Chaffee

N.B. the ReShade link I posted actively reported zero performance impact. Don't forget that UI mask... Of course, that may be due to hardware. I'd conjecture that anyone exporting MFDs has their base system sorted and should have similar results. What I've seen on these forums is multiple reports of MFD brightness issues and an official response of "there's no fix." There is quite clearly a useful workaround, and it's one that works well for a vast majority of users, given the "this works/doesn't work" ratio reported in the comments. So this > than nothing, by something like at least an order of magnitude, and it can be implemented for free, with zero performance impact. It's minimally a 90% solution, which is half again better than any 80/20 MVP release and massively improved from nothing. "Complete" solutions never ship. Not anywhere. Not by anyone. No end user wants to sit on $500 worth of MFDs waiting for a complete solution.

Have you tried this to brighten displays? You also need to do this to make it work. Dunno why it's been an ongoing issue when users have a fix. I don't have MFDs, so I haven't tested it, but given the responses in the comments, a lot of people have had success. TLDR: A UI mask + ReShade fixes the problem. If you don't know what those things are, click the links above. N.B. read through the comments on that first link -- lotta super helpful info in there. Really needs to be the source of a knowledge base.

I'm not sure I follow. The message tells me my licensed purchases have been de-authorized. That sounds like a bigger problem than "the server is down; sorry." The wording matters. 100%. As a new user, (but not an idiot/n00b in general) this puts me off. UX is a thing. I'm reporting this as a confusing and off-putting UX moment that, as a new user, has given me pause RE: my LTV.

Follow-up: if this is a server-side issue (as it appears to be, since several other people are experiencing this right now), I'd like to suggest a different message from "Your DLC has been de-authorized," which is straight-up bad from a UX perspective. "Our servers are down, but we're working on it. Thank you for your patience" works. I'm being serious, BTW. From a user perspective, the current message looks like I've been hacked/scammed. "De-authorized" sounds like I'm going to have to do a lot of work to get this thing back online. Do I have to re-authorize something? Have all my keybindings been trashed? This may seem like a small thing, but it's a solid axiom not to make your users appear to have done something wrong when they've done nothing wrong (and honestly, even when they have). This feedback is intended constructively: as a new user of DCS, having recently returned to serious flight simming -- i.e. someone who is looking to invest time and money into a long arc here, "We're experience technical difficulties" massively better than YOU HAVE BEEN DE-AUTHORIZED.

Good to know. Glad it's not me/a limited issue. These things happen.

Interesting. Thanks for the response. Happy Monday morning, Eagle Dynamics. We'd appreciate a status update on this. Thank you.

For no apparent reason, I have lost all access to all content I pay the license fee for through Steam. Some details: I just purchased the A-10A. My account is not "bound" to a separate DCS account. I did a search. Search didn't respond to my specific problem. There's a separate login inside DCS I've never used. I figured maybe I needed to register on that. ED's registration website never resolves. Screenshots attached. So, ED team, what's up? I think it's a reasonable expectation that I not lose access to items I've purchased, offline, online, or whatever. Have I done something wrong here? -Eric

Hey guys, Heatblur stuff (F-14 and Viggen) is showing up on the list part of the Steam Store Page as being on sale, but the actual items aren't listed as on sale on the main site, nor are they actually on sale when clicked on. Looks like a list issue, as it's clear these items aren't on sale. It's also intermittent (I can sometimes get the list to appear correctly, but this is apparently random). Anyway, minor thing. Cheers! Images attached.

I think everyone should remember that this thread started with someone not knowing how SARH missiles work.

"Effective" intentionally left blank

For 1972, 6000 RPM coming from the M61 seems quite good versus the plethora of dual/revolver/gun pods/whatever the F-5 has. Like, sawing a wing off > "did I land some rounds maybe?" Does anything else in DCS prior to the F-14 have a gun that's as effective as the M61 in A/A? How big a difference will this make in the Phantom II airframe? Do dual 30mm DEFAs compete? What are your thoughts?

It depends on what ED is trying to achieve. I'll give an example (although I have no insight into ED's processes): iRacing (a truly great racing sim) doesn't have rain. Other sims have had rain for years. Why? Because other "sims" put in a simple friction-reduction algorithm. iRacing models the interaction of tires with pavement; ergo that interaction, in order to remain a legitimate model, must calculate the physical interaction of tires with wet pavement, not simply introduce a friction-reduction number. That's harder, but it's a commitment to realism. I go all the way back to Falcon 3.0 (and beyond), and yes, that campaign engine is great. It's also, I suspect, a "mechanical Turk," i.e. not as dynamic an AI as appears to the end-user. Brilliant, but ultimately a dead end. IF (and I don't know this, but if...) ED's goal is a campaign that's truly dynamic and AI-driven (with all the emergent properties that entails), then investing resources into a stop-gap seemingly dynamic mechanical-Turk campaign is an investment in technical debt. Knowingly investing in technical debt is foolishness, creating larger inefficiencies down the road. It's immediately cheap, but massively expensive later (thus the "debt" in technical debt). Do I know any of this is actually the case? Of course not, but I do know a thing or two about how decisions RE: tech debt are made, and it'd be a real shame to go down a blind alley right now with the current outlook for AI (generally) over the next decade. Make a wrong move in this area (or any of a dozen more), and someone else gets an edge you can't overcome, because you decided to invest resources the wrong direction. My sense, looking at its product history, is ED is in this for the long arc.

I think most Hornet drivers (or anyone else) will take a Harpoon over a Maverick for sinking a ship any day. Also, dude, SLAM-ER. It's good. Block-50 Vipers don't have it. The Hornet is also vastly superior in a 1-circle fight, and in a world of high off-boresight Fox-2s, like the AIM-9X, it's as big an advantage against the F-16 as can be when that situation arises. And while the Viper is surely the greatest 2-circle fighter ever built, the Hornet driver can decide whether to go 1- or 2-circle depending on the opponent: tactical flexibility is a plus when death is on the line, I hear. Better radar? No. Neither of them is a Strike Eagle. Have you heard that the Hornet has 50% more MFDs than the F-16 and internal ECM? You won't believe what happens next! All that said, the F-16 is a burner, with all the advantages that gives, and it has a better targeting pod (just wait until the Sniper too), but it'll roll right off the end of the carrier into the sea on both takeoff and landing. (Keep in mind that the worse optics on the F-18 are BECAUSE those optics have to withstand carrier ops. These things don't suck in a vacuum. They suck because they have to withstand the catapult and the trap). Also, the Hornet has better landing gear.

In the spirit of this, I'd like to tell you and the team just how much I love the F/A-18C, especially the "howl." It's my "baseline:" the standard by which everything else is measured, and that standard is extremely high. I love the jet, and it's one of the reasons I feel strong in my support of DCS as a product. And, as someone who's worked in project management and product development, I'd say a "90% rule" is a very high standard and realistically exceeds expectations, even for a mature product.

YAAAS! Kirk66 gets it.

One of the things I love about 4th-Gen jets is that they were originally designed before UI and UX were really a thing. Lotta goofy legacy work flows got established on these jets in the '80s and hung on. The internet changed us, but it didn't change how MFDs worked -- not at the same speed, at any rate. I love the "Seriously? WTF?" factor, and the "competing aerospace firm" work flows, and the "some engineer thought THIS was a good idea and never really got feedback and, oh well, it's in the software now and we're not looking for the code" stuff. I'm sure the nifty "press the A/A or A/G button" automation made for a great presentation in like 1981 because whoever was signing the cheque had no idea what an SA page was. Live the dream and try not to fat-finger too much. And remember, there's always the F-14 (or the F-15E, if you want legit user-programmable MFDs).

Thank you for the detailed response. Agreed that roll seems soft at high AoA, although I've never checked the response at air-show altitudes. Obviously we'd all love to see the HUD on the real thing, along with control inputs (especially the thrust levers), but that doesn't seem likely

Love your vids, Deephack. Helpful, super chill... Sometimes I just put them on in the background and listen to stories about aircraft I don't even own (but you convinced me that the Viggen and Harrier needed to be on my shortlist of future purchases). I think you're the only content creator who uncages the sidewinder for the shot in the Viggen. With everyone else, I'm always like "uncage... UNCAGE!" Always such useful small (and big) stuff. One of the best DCS channels. Thank you!

Sensor button up to get the helmet to "boresight" a radar lock (WVR off-boresight) turns that seeker head into the Eye of Sauron. Works for me, anyway. You won't mistake that 9X tone.

Really? Can you elaborate? Holding 50+ AoA at 40 knots at will seems pretty good to me, especially in the high off-boresight environment of the 9X. Actual (and accurate) limitations are things like speed (subsonic at sea level with stores, for example). But alpha!? I've never seen anyone complain about the Hornet's AoA (unless they're getting shot down by it). What do you think the Hornet should be able to do?

There is no cheating in F-4E BEASTMODE!

I agree, but usually I'm doing 120kt+ at ~5 feet, so if that ball is centered when I'm going straight, the obstacle will be behind the cockpit frame, 100% of the time. (Also zipping low and fast along tree lines, I want that tail behind me, not trimming the hedge). En route, I'll fly aerodynamic trim, because yeah, fuel etc. But in the weeds? No thank you. (I've never hit an obstacle with my tail).

Thinking highest altitude, shortest runway, highest gross weight, don't hit the mountain is F-4 Beastmode King.

That's probably true. It always feels like it's "on the wires" to me, but that's just my perception filling in some gaps. If I aim for no. 4, I catch no. 2. Honestly, this video of Rear Admiral Mike Manazir landing the DCS F-14 really helped me. He seems high to me, but then just nails it, so I just started copying that: (this should be timestamped, but if not, check it at 17:11)

@AngleOff66 Here's what works for me: Keeping it simple. Don't overthink it. 1) Don't "chase" the throttle 2) Put the Velocity Vector symbol in the E-Bracket 3) Put the Velocity Vector on the wires It's steeper than you think. "Plant it" on the deck. The gear can take it. Start by avoiding the fantail Seriously, though. Aim long. The boat is moving. And don't be afraid to bolter. It's a lot better than a ramp strike.