Kuky

I don't see any valid reasons to complain about this realistic feature. You should not be disabling the FLSC in situations where you are fast as it can make the aircraft pull more G's then what it is rated (designed) for. If you want to be a good VR pilot, then learn not to do things real pilot would not do (not a good one anyway). Why you see this as "not fun" is beyond me... is it all about winning in MP here even if it means doing things you would never even be able to in real life? I fly the flanker and never have the need to disable the G limiter. The Flanker flies just fine with it on... it is very manoeuvrable airframe but if very heavy then don't fly it as it if were light and empty of fuel and weapons and you won't over-G the airframe and won't break it. If you are against another Flanker that is lighter, and the guy flies it good, well that's just tough luck. You can't win every time.

^^^ Good point. I saw that stress testing procedure and what they said was that if the testing part can withstand more force then required its considered to have room for improvement meaning reduction in weight. Same thing applies for the airframe. If its too strong it means its too heavy and should be redesigned to reduce weight. I am not sure if you would hear cracking while airfrsme is bending (considering you have other external noises and you wear helmet) but the pilot would not wait to hear such noises in the first place. Pilot should know what not to do do that he doesn't overstress the aircraft. Why somilator pilots shouldn't be doing the same?

So many hot shots pilots here, I'd like to see all of you fly the Flanker for real and start pulling off so many G's and see how your body handles it. You guys so easily forget that you are sitting very comfortably in a chair at 1G so you have no clue what it would be like for you to fly the real jet the way you fly it on PC. You just wouldn't... if you did, you would most likely either end up being dead, or would very quickly lose your job as a pilot. Real people (pilots) in real jet know how hard it is when pulling G's, so they know not to do those sort of things... you don't, why you think this new feature is unrealistic. If you were flying pulling 20-30G, you don't know how to fly... full stop.

Checked the registries... they look all correct EDIT: I found what was wrong, "Simshaker.xml" was still pointing to old tester install folder, which I changed recently. Its updating it automatically now so all's good :)

This feature request (bug report) has already been submitted to ED ( #31014 )

This feature request has already been created and submitted to ED ( #30468 )

dissignator, I think I got the solution (it fixed it for me) Open and edit (with Notepad++) this file: C:\DCS\Scripts\Aircrafts\_Common\Cockpit\KNEEBOARD\declare_kneeboard_device.lua and copy/paste this text on the bottom of this file: creators[705] = {"avLuaDevice", lfs.writedir() .. "Scripts\\SimShaker-export-core\\ExportDevice.lua"} will that fix it for you also?

But you don't have Trunk (testers version) :) For me afterburner effect works in 1.5.3 version (public version) but not in testers version

Hey Andrey, I am now missing the Afterburner effect only (other effects work) but in Trunk only. The Log doesn't show the effect being played at all (other effect do show) 1.5.3 works fine, but Trunk does not. What could it be? SimShaker Sound Module (version is latest 1.0.0.28 and 1.1.1.20) PS: Mixed Left and Right channels doesn't work but also separate Left and Right also doesn't work.

They better not make the new HOTAS crap again, with shitty gimbals. Anyway I am already set, have super rudder pedals (which I never intend changing) and floor mounted HOTAS, for me works like a charm. :D

meh, doesn't really matter

DCS currently can't even support 210° FoV. The maximum FoV you can put and game will run is maybe 150°... that's per viewport. Considering there are 2 viewports in VR, unless left eye uses 105° and right eye also uses 105° then you could run 210°, but each eye will have to overlap considerable amount of vision on each eye, you could be getting close to getting the FoV limit in DCS. My first OR pre-order I cancelled because I thought I would want to wait for this StarVR and 210° FoV, but on later thought I ordered OR again because I thought even if DCS could run that high FoV, it'll be quite a while till we have hardware that can run high fps on that many pixels. So I decided to try OR and enjoy it for a few years if I can, then if VR progresses further, possibly later get better VR headset.

The image quality might be little better, but very high FoV is a winner. With 210° FoV you would really be "in-there". 110° is still bit of tunnel vision. I have cancelled my original OR pre-order some month ago because I thought this StarVR is much better because of very good FoV. But since more pixels and more FoV also means more objects in that FoV it would definitely require even better hardware then OR... in translation to us users, I think OR is good first choice VR for next 1-2 years at least, and later on when StarVR is out and if it does have that high FoV... it'll be a good switch from OR.

Sweet looking that Tomcat... Top Gun here we come!

Russian side :)

Not quite aviation, but close... and still interesting

Bach and Beethoven are rolling in their graves right now :)

I just saw this documentary about pilots from former Yugoslavian Air Force talking about their lives and perspective about before, during and after the civil war, I thought it was good giving insight so would like to share it, unfortunately can share it with with others from the region because there are no English subtitles and those not speaking the language won't understand it :noexpression: [ame] [/ame] Please no political comments

SimShaker is really great, I have been using it with ButtKicker LFE (I have 2 shakers under my seat) and really, the feeling it gives is great. For example, sometimes the flaps sound or gear sound is not that great, sometimes I don't even hear it... but the clunk I get under my seat as gear closes/opens or flaps lower/raise... really adds to the immersion. I think its well worth it.

Alright, I found a bug report that seems to show your issue (bug #32099) which has recently been fixed in Tester's version. So now have to wait till its merged into OB or public version of DCS.

My post was not for or against your post. It was just something that crossed my mind today and I wanted to share it.

It is wrong to think that aircraft should be visible that easily all the time. Today I had a perfect example of how an aircraft I saw from ground (while in a car) was perfectly visible, but as it kept turning it simply disappeared fully... it simply blended into sky/clouds and I could not get visual on it at all. So don't expect in game to have visibility of aircraft to work from every angle and aspect... it really is not realistic to be so (as I've shown above). Even fairly large aircraft in the sky (relatively to distance) can not be visible at all, even at shorter distance, just because the aircraft aspect is changed. It all depends on lighting, light reflectivity... and this cannot be simulated by any dots.

hm... I can't replicate the wrong aspect you have on the Map view. On my end it looks normal. Your monitor lua looks ok also so no idea what's going on. One thing I think you could try is (I think the screen.aspect / 3 is somehow messed up because of the 4th monitor/TV), replace all lines with aspect = screen.aspect / 3; to aspect = X / Y; where X is your individual monitor width (in pixels) and Y is individual monitor height (in pixels) Can you please try it and tell us how you go?

Yes there is a reason for that, but its not the use of jammers, its because NATO has not been fighting any major (read strong) opponent since WWII. What NATO has been doing is bombing, not air-air fighting, and the little air-air they have been in is against weaker opponent that didn't stand much chance due to outnumbering and more modern jets and weapons.

Yes you will. Only thing you won't get is stt lock.