sirrah

It's not a wingman, it's a separate flight (you can't give it orders) How to achieve what you see here: Open ME Place your aircraft (player) Place a 2nd AI aircraft close by In the "waypoint action" of the AI aircraft, press "add" A new window opens (see screenshot below) where you can set the AI to follow you (you can just try out with the distance, elevation and interval values until it follows you where you want it to)

Not that it matters, but I believe the "dude" you're replying to, is a she Anyways, back on topic: From training point of view, I understand and support this wish. Just in case you hadn't thought of this yet @foxbravotiger, depending on what you want to train/do, as a work around for unlimited ammo/fuel, you could consider placing two client slot aircraft in your mission. Once the first one runs out of fuel/weapons, you can select the other slot (and you can keep doing that indefinitely)

Please DM me when the tree comes available (free bump)

That's only for the "static" cockpit reflections (so the mfd reflection and such), not the sun glare reflection mentioned in this thread.

I understand about how reflections work and as eye's have an offset, there's also a slight difference in what each eye sees, but when you look at the screenshot from NineLine, you can see the difference between left and right eye is quite big (depending on the angle, this difference gets bigger/smaller) I suppose that the reflection itself is a bit of artistic impression by ED. I mean I assume the reflection textures are programmed by ED and not automated some way (I don't know how that stuff works ). Some will say the reflection is too "white" or "big" others will say it should be bigger or more bright. What bothers me, is that my left eye is seeing something very different than my right eye. In real life that that difference is far less notable. (I don't know how to make a screenshot showing both VR lenses like NineLine did. Otherwise I could add some more examples)

Hi @NineLine, thanks for picking this up. Please read my OP carefully: I'm not saying I see the reflection in one eye only, I'm saying there's a (big) difference in what the left and right eye see. Once you see the reflection, put the game on pause, close your left eye, then open your left eye and close the right eye: you'll see the difference (and although a slight difference might be understandable/realistic, the current difference is too big and causes cross-eyed effect)

Nah, I agree, that's not worth it. Thanks for letting me know the 9900k is the max my 1151 socket can handle @Aapje. I didn't know that. I'll just accept that my pc is bleeding to death and try to squeeze out framerates for as long as I can. As said in my OP, I'm still enjoying DCS, even if it's just with simple missions. On the plus side, when I do find the funds for a new pc, the improvement will be massive

By default I believe MP track files are automatically saved here: C:\Users\<username>\Saved Games\DCS\Tracks\Multiplayer Note that DCS by default automatically saves all track files of every MP session you do (might want to clean up that folder once in a while as it keeps growing with files you normally don't use/need). You can disable the automatic saving edit: I got sniped by @Lord Vader

(this calls for that cheerleader emoji with the pompons down low, but I can only add the cheering one..) So, the 8700k is (one of the) last cpu's with a 1151 socket? Admittedly, I haven't done proper research on this part yet. Well in that case, my idea indeed just died As for the GPU, I was thinking about a "slightly" better one. not a 4xxx range, but perhaps a 3070(ti) or something like that, but yeah, if the cpu upgrade is out of the question, it's farewell to the gpu upgrade as well. Thanks for your reply. This was just the first Google hit I got. I'll be more careful in trusting them next time. Thanks mate. Advise taken. Seems that I'll just have to accept to put DCS on the back burner for a while (or at least stick to the occasional simple missions)

I'm not a total layman when it comes to building pc's, but enough of a layman to have to ask this (so please take it easy on me if my question is silly or extremely obvious ) When purchasing a CPU (for a DCS dedicated pc), what should I be mainly focussing on? I currently have an i7-8700k, and simple me would assume that an i7 with a higher number behind it, is always faster and better, but is that true? For instance; I came across a reasonably priced 2nd hand i7-12700F, but I notice that the speed of the individual cores of the 12700F, is actually (much) lower than the speed per core of my 8700k (8700k vs 12700F). Overall though, the 12700F gets a much higher score. So, am I correct, that for DCS the CPU speed per core is more important than the total speed of all cores together? Or can anyone explain (for a simple man like me ) how I should interpret this? Bit of background on my question: I've build my current pc back in 2019 (see specs in my signature). Obviously, by now it is very outdated for DCS in VR. DCS is still very enjoyable for me, but over the years my gfx settings went down to, by now, pretty much the bare minimum. Going lower would mean not being able to read cockpit gauges anymore. With DCS evolving (updates and fancy new eye candy modules), I notice that while simple missions are still very well playable, online play and more complex SP missions are starting to get unpleasant. Both my limited available DCS playtime and my wallet (in the process of several home improvement projects), I can't justify the expenses of a full blown new and up to date pc. So, I was thinking, perhaps if I come across a well priced 2nd hand GPU and CPU, I could do like an affordable midlife update and enjoy DCS a few more years. My CPU and GPU are bottlenecking my current pc. I'd have to investigate what newer GPU and CPU can be added in my current pc, without also having to upgrade the psu, motherboard and case (size).

Only just found out about this thread. As a day one pilot body fan boy (, ok that came out strange, don't read this the wrong way please), I very much like your initiative @TORC! This list is quite useful for potential buyers that don't like empty cockpits. Perhaps though you could add a note or a colour, to indicate if a pilot body is planned for that module. For instance, for the A-10C-II I know the feature is planned, but for the JF-17 I don't know if a pilot body is planned at all (that's one of the reasons I haven't purchased that module).

Wow, that's so cool! I'm still very much enjoying my Pointctrl set (first version) everytime I play DCS. Can't imagine DCS without them. One of my charging cables stopped working some time ago (probably a broken wire near the jack plug) and the other one is hanging by a thread (also at the plug), so this new charging cable is a really good upgrade and takes away the "weak" spot of the first gen Pointctrl. Awesome work Miles!

Not sure what it is you're growing, but it must be good

I don't think that would work well with the nice new pilot body. But as @Jackjack171 said, it's no biggie. Only for quick training missions (where you start airborne), it would be handy to start at the desired seat height.

Is there some way to change the default seat height in our Viper? I find myself lowering the seat a bit, everytime I step in the cockpit. The default seat height is so high, that I can completely see the entire IFF antennas, and as far as I can recall form my time at the RNLAF (as a mechanic, not pilot unfortunately ), that normally wasn't the case.

If you found a bug, better post it in this sub forum: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/333-bugs-and-problems/ as in this "mission" section, it'll probably not be seen by ED. Additionally, it might be wise to add the map where this instant action mission is on and the exact mission name.

Partial answer to my own OP (just in case anyone else is reading this) I've contacted Invictus (Chris) directly from his website on WhatsApp and he responded really quickly (same evening) and gave me clear answers. He told me he's also working on a new PCB for his force transducer mod, which will replace the oem TM Cougar PCB (which I personally am not fond of) and also allows use of the Warthog grip additional CMS depress function. Anyways, my feeling is very good about this and as soon as Chris has managed to get the new PCB to work, I'm going to place my order

Hi @BIGNEWY or @NineLine Sorry, but tagging this report as "missing track file", is just nonsense... This happens everywhere and all the time as long as you are sitting in a Viper and the sun is shining. I can post a trackfile, sure, but it's just as easy for your team to just start any instant action free flight mission. Obviously, this can only be reproduced if tested in VR. The issue won't be visible in 2D. The "can't reproduce part", ok. Strange, but ok (others have been able to reproduce, as can be seen in the various replies above) Again, my bug report is about the (big) difference in canopy sun reflection, seen with the left eye and the right eye. Although a slight difference would indeed be seen in real life, the difference in DCS is just wrong and unrealistic (and makes it feel a bit like looking cross-eyed). Perhaps this is something you only start seeing after you focus on it. But once you see it, it can't be unseen and is quite annoying on the eyes.

Thanks for the mission @DonLuicia, I enjoyed it. Good for beginners, yet still interesting and immersive enough for veterans. Few points of (constructive) feedback if you don't mind: Even though I hardly (I even think not at all) used my afterburner during the entire mission, my silly AI wingman did the infamous "two bingo fuel"-"two ejecting". Perhaps you might want to consider forcing him to not use AB, or just give him ext tanks. Maybe add some more air traffic at Incirlik AB, during take-off and landing, to make it a bit more alive. Just an idea: You could also add a radio F10 "hard difficulty" option and have it spawn some MANPADS near the target area (although I'm thinking now, most probably the player would fly too high for them to launch) Anyway, thanks for your work!

No big deal obviously, but I thought I'd report anyway (easy fix also)

This was also what I had in mind (would also work for SAM with optical tracking systems) Perhaps the easiest solution though, would be to (briefly) make your wingman immortal and just let the missile hit him (you won't be able to see that while flying anyways)

I'm not sure what exactly you refer to as being unrealistic (for instance; in DCS, the Hornet's landing gear can withstand much higher impacts than for instance the Viper's landing gear. As is correct). If you only refer to DCS players landing non carrier capable aircraft on aircraft carriers: Sure, some planes were not designed to land on carriers, but that doesn't mean they can't land on or take-off from them. If you value your life and the aircraft, it's just not a very wise thing to try and do in real life (hence the reason that for most of these airframes, it was never tried in real life). But that doesn't mean it's impossible. I understand where you're wish is coming from. I too prefer realism over arcade and suppose that's what most DCS players seek. But there will always be folks who try and search the boundaries of what's possible in DCS; the stuff that would absolutely get you jailed in real life, but that's completely fine, because this is a computer game/sim, where everybody can do what he/she likes.

In my everlasting* search for an "affordable" force sensor stick , I came across this website: https://invictuscockpits.com/ And in particular, his Force Transducer mod for the TM Cougar: https://invictuscockpits.com/products/f-16-viper-force-sensor-modification Does anyone here have any experience with this seller, his products and his communication? I must say, his website looks very clear, appealing and promising. * I'd shelved the DCS Viper module a few years, while waiting for the pilot body feature. All that time, I planned to eventually add a force sensor stick to my setup. Now that the pilot body has been implemented, I want to go for it (I don't want my muscle memory to get used to my current and flawed Cougar sidestick). I've seen the Realsimulator FSSB (way too expensive for me to justify), the Winwing Orion 2 MFSSB (still too much to explain to my wife ), the Vipergear VFS-WE (send inquiries but never received an answer), the one Rel4y is working on (no offense, but losing a bit of faith in responsiveness there). Not sure, but it looks like Invictus continued where Vipergear stopped and the force sensor mod price seems quite reasonable.

Ah ok sorry I did do a forum search, but that function isn't.. well.. great

short track file added, as well as miz file to reproduce L118 art slingload test.miz M118 artillery slingload bug.trk