which can be a pain to do with the TrackIR sensitivity... especially if I'm using any kind of zoom level). I've actually had to export my speed to a tablet so I can glance down with my eyes only. I've lost way too many targets when I move my head, especially if they're low and have trees behind them. I simply cannot find them again.

Very interesting, thank you! Do you happen to know if that will pass IC these days? Or if there's a way to apply it to each individual module in the Saved Games directory so it will pass IC? I've found that my eyes don't seem to detect movement on a screen as they do in real life. It makes spotting absolutely miserable! Alas, why am I drawn to early Cold War?

Thank you. I only played around with it for a few minutes. Do you still use the Server.lua file for planes such as the F-5? Or do you use the Views.lua (Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F-5E) file from the specific module? I haven't touched the Server.lua file yet, but I editing the Views.lua file did have an effect. I tried to copy the Views.lua to the Saved Games directory (Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Mods\aircraft) so I can possibly pass the Integrity Check for multiplayer servers, but the changes there didn't work. If you copy the Server.lua to the Saved Games directory, will it pass IC? Thanks. That's interesting. Yeah, I can understand not wanting a pilot to be able to twist his head around like an owl, haha! Though I do wish I could get more freedom with TrackIR similar to what a VR headset can give. VR may be more apt to cause motion sickness if the game view doesn't match a player's true head movement, but trying to follow a bandit straight up can get disorienting for a TrackIR user also when his pilot's head stops, but his real head doesn't. I actually find myself straining to move my head up even more, thinking it will break the limit... only resulting in the TrackIR camera losing sight of my reflectors, haha! It wouldn't be so bad if I could set limits on TrackIR itself (to never let it have a pitch output greater than 90 degrees), because when I look up and back (to the side), TrackIR thinks my pilot's head is facing a little "upside-down," but DCS doesn't. so when I have to follow my target from high-right and behind me to high-left and behind me, once my head crosses the center point horizontally, TrackIR throws a fit, and causes some crazy camera swings... making it extremely difficult to maintain visual. It's absolutely devastating in scissors P.S. Good luck trying to follow my head movement in the last paragraph!

Unless I'm misreading, and I may be, he was referring to the slats and "main" flaps having that automatic retraction feature (which was present only on certain models) removed, and that AUX Flaps (on all Tomcats) always had a blow back feature... "Believe it or not, the F14 did have a provision for the flaps and slats to automatically retract. If the flap handle was in the normal range (ie, not in emergency), then an overspeed that exceeded 225 KIAS would auto retract the main flap panels. However, this feature was removed in an airframe change (AYC 660P1)." "All F14's also have an AUX FLAPS blow back feature due to a bypass valve located within the aux flap control section of the combine hydraulic system. So technically, the F14 does have a blow back feature, but only for the AUX FLAPS." I think that's all part of my confusion, mainly the terminology. When I read something like, "Use your maneuver flaps in a dogfight, not your landing flaps," it sounds like they are separate parts of the airplane, when they seem to be different modes/extents instead. After looking more, I found this diagram: So it appears that if the flaps are down within 10 degrees, they would be considered Maneuver Flaps. If they are fully down at 35 degrees, they become Landing Flaps. According to the manual, the (non-AUX) "flaps can be set to anywhere between retracted and fully extended," though I'm not sure what they would be considered if between 10 and 35 degrees. Also according to the manual, there are two "modes" that control the flaps: "The normal flap and slat extension" and "the maneuver flap system." After reading the manual more in-depth, I'm still trying to understand about the AUX blow back system that Victory mentioned. If one does have all sections flaps fully extended, and if the AUX Flaps always had a blow back feature, then shouldn't only the outer sections of the flaps be in the most danger of getting jammed? Still so many questions! Oh well, in any case, this is what I'm gathering: "Maneuver Flaps" can refer to the two outer sections of flaps (especially when up to 10 degrees extended, but less likely if beyond that), or it can refer to the Maneuver Flap System. The outer two sections of flaps can be referred to as "Maneuver Flaps, Outboard Flaps, Main Flaps, and possibly Normal Flaps." The inner section of flaps are called Auxiliary (AUX) Flaps or Inboard Flaps. "Landing Flaps" are all three sections of flaps being fully extended. Also referred to as the "Big Boys." "Flaps" is a general term that can basically refer to any of the above, though less likely to refer to AUX Flaps specifically unless part of a whole (e.g. "Landing Flaps"). Haha, what else am I missing?

I have a few questions... First, did DCS' file structure change since this was posted? Second, does this pass Integrity Check in the current version? Third, does this allow (or is there another way to allow) the pilot to look more than 90 degrees straight up/back? Maybe I missed something or my controls are all a mess, but my pilot still wouldn't look up past 90, though TrackIR does. Thank you!