Minhal

Thanks for chiming in and letting us know ED recognized the topic For your personal thoughts about general multiplayer: i think it would be no problem as there is a wide range of servers out there, so very low spec people will always have their niche. In PvE for example you have servers with lots of ground units and heavy scripting. Players with low specs definitely have issues there and will probably pick servers with lower unit count. I feel the same for graphical minimums on PvP servers. Probably not all servers which offer PvP would enforce such settings but likely the most active and busy only, there will always be room for everyone somewhere. Also please keep in mind these minimum requirements would not equal "all max" but be in a range most users probably use already. The bar should just be high enough, which is above the bare possible minimum settings some folks delibarately set to gain an advantage. Cheers for your time!

So what do you guys think will be under the tree today? Big drop or "only" bugfixes?

I support OP in his wish to have server options for graphical minimum settings everyone has to stick to when joining the server. ED is caring for competitive play, they put changes in different lua files, like the autostart sequence, on the "breaks IC" list. Same with graphical mods like Bartheks textures, which break IC. Saying ED does not intend DCS to be competitive is nonsense, sorry. ED is even advertising and sponsoring competitive tournaments like SATAC. Technically, on join the client settings could be checked vs. the required ones and pop up a window stating the settings that need to be changed. Working similar to missing mods if you try to join such servers. "To join, your A setting needs to be B. Your C setting needs to be D". At this point everyone is free to to either change the settings accordingly or join another server.

It's been my PC Images worked fine on the phone. Just changed to PC and they were gone. Browser privacy was blocking Dropbox. All good.

Yep, they are all back Maybe the forums had a hickup yesterday, they were all gone.

C-101 still one of the best modules! AvioDev guys did a great job on this one. @gulredrel You're not alone Btw: most of your images are gone.

Cheers for linking! I'll give this a try myself. Hope ED can implement this at some point.

I recently rated a thread with one star by accident when i tried to get the browser window on top. I just "clicked somewhere" and managed to hit that star Would love an option to change ratings. Also sometimes you change your mind on a topic as threads evolve and there should imho be an option to change the rating accordingly. Thanks for your time!

This is very annoying. I generally prefer English if the website/text is native English, because translations are often horrible (like "Clubs" as translation for "Squadrons" instead of "Staffeln" or "Flugstaffeln" in forums when set to German). It would be nice if this was remembered in a cookie (or could be set in the profile backend).

Best way i think is sharing your solution. When ED knows what to change, i guess chances get way better to have it implemented. (And apart from that, i would be interested in learning about this myself )

First off: i did not mean to highjack or derail this thread. It just happened Potato mentioned the sluggishness and i tried to give a litte tip. Feel free @NineLine to fork this into a separate thread, especially if you need to for internal reasons for the developers. Hi NiineLine, Dragon said it quite well already. But i would like to elaborate and add a bit. I was not to imply there is something wrong with the flight model itself, this is a topic i can not contribute. The problem to me seems to be the behaviour of the real stick is implemented "too realistic" so to say - "too realistic" with the fact in mind the vast majority of users do not have a force sensing stick at home. As far as i am aware of, in the real Viper there is a force sensing stick that does not move much at all but is measuring pressure and translating this into deflection of the control surfaces. To my knowledge this stick has a center deadzone, a certain minimum of force you have to apply, before there are signals sent to the control surfaces. Like said, most DCS users do not own a force sensing stick but a regular one with simple X and Y movement measuring axis. Also regular user joysticks have a way bigger range of movement available than the real Viper stick. This discrepancies had to be overcome and translated into the game in a certain way. This is the part i was referring to when i asked for ED to take a look again. My impression is, that this deadzone from the real thing has been carried over to the simulation accurately, which is causing some trouble. I did some short videos in the A-10C II, the F/A-18C and the F-16C. All videos are with a clean aircraft with 100% internal fuel, all control settings are at default. So no deadzones, no curves and 100% X and Y saturation in the settings. I also do not use 3rd party software that fiddles with the stick. A-10C II: A-10C.mp4 F/A-18C: FA-18C.mp4 F-16C: F-16C.mp4 One can clearly see how in the F/A-18C and especially in the A-10C II, there is immediate reaction of the control surfaces to even small physical inputs. The F/A-18C seems to be a bit slower in response than the A-10C II, where you can not even see the diamond move on the controls overlay. This is me just applying little pressure on the physical stick, not really moving it. In the F-16 though, at the end of the video i can even wiggle my physical stick (TMWH) in a circle about 1 inch in diameter and the diamond ingame follows this movement well. The control surfaces though do not show any reaction. I thought this might be the FLC interpreting short inputs, but holding the stick in such position did not have any effect either. I assume this is the (correct) simulation of the aforementioned deadzone of the real stick. So in a sense, it is "correct as is" - given you own a force sensing stick that can translate this. Users that bought one report this solved the sluggishness for them and they have way more control. For the average user though, in this case "realism is not realistic" as we do not own the hardware necessary. F-16C stick moving less 1/4 inch max in the real thing: The ingame deadzone for regular joytick users is some "arbitrary" point along the movement axis we can not "feel". Not hitting it leads to a sluggish feeling and results in pilot induced oscillation due to the agility of the jet and suddenly onsetting reaction of the control surfaces somewhere along the movement axis. In the real jet i assume you just relax that little pressure you put on and apply it in another direction for tiny corrections. This is a way finer process and easier to (fine) control than 1 inch or so movement of the stick through a deadzone on our joysticks. Like said, probably implemented accurately along the data charts, but with a regular joystick it does not translate very well. Looking at forum threads and questions in a variety of discords, this seems to be a common problem for Viper users. I therefore kindly ask ED to have a look at this again and maybe offer an option in the "special" menu to remove this deadzone for regular joystick users. A current workaround it lowering the saturation X settings in the controls menu to 50-65% for pitch and roll or apply a -20 curve, which both seem to shrink that deadzone a little bit but it is still present. Thanks for your time! edit: i can ofc provide trackfiles if needed/helpful. Just let me know. Thanks again!

This mod is just gorgeous (plus using reshade in the images) Thanks a lot for putting in all that effort!

That sluggishness put me off too and i set the Viper on the shelf for a long time due to that. There seems to be a hardcoded deadzone. Everbody recommending negative curve but curves are horrible, because they are... well, not linear. Which comes with downsides but no upsides imho. So i cut saturation X lately and it works way better for me since that deadzone shrinks quite well. Jet becomes responsive with linear output compared to the varying output of a curve. Still would like ED to have a look at that. Even in the Hog with a loadout close to max takeoff weight i just need to put minimal pressure at, not even move, the stick to make small corrections. In the Viper, that deadzone makes one wiggle back and forth. It feels completely off for an agile jet with a FSS. Afaik the real jet got a deadzone so you don't go whoop with slightest pressure and i assume ED tried to emulate that? Bit offtopic, but i think it was worth mentioning. nullnull

+1 but only if it comes with player drivable tugs!

Would love to see this implemented, especially with proper functionality. Glad to hear it is on the list.

"This mission starts with a cold and dark aircraft parked on the ramp. You may fly the planned route or just explore the area. There are not threats." Random F-16 AI pilot: "You think i am a joke?!". *Slams himself on 13L*

Best bet probably is to record a short track and post it here. So devs can analyze the track and see what buttons are pressed and the like.

Will Sinai come with a working kneeboard folder from the start?

Beautiful idea for a mission. Did not have a chance to try it out yet, but it looks like a lot of fun!

Probably a feature not that complicated to implement and it really is an important quality of life feature. When i arrive on Incirlik north EOR and decide to take a break, i sometimes find myself in the grass once i return. And no: the emergency brake is not a workaround parking brake

Very useful to set up air starts for landing/overhead practice with a realistic loadout/drag/weight.

DCS isn't a game that should limit itself so it is "accessible for everyone". It is a simulation and should therefore obey real life limitations wherever possible. If proper evidence can be given in regards of DCS doing it wrong and how it should be corrected, it should be implemented.

Sent a PM to GTfreeFlyer a few days ago and just realized he last logged into the forums in September. Hope he's fine! Anyone can tell if the group is still going?

You can simply use a FOV calculator to set up a kind of realistic setting. I for example run a 24" monitor and sit about 70cm from it. If i was sitting in a real A-10C holding an empty picture frame (24" across diagonally) at 70cm from my face, the area inside the picture frame would look like this: You can hit left ctrl+pause twice to open the console, which also shows current FOV. Use Numpad / and * to adjust, right alt+numpad0 will save your current viewport (including the direction you look. So pause TrackIR, look straight ahead, then adjust FOV). As one can see, real life FOV does not really make sense on small screens as your viewport is quite narrow. Hence the "zoomed out" distortion in video games and simulations. With a wider monitor though, it can be beneficial to go closer to reality, as everything you see on your monitor becomes as big as it would be in real life from that viewpoint. Also, as mentioned, it is not really possible to recreate the exact sensations as the human eye covers roughly 180° of view while we look through that small frame aka monitor. You would need a curved monitor that fills your whole 180° field of view. This peripheral view outside that "picture frame" is btw also responsible for the sense of speed that is missing in the simulation. If you widen the ingame FOV during flight to max (140°) you get a better sense of what 300 kts feel like.