shagrat

The thing, as I mentioned before, is, this there's a reason ED implemented things like air-start, or hot from parking/runway. They intentionally created scripted auto-start and auto-shutdown procedure and they deliberately added things like rudder-assist and Take-Off- assist. They have decided to allow for labels (luckily adjusted over a long struggle to a more flexible system, other than the awful red/blue dot with textblock to a less intrusive "spotting" helper) and even gamey "arcade options" for the few who want a "previously mentioned platform", though I never saw any of the arcade stuff on a MP server... These are all intentional as part of the "suit the user and his particular level of experience and training" credo, from the very start of DCS with DCS: Ka-50 Black Shark. The handholding concept isn't "cheats", but a way to mitigate the real life cues and advantages over an arm-chair simulation. Unlike real pilots in a real aircraft we don't have real comms and can talk with the tanker. We need to fiddle around with a bunch of keyboard/mouse based F-commands in a situation you really want your hands on throttle and stick. We don't have a 210° field of view (peripheral vision) and especially not everyone can afford to buy VR just to have at least 3D for better depth perception. We don't have real world motion/acceleration perception and can't easily afford a full motion platform to compensate for that. There are even customers out there, that cannot afford a full blown HOTAS and Rudder setup, or people that have disabilities, that would prevent them from flying a real plane in the first place. This is why ED implemented helpers and options to enable everyone interested in study level aviation to participate. So while I get the point of competitive PvP may wanting to limit features that could affect competition, I can't understand the hubris of exclusion, based on personal preference, for the greater community playing SP, simple training in MP or PvE in their group. Similar to other "client/player" based options this wouldn't even affect other players in PvE... and definitely not in Single player! As for the "you can easily use the 'unlimited fuel' option" that is often brought up. This is actually a "cheat", not a helper, as it eliminates fuel/weight management. I at least hate this option, and don't use it, as it is a bad compromise and is causing mayhem in MP PvE, where you want a flight to have similar fuel consumption and weight at similar times in the mission, for obvious reasons. As for "turning into something else", it didn't turn into something else with "auto-start" available, nor did I ever see a public server with the "Arcade avionics and flight model" enabled in the last two decades, so I daresay this is a straw man argument. Obviously the reason people pick DCS and stick to it isn't "a better looking -gamey flight arcade- experience. If AAR training in DCS would allow for override of the f...ing F-key orgy and go through the process without fighting keyboard while struggling with station keeping, if the tanker at least in a training scenario would announce turns and smoothly roll, if the tanker talk to you other than "return pre- and contact" and training missions for AAR wouldn't consist simply of a tanker on a race-track, a list steps to go through and a "gid gud" heads up, as hand holding, it could improve. The naval operations introduced an IFLOLS overlay to help. The tankers Pilot Director Lights as a similar overlay would be a good first step. Visual cues for training station keeping would help hand holding. And ultimately a way of adjusting the difficulty for AAR (for example by a more relaxed connection to the tanker) that can be individually set until you get comfortable and dial it down over time, similar to take-off assist, isn't a bad idea. Currently we have a tanker... That's it.

...and please don't skip this part of what DCS is, especially the hand holding part for novice players, or the adjustable experience ( cited from the same product description): (...)"DCS World is fundamentally a deep, authentic and realistic simulation designed also to offer a more relaxed gameplay to suit the user and his particular level of experience and training. The ambition is to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator of such complex weapons systems as the A-10C Warthog or the F/A-18C Hornet. The only next step is the real thing!"(...)

^This ...and at least a handful of the buildings from each map to place in the Missions.

I am glad you still upgrade this map. Is their a remote chance the City of Afrin in northern Syria will be added (currently it is a road crossing in a field)? The biggest issue is, it is a landmark(!) present on the MFD moving map (by name) and on the F10 flight map. If you look outside the cockpit there is not even a bunch of buildings. I am totally fine with a bunch of generic buildings outlining the city, but it's currently missing completely. See also here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/243669-ciry-of-afrin-completely-missing/#comment-5162713

Why should the ASL to help you steer TO the target if the TGT diamond is outside the HUD be working different in the F-15E than in any other of the western aircraft (A-10C, F/A-18C, F-14, F-16C especially)? Btw same behavior for retarded or none retarded ordinance in all other aircraft. The ASL is provided to help the pilot align with the TGT point and is independent from height. Especially weird (and wrong) is the fact the ASL is sometimes jumping sides... Just think about a run-in through valleys in mountainous terrain, trying to align and pop up over mountain ridges with your steering cue (ASL) all over the place while evading terrain. This is a bug, not intentional. Maybe also related to this: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/329347-asl-wind-correction-incorrect/

Flying at treetop level shouldn't be required to get a ASL on the target in AUTO mode. It should work the same at 50ft, 500ft or 15,000ft. Especially it should not jump from one side of the HUD to the other (happened to me). I could reproduce that weird behavior. This pretty sure looks like a bug.

Yeah, but didn't you mention the issue with moving the switch too fast? That's what will not happen with the OFF_else_ON concept. The thing is it is virtually impossible to have a "perfect" keybinding solution, close to the real controls, if you need to accommodate multiple different HOTAS concepts, which on the hardware side don't mimic the real controls. This is amplified by the fact, we can't typically buy a "replica HOTAS" for each module. We need to compromise or work around the discrepancy to make it work with our setup, most of the time. The Virpil software (or WinWing etc.) allows for some neat button configuration, but still it has mostly momentary buttons where often some would be actual switches IRL. The Warthog on the other hand has some of those, but not always in the right place, not enough and lacks other things, like the radar elevation control for example. I personally already pretty happy most modules these days come with a lot more "special" key binding options, but my guess is, we will never have the perfect one-fits-all solution.

With a "proper" 3-pos switch you need to use the "OFF else ON" special commands. That's what they are for. E.g. the HOTAS Warthog Throttle has the boat-switch. Center = no button pressed (OFF), Forward = button A constant on (A else OFF), Aft = button C constant on (C else OFF). If the boat switch moves from either A or C position to the center (both A & C OFF) it triggers B. The problem is, most other HOTAS did not use the more realistic switches, but only momentary push button type 3-way, 4-way or 5-way hats.

That exactly is the difference, the Razbam Devs do care...

How? It is heavier (EW equipment mounted inside the plane and a second cockpit including avionics).

The fact it supports multicrew exports, so you can switch between seats and it exports the correct MFDs plus the TEDAC as a separate view. In terms of the Strike Eagle it would be nice to have the back seat have similarly the MPDs and MPCD plus the second MPCD so you can switch seats and have corresponding exports.

Well, actually you should have a SEAD/DEAD flight and an escort of F-15C... Multirole does not mean everything at once. JDAM and JSOW are nice, but LGB and toss bombing are your friend, as well.

Exactly my point. I did not ask for them to test anything or provide a long list of settings for specific CPUs. A simple "dial it up/down if you have more cores." or "you should try matching your available cores." etc. would be a great help, because it takes considerable time to really test, if you just randomly try dialing in settings... especially if the results only show under specific conditions and we even have no idea if the "issues" are related to this setting.

Can a dev from @Razbam tell us what the setting does? What are suggestions on typical CPUs? At least some pointers to number of available cores matching, or exceeding set threads... Or should we expect results balancing available cores with set threads 50/50?

ED neigt nicht unbedingt dazu viel auf balancing zu setzen. Was ich gut finde. Jede Maschine (auch in RL) hat ihre Stärken und Schwächen. E-Sports balancing löst sich eh von selbst, weil alle zeitnah zum "besten" Modul wechseln und wenn alle dasselbe Flugzeug fliegen... Balanced by default. Ob ich mich mit einem dedizierten Strike Aircraft unbedingt in den Luftkampf stürzen möchte, weiß ich persönlich nicht. Selbstverteidigung oder ein paar Interceptor zur Umkehr überreden ist ne andere Sache, aber spätestens WVR braucht es jede Menge Übung und etwas Glück... Man muß sich halt immer bewusst machen, daß es die F-15C Eagle nicht grundlos gibt.

Der Titel ist ganz bewusst so... Weil das war der Name der Einheit und deren Callsign! ...und das ist einer der Punkte, auf die er sehr genau eingeht (will es nicht spoilern). So wie "Palehorse" der Name der Einheit im Buch "Palehorse" ist. Link: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250116895/palehorse

Ja, lese ich gerade. Behandelt die Ereignisse in Baghdad (OIF). Ist gut "wegzulesen". Klassischer Aufbau mit Vorbereitung, Deployment und dem alltäglichen Wahnsinn. Einige Gefechtsberichte, viel persönliche Erlebnisse mit der "bürokratischen Seite der US Army" und eine fundierte Ansage zu dem Vorfall mit den Journalisten (WikiLeaks usw.) Dazu auch ein großer Teil im Anhang an Dokumenten etc. Aufgelockert durch einige schöne Fotos.

Bedenke aber, dass das APG-70 der F-15E auch deutlich größer und leistungsfähiger ist, als die kleinen Brüder in der Hornet oder Viper und weit moderner, als das AWG-9 der Tomcat. Das muss einfach geiler sein!

Das A/G Radar ist für mich das Alleinstellungsmerkmal der F-15E! Empfinde ich persönlich als absolutes Highlight. Es ist das erste, welches HRM mit dem Aperture Radar in einer Qualität erlaubt, dass man "gefühlt" eine einzelne Mülltonne am Boden erkennen und als Ziel markieren kann. In Kombination mit dem LANTIRN (und später den modernen TGPs) ist die F-15E auch schon im EA aktuell eines der besten Strike Aircraft in DCS. Mavericks sind nett, aber eine oder mehrere GBU-10 per loft bombing auf ein Ziel zu werfen finde ich fast reizvoller, oder wenigstens genauso spannend und effektiv wie ne MAV auf 6-7NM zu feuern.

Yep, because it is the F-15E as in "Strike Eagle" or "Mudhen" as she is called by the pilots. It's not the light grey Eagle... Different weight, added CFTs and different thrust-to-weight ratio. Loading it up with AMRAAM and Sidewinders does not convert it into an air superiority fighter.

Because "here" is the wishlist thread for the F-15E...

You totally misunderstood my point it seems: I absolutely want/would love to finally see any kind of help with AAR. AI pilot doing it for me, an adjustable "size" of the contact box, a magnetic connection that helps keep connected, anything else than the stupid "unlimited fuel" ( with never changing weight and no fuel management) option. I think of myself as part of the larger group, that would benefit from this kind of help. My comment was pointed at the fact that there is no "general opposition" against this feature. It is a small group of very vocal customers that focus solely on competititive PvP that feel threatened by any kind of helper, would even prefer options to block rudder assist, auto start etc. So to be absolutely clear: I welcome any kind of help, trainer feature to ease the absurd difficulty of AAR in DCS, as we, unlike real pilots, need to fumble with a keyboard ("Return pre-contact" - F1), lack peripheral vision, have no motion feedback, not everyone can buy VR to have better spatial awareness, and IRL the boom operator does not fight you, but helps you. Also in training I am sure they use radio comms and announce turns, etc. As for ED's precious dev time, everything is already in the code: AI can refuel, lock controls is a trigger in the ME. I am pretty sure even the contact box around the basket/boom that snaps the boom to the receptacle is a value that can be a variable value from a slider in a module's special options.

And here we go again... Can you explain the existence of Auto-StartUp sequence with "hardware limitations" ? I would be intrigued to be enlightened.

Endless circular discussions, lead to the only valid argument, after we could eliminate all (cheating, unfair, "gid-gud") pseudo-arguments. If this is an option that a server admin for a PvP server can explicitly block, there is not one argument left, other than "feel threatened to lose a sense of accomplishment". Sorry, if you find that offensive, but I stand my ground. The group over and over going mad, whenever any helper or training aid for AAR is requested or discussed, could not yet bring any other argument, than "PvP refueling time to get back on station would be affected". And this is a none issue, if it has an admin option to block... Though technically Auto-StartUp, Take-Off helper etc. fall into the same category.

...and it is all in chapter 13.4 of Manual, coming with the module.