VincentLaw

Your head should not be glued to the sight in VR. IRL you have to move your head.

When switching between gunner positions in uncoupled mode, the head gets an offset from coupled mode. How to reproduce: Start DCS Huey in VR with uncoupled mode (default) Get into position 2, and turn the gun far right Get into position 3. The view is stuck offset to the left of the gun Get into position 2, and turn the gun far left Get into position 3. The view is stuck offset to the right of the gun This affects changing between any gunner positions (2,3, and 4) in any order, with both X and Y axis. The current workaround is to point the gun straight forward before switching positions.

As far as the "fracturing" goes, it is also important for people who buy assets that they are smoothly blended into any DCS configuration. For example, I bought DCS supercarrier, but all the DCS Hornet training missions use the basic carrier. In cases like this where missions or servers do not include the improved assets, then I am missing out on the experience I paid for. Now it takes the mission developers more effort to make all players happy. From my point of view, the best options would either be to include free low detail models that are replaced by high detail models for those who own the assets, or to have a list of DCS core substitutes which automatically replace payware assets any time the user does not own them (like replacing a T-62 with a T-55). Either way, mission designers would not need to be shy about which units they include in their missions, since they would know that the missions will work for anyone regardless of asset pack configuration. I am interested in the products you are discussing, but if I buy them, then I would like both mission designers and multiplayer servers to feel safe including them, so that I can enjoy the assets I pay for.

I agree with this topic, but the head following the gun is a larger problem than the gun following the head. I have made a VR mod which may be a suitable workaround for those who play in singleplayer or on private servers (I have not tested it against integrity check, but I'm guessing it will not pass). see here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313969/ The gun still aims where you look, but your head is no longer attached to the gun. Hopefully in the future, ED will update Huey to improve VR support for the gunner positions. Independent aiming with the mouse or especially with motion controllers would be nice.

I will drop DCS faster than a hot potato if I have to pay a subscription fee to fly my Hornet.

Having the option to use nukes will benefit the people who want them without really hurting the people who don't want them. Most servers and missions will probably not have them, but more options for mission design can only make DCS more interesting. I'd enjoy a bomber intercept mission with more serious consequences if I fail. Even if most people are not interested in using nukes, that doesn't mean they don't have a place in DCS.

This is worse than either solution. It would result in people who own the assets pack having an inferior experience half the time, and the people who don't own it being unable to join the server half the time. It is better for everyone to have a consistent experience one way or the other. I also don't think a decision like this should be made by a simple majority. Even a small fraction being unable to join the server can have a larger adverse effect on the community. In addition, the opinions expressed by forum members may not represent the overall multiplayer community.

In a modern full scale direct war between superpowers, there is a good chance that the participating airplanes would only consist of airplanes built before the bombs start dropping. If you think you might need something, it's better to have it before you need it. Of course we can say stealth is not a binary true/false thing. Most newer airplanes have modifications that help reduce their detection range. An F-35 is more stealthy than an F/A-18E, which is more stealthy than an F/A-18C. It's not all or nothing. It's better not to think in absolutes, but I think we all agree that being detected at shorter range is usually better. I think you will find there isn't one country on every conflict in these lists. Just like stealth is not absolute, neither is good/evil. There is not one antagonist of the world. Things usually come in shades of gray rather than black and white, and reality is always more complicated than fiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2011%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%932010

Both of these things actually happen if you switch the forum language to Russian, but I don't think there is a way to change them separately from the language.

Leaning forward from the reclined position during high-g maneuvers will reduce the g tolerance of the pilot, since more of the body will be along the radial axis of the turn.

FC3 is already very fighter heavy. Perhaps FC4 is a good opportunity to introduce more aircraft of other roles to DCS.

C-47 would be a good module for transport, airborne, and civilian ops. Currently only helicopters cover the playable transport role in DCS. I'd also like anything naval, and these served in both the European and Pacific theaters: F6F Hellcat F4F Wildcat SBD Dauntless (The F4U Corsair is already covered by M3 but you can count that too)

Seems like a major improvement over that video though.

Here is a similar picture that doesn't violate rule 1.15: (source: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3033&context=utk_gradthes )

Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.