virgo47

This is an interesting idea. No "free", but "included" somehow. It's not quite the same but much better for some users. And yes, I understand that many other users don't have problems with a separate pack. Of course, there is hard to say whether this would promote some additional sales of those modules... and some modules are 3rd party, so there are some complications. But it's a nice model.

I haven't seen the price tag and assumed $30... which will likely be $15 during sales, true that. Not a big deal. Or maybe even less with WWII pack. The story with the giveway is interesting. Maybe people got shy. Happy flying to you as well.

OK, probably multiple things are going on here, so it's hard to say what exactly is wrong: Corsair-Complete-02.miz is clean, no baked-in views there. The other mission has Config dir inside it, it can be completely removed (Config/View overrides your views): This happens when the mission is "prepared" in the mission editor. That is Flight / Prepare Mission (Ctrl+M). Fly Mission alone does not do this and is safe to use. What happens with the Corsair in the clean mission, I have no idea. I didn't understand the story related to your screenshots of the View folder, not sure what happens when and what gets wrong. So, first step is to be always sure that the mission doesn't have baked-in views. With that, any other troubleshooting leads nowhere and just confuses you. Let's compare only clean missions. But with the "clean" mission, I have no idea what is going on.

Perhaps "fragment" would be a better word. And the whole community is actually a set of many communities (and often just individuals ) with different views. Sorry to tire you with this. I actually own WW2 pack and the other two tech-packs, but that doesn't change my view on the asset packs. Of course, in single-player it doesn't really matter, you either buy it or not, you have it or not, there is no other implication, except for campaigns and perhaps community missions. I understand there is a lot of effort put into those assets and at least it's a big logical group of assets. I can also imagine a developer micro-selling micro things, so this is still better.

Assets Packs are "necessary evil", although I'm not sure about necessary. In any case it splits the community when it comes to MP server access and adds another barrier for entry when it comes to a new theater, e.g. when buying a campaign... But that's part of DCS. GOOD NEWS are those new modules on trial. That's a great news! I love trial program and most modules I've bought were after a trial. (Not all trials turned to purchases, of course.) Trial is a great bonus. Sometimes it's also a great distraction from a routine.

Just to be absolutely sure - what works and what does not? Because there was a problem with the default zoom (the zoom after the mission starts, that is the zoom for the default view). This is just another problem, although it has been fixed in the meantime... Can you at least tell us what is happening with your Saved Games\<DCS>\Config\View\SnapViews.lua file? Does it change when you notice the unexpected behavior? That is - back it up and then compare it (use some kind of diff tool). Also, does it happen with any other plane? Does it happen on any other map with the same plane? This may be plane-related. In SW anything is possible, so it may be even map-related, but I doubt this one. To hunt it down, you have to go analytical.

Are you sure it is resetting - or is it actually not right in particular missions? Because missions can be done in such a way they remember snap-views. It is mostly unintended, but it's easy to create such missions, and even some ED's missions for their modules had these snap-views baked in. That is... create your mission with just a plane and try it. Does it use your snap views? If so, then they are not lost, just overridden by the other mission.

Sometimes I think that if the module makers left some of the "simpler" stuff to a few selected community members, these would be able to: fix missions for them (faster than the module maker would), add missing bindings options, or even add stuff to the manual. And everybody would be happy. Of course, everything would still need to be approved, which is SOME work, but it's often much easier to just approve "looks good to me" stuff than to do it - or even start doing it, especially when the core members are overloaded.

This... NS430 clearly does not have the feature that is mentioned in the description. Not a small one. More like half of the reason to buy it. As for L-39, I'd welcome a newer version, but I don't see that coming anytime soon.

Depending on what you wanna see (details), don't even think about 8GB VRAM. Also, will you plug it into PCIe v3, 4 or 5? If you have an older PCIe 3.0, 5060 would be further throttled when loading textures and stuff from RAM to VRAM as it uses only 8 lanes. But having enough VRAM is better. That does not mean that 3060 12GB is a better option here, it really is slower in the end because of raw performance, not to mention support for newer DLSS, etc. I upgraded from 3060 to 5060 Ti 16GB and it was nearly double the performance. (And yes, I have regularly allocated more than 8GB of VRAM, depending on the mission.) So 3060 vs 5060 8GB... I'd choose none, really. Perhaps if you'd massively lower your texture quality - but what's he point then? As for the memory consumption, just check my video comparing map in otherwise empty mission (timestamp goes right to the VRAM usage): Hope that helps you making the right decision.

In the meantime, I discovered a problem with another object on the Kola map - and the reason why I mention it is that it seems to depend also on the plane type, which is really strange. I tried the Dover castle with some other planes and it was quite difficult to reliably replicate the results. The suspicion is that it may be CPU bound because of intense collision detection, but it's just a hunch.

I wasn't around when Caucasus 2.0 dropped, but from what I've heard it was originally more detailed but not performant enough, and some buildings were removed - those are all the blurry patches on the map surface that look like low-res satellite image. Perhaps they could at least add some of those buildings back? It would make the map look better. Even in some training mission, "a water tower on your left" (or something similar) is mentioned, and there in nothing there. Those patches look really ugly.

Today I wanted to push myself a bit with a high-performance plane I'm not that familiar with. Sure, there is 5 m/s wind from 270, but still, I'm quite satisfied with my first landing without running over the runway (barely):

I haven't checked MSAA, however, it'd be funny, because I have a feeling that DLSS now ghosts much more. And the radar scan line in F/A-18C is not anti-aliased, it looks more like unaliased+ghosted (but this may be the effect of May 21 upgrade that mentions DLSS, I haven't played F/A-18C for a while). But it's not just this in particular, F2/F3 views also show more ghosting. It's difficult for a common user to track and compare these changes in this kind of technologies - and it may even be impossible if it somehow differs from GPU to GPU.

Ah, Steam, that's it. It's not available in DCS Shop (and I tested logged-out of the shop as well), that confused me.

I was one of those lucky ones who considered one or another module here and there and always postponed, only to be rewarded with the pack of 3. That's true. At the same time, the other modules were offered for a very good discount individually. They probably didn't feel the need to add three more duo-packs. So yeah, the laggards kinda won, but there were options. BTW: Why mention it now? I can't find the pack in the shop anymore.

I found the fix! I normally use MOUSE_BTN3 (middle mouse button) for clickable cockpit toggle (single press), but for whatever reason, it was double assigned also for Camera transpose mode (press and hold). This is the original binding, I'm not sure how it got applied, but after I removed it, the clickable cockpit toggle started to work with a single press as expected. Of course, you still need the Quaggle or something similar for it because it's not provided for the mouse by default (which is a trivial fix for the devs, but often ignored, not just by Mag3). For whatever reason, zoom axis with mouse wheel started to work after this fix as well, I have no idea why. But I'm a happy animal again. Still, Mag3 guys, consider adding at least some useful bindings options for the mouse - without actual bindings, just that the cells in Controls work and are not disabled. Thanks.

Great news! Will there be a separate lock and unlock binding for the latch? Was that the original intention?

Yeah, I don't really mind... and still, I Might Be Wrong (such a great song BTW), but there was nothing clearly describing this in the changlog, so I rather ask. I adapted already to the new version. Thanks for weighing in.

"has begun"

I don't know why I started my tests on Pagan in this map. It really is extremely short, and I didn't understand why some sources mentioned a longer runway, but the one from game more or less matches today's satellite image. So a volcano is to be blamed! Great OP. I'll welcome a few more meters/feet for this strip, it's really on the edge for any warbird.

Ah, good to know about the previous report. I was confused a bit, so I didn't even know what is and what is not the problem. I can't be sure 100%, but I have very systematic binding configs, I track them with Git and also make colourful spreadsheet for them. I didn't see any binding for that lock/unlock in my controls. I'm definitely sure I have to deal with the lever lock in some planes, but again, I'm not sure which they were (probably MiG-15 out the top of my head). But I didn't use this binding before. It works fine after I bound it, so if it's intended to work like this, it's OK. Of course, separate lock/unlock bindings would be nice as well. Maybe it would be nice to have hard-core Gear Up binding where one has to explicitly control the lock and one which would do it automatically. But I'm fine with the hard-core option only as well. (EDIT: I guess this is not necessary, when there is Landing Gear Lever, toggle, which does more or less the same.) I may be wrong (often I am), but I suspect it wasn't needed a few updates ago when I last flew Yak-52. I see a different landing gear bug reported from March, so maybe something was changed around it after all.

I'm not an everyday flyer with Yak-52, but today (after the yesterday's patch), I tried Yak-52 again and couldn't retract my gear. The reason is, that the gear lever is locked. I know I have some bindings for this in other modules, but I don't seem to have any for this one (checked all my configs for it), because it likely worked auto-unlocking until now... I guess? (Unsure.) Then I started to investigate the bindings for the latch and found this (search for latch): Was there a change related to this? Probably in 2.9.15.9408? That's the latest Release notes with anything about Yak-52: DCS: Yak-52 by Eagle Dynamics Fixed. Wrong brakes behavior via axes Fixed. Bindings for Landing Gear EXTEND and RETRACT not working Fixed. Binding for the Emergency Gear Valve backwards Fixed. Rudder by notch input did not move the rudder, causing a crash instead. Fixed. Elevator Trim Keybindings not working Fixed. Incorrect behavior of AI after takeoff and during landing. But nothing quite fits the description. It seems like the Landing Gear fixes broke something. If it was mentioned as realisme improvement, then it's not described properly. How should it work?

I haven't flown CE2 for some time (but I have not long ago), so I can't be sure about the version when this broke... but there is nothing about Christen Eagle in the release notes since the fuel/radio display patch (much welcome!). But now the mouse bindings don't do the right thing. I'm using Quaggles Command Injector with the following settings: {down = 3256, cockpit_device_id = 0, value_down = 0, name = _('Pilot torch light on-off'), category = {_('Lights'), _('Custom')}}, {down = iCommandViewAngleDefault, name = _('Zoom normal'), category = {_('View'), _('Custom')}}, {pressed = iCommandViewCenter, name = _('View Center'), category = {_('View'), _('Custom')}}, {down = iCommandCockpitClickModeOnOff, name = _('Clickable Mouse Cockpit Mode - ON/OFF'), category = {_('General'), _('Custom')}}, ...because your module does not allow binding these things to the mouse for no apparent reason. In the middle of writing this report, I suspected that maybe Quaggle got broken by the latest DCS upgrade (happens occasionally), but I have similar overrides for AJS37 and it works there. So something seems to be broken with the commands themselves in CE2: Zoom axis (mouse wheel) doesn't work (that one is not even handled by Quaggle) Single click to clickable cockpit doesn't work (the fallback default double click does) Zoom normal and View Center seems to work fine though.

I also suspect something like collision detection, and that would make sense to be different for a different plane. But on my part, it's just a guess.