Temetre

I dont think it should be this dark when the moon is so bright you cant see stars. Now I dont know how it looks on your OLED screen, and whats your brightness is (have you vesa 400/600 HDR actived?), but on an LCD it doesnt look normal at all. And the majority of people uses LCDs, so I doubt thats intentional. Why are you trying to downplay my point then, when you dont know? Its not about "far away lights" or whatever.

Yes, I can see some atmosphere on my screen too (without clouds in my example too). Especially on a full moon it would be pretty strange if this near total darkness was intentional, however? Ive had the issue in other planes as well IIRC, at least in the A-4 mod. Or is this a known issue?

Your screen looks like theres more than just stars missing. Possibly you got the same issue like me, with light bugging out?

I found lighting in this generated mission to be consistently bugged, even after a restart of the game. Ive uploaded it, can someone check it out? Requires Syria+Mig-21: _Syria_DarkmissionBUG.miz The issue can be "fixed" by changing the time of day, but setting the clock to 18:00 brings the issue back. ------------------------------------- This is a bug Ive had for a bit from time to time. Ive had this issue in unmodded installs, though this one has Mig-21 sound mod and A-4 Mod. Maybe someone can give input, if its known? This is a mission from DCS' mission generator, with Mig-21. Usually this lighting issue ive got at evening to morning times, the game will just go pitch dark, as if they lighting fails. Its cloudly and maybe raining, not sure. But clouds are pitch black too, only the horizon above the clouds shows some lights. Aircraft and landing lights are dark too, only positoin lights can be somewhat seen. This is after I landed on Jirah airstrip, ive slightly overshoot and am lower left of the runway, in a Mig-21Bis: Zoomed in, my Mig-21 is in the blue circle, you can very slightly see left/right wing landing lights. Mind, my landing lights and position lights are set to max, with full cockpit lighting. So it should be very well visible.

I know theres peopel who enjoy backseating, I think its just conceptually something that appeals to a lot fewer people than flying the planes. And DCS is quite niche in the first place. The F-15E in the backseat you got a ton of stuff you can do, many powerful features and abilities. Its probably the most exciting backseating experience you can have. I suspect the F-4G would be more like constantly listening to RWR tones, memorizing tons of different tones, giving directions while constantly scanning. During the entirety of the flight, you gonna do that monotonous work. Of course you gonna still operate the radar or guide the rare maverick, but thats not the main job. F-4G is only made for one role really. I cannot imagine that many people will enjoy operating a 4G that way.

Afaik the RWR-stuff in the rear of the F-4G was also insanely complicated in reality, with rear seaters having to learn a hundred plus sound signatures or so. Listen to them all flight. I wonder if this plane might be so niche its not a viable module. Like, how many people do even want to backseat? How many want to be in the backseat of an F-4G, and reguarly stay there? For Heatblur to do make this plane, it would have to pay back the money, and be worth to do this plane rather than the alternatives. Even if it was sold as a 3rd F-4 module (after E + Naval), it would have to compete with modernized variants, like F-4F ICE, and earlier F-4Cs or so. Not that Im against an F-4G or so. It just seems like thres a lot of "ifs" that stand in the way.

Yes, I was mostly confused because what you said wasnt applicable to the case of the F-4 in DCS. Or even the reason people want to have a preorder for the F-4. I mean thats kinda passive aggressive, isnt it? If you consider my post unfair or anything, just say so. Its just discussing views and behaviours after all.

You actually had me for most of that post

Or X52/56 stick with phantom command?

The image can be a bit misleading on video, the climb is probably not fully vertical. The plane might also lose speed during the climb and its not that apparent. Or are you talking about airshow planes? Those are often very different from "combat ready" planes, much lighter, might have tuned engines and flight control systems. Those usually have a pre planned coreography to maximize the planes performance for stunts, drive it to the final edge. Thats very different from the expected combat performance usually, espeically with payload.

Btw you can put the text from the file into a spoiler tag like i just did, thats makes it a lot easier to read the thread. I think that the issue Ive reported, and its already a known problem.

Another thing is to consider that even the maximum T/W only takes weight in consideration. So even if the engines could lift the weight of the aircraft in a vertical climb, you will have air resistance slow you down. And the slower you go, the less air gets pushed into the intakes, the less thrust you produce, etc. Thats why almost no aircraft can sustain a vertical climb. Thrust to weight ratios are very misleading, because the thrust of an engine depends a lot on the air coming into the intakes. As a rule of thumb, the only aircrafts that can actually hold their own weight at stillstand are VTOLs, and only when theyre very light (no payload, low fuel).

Neat! Yeah, sounds like you guys are already on the issues, i just dropped it mainly in case it can help to fix more issues For now im just not using the preset feature. Feel free to ask if you need something else.

Heres the log, just launching the updater and doing the select default/go to preset and back to home/save changes thing: ED Updater Utility v2.log Edit: Oh, I found an error. If dont select default first in home screen, and go to graphics preset, it offers me to generate a default file. Clicking "yes" to that actually produces an error:

Crowdfunding and Kickstarter is to give money for projects that wouldnt be done otherwise. And the F-4 will have crowdfuding/Early Access, when they start giving an unfinished version of the plane module, against a price. Preordering digital goods that have been financed already, but have no released elements is NOT crowdfunding. Thats just emotionally investing yourself with money into something. Is that aimed at Heatblur? Because in that case you'd be making stuff up, theres no indicator for that. And if Heatblur deserves that effort, then Im sure theyre good enough to be honest about it. To me, it would actually lower my opinion if HB opens an early preorder, as long as they dont clearly state a believable requirement for it. I hope they are better than that.

Im not an expert here, but would it allow you to scan a huge area at the reduced range? After all even the F-14s and F-15s radar got huge ranges, 100 miles against hot fighters, and thats 80s radar. EF radar is a bit smaller, but much more modern. If you can get, idk, 75km range but scan a large area, that might be a useful mode.

Imo better to save yourself the disappointment. The Eurofighter might be 2 years away for all we know. Its an incredibly complicated aircraft, probably the most complicated ever done in DCS. That plane requires ED to make some changes to the codebase, likely. And while I assume the F-4 comes this year, it might face unexpected delays too.

Aye, heres a normal options.lua, set with DCS ingame options. Then I start the launcher. When I just click "default" preset on the home page, nothing changes. However, if I click "graphics preset editor", it shows the abnormal values, like 5900%. If then click back to home, it says values have changed. If I confirm with "yes", it sets the broken options. Starting the game, some get limited to maximum settings. Every single time I restart the launcher and do this, it repeats. The second options.lua is when I do that one time and select "write to options.lua". Options.lua Options_writebyGUI.lua Idk if useful, this is the logged bit, from opening the tab, going back to home and accept saving the new (buggy) values.

I think the change might be the issue ive been mentioning, it might misread values. Probably a formating issue, thats a very easy mistake to make.

As long as youre not claiming its a military simulation, rather than a video game sim for entertainment, I dont think people would disagree

You can talk a lot about it, but I feel the unspoken thing is more, why do you say "only a game"? Im just reading into those comments obviously, but often it feels like theres a reluctance in accepting in saying that its play. Like, DCS doesnt become less valuable when we admit its a game. When we admit that were playing a game, that were roleplaying a video game fantasy thats not real at all. It doesnt change how close we get to reality, its always a game. People dont just become adults and lose their sense of playfulness, or the need to play. And even the "real jet pilots" dont do that, pretty much nobody becomes a pilot without doing it for fun, besides other things. Just look at the podcast, all those real plots having a sense of humor and joking around, while talking about a game. And theres nothing wrong or to be ashamed about that.

Compared to table bombing, its probably a lot less work to get a bomb on target Already read up a bunch about it. The WRCS modes actually seem really powerful, it has "ground lockon" modes like A-4 mod, but even with offset for horizontal bombing and stuff. Really impressive stuff. Also even on the '75 F-4, it should be integrated with ground radar and Pave Spike pod. Even got an AGM-65 handoff function via pod. Its crazy how much technology they crammed into that plane and its partially analogue computers. Its almost like a proto-F18.

Im super excited for the F-4, but I suspect that plane will be very complicated from all Ive see and read Which tbf im fine with, I dont limit myself to simple planes or anything. Cant wait to dive into the Phantoms bombing computer!

Btw, funny tidbit: I find eg the Mig-21 already quite easy to control, its what I can go into when I dont want to deal with the complexities of the insane digital structure of Viper and Hornet, or the finnicky but powerful systems (and GIB) of a Tomcat. Its kinda like FC3 in that regard, but the cockpit+sytems simulation adds to immersion. I imagine a Mig-29 would be similar, just a bit convoluted to control, but otherwise quite straightfoward without much gimmicks and extras.

I got a ton of stuff and experience with DCS, theres about zero chance i would switch. And I doubt the quality of MAC would hold up. Mind, DCS is a really big system, and MAC would likely be a much more downgraded experience. ED would be heavily incentivized to support and improve DCS for the most part, with MAC likely becoming an afterthought. And lets be real, upgrading DCS is already a huge amount of work, with campaign, MT, Vulkan, AI+GFM, and so on being in the work for years. Theres not much other capacity. Splitting game systems into two seperate products like this never works well. As long as MAC isnt so limited and linear that it doesnt require much support. Oh yeah, to me that sounds very unlikely, Im not worrying about that. Im sure ED understand how much such a step would people annoy. Godwill is thin enough with the state of some modules. And I dont know ED really, but im not even sure theyd like the idea of not having late cold war soviet fighters in their game. Especialy the Mig-29 has gotten a bunch of nice upgrades, its probably the nicest of the FC3 cockpits, flight models and AI I think. Its so fun and interesting to fly, despite the limitations. Someone at ED probably likes that thing, even as a simplified module.