addman

Good lord! that's so Soviet. I love it.

You can turn the gain all the way down which will remove almost all of the noise and it will still pick up bogeys. At least that's what I've read from other users but I find the IRST pretty useless, especially if a bandit is already hot on you. I guess it's primarily designed to take down, slow, hot and lumbering bombers.

Sounds like a never ending rabbit hole IMO. But yeah, having a toggle between "perfect condition SPO" and "worn out/de-synched 1990's Yugoslav SPO" would probably satisfy most people.

What is your graphics card and how much VRAM does it have? Nothing hits harder on FPS than lack of VRAM imo. It also depends on the module of course, the MiG-29 for example uses A LOT of VRAM even when you have medium resolution cockpit activated.

Problem with high altitude in DCS is the very very visible contrails which you can see from far away. IMO, contrails are the best air-to-air RWR currently modeled in the game. You are like a shining beacon up there, easy to ambush because you also get vector information from the contrails. Taking the MiG-29 to high altitude sounds like a suicide-trap.

It's all about design philosophy. The Russian jets are supposed to be easy to learn and they are designed to do a few specific things which helps streamlining the designs. If it was a tool, it would be a flathead screwdriver. Western/US designs are like swiss army knives in comparison. Much more multipurpose oriented and therefore requires stuff like an MFC/MFD (which I thouroghly hate) because of the inherent granularity of it's multipurpose design. Both designs makes sense for their own respective use-purposes. I prefer Russian designs for their simplicity, however we do have to contend with the technological limitations inherent to those designs.

Also, don't forget that the F-16A was a lighter and even nimbler fighter than the subsequent F-16C which was heavier. I listened to an Aircrew interview with a former Viper pilot who flew both A and later C-variants and he pointed out several times that the A was a better WVR dogfighter than the C. But yes, heaters only.

Just like to add my voice too for an AB detent settings, it was one of the first things I noticed on day ONE of the Fulcrum release. Very annoying and I can't believe this isn't standard on ANY new jet release at this point.

Yes, it's really coarse, at least when using digital input. If the input was finer then you might, at least, get near a somewhat trimmed out level flight. But if that's the way the real trimmer works then I guess that's fine. I'm also with the "as long as it is a close to the real thing"-camp.

Ok, so the aircraft is supposed to bank to the left after successful AFCS test and take-off?

So you are saying that it IS in neutral position after AFCS test even though the trim neutral lamps aren't lit?

I'm seeing the same issue here after C&D start-up. I run the AFCS test with no problems except that I have to trim aileron and elevator after it's done. But even though these axis are indicated as neutral, after take-off it banks a bit to the left. Have no idea why this is happening but I just use the trimmer reset button as suggested above. But I don't get why I'm having this issue as well.

Probably depends which modules you have installed. Like updates for maps are usually pretty big so if a bunch of large maps are getting big updates, like in this patch, then yeah, it's gonna be a few gigs of data if you have those installed.

I think I can answer that: Not today.

"Two weeks, be sure" (tm Oleg Maddox)

Splash! MiG-31

They don't have to be low-res, I'm talking about low-poly trees, less drawcalls etc. They can be 8k trees for all I care, that mostly affects VRAM usage. Amount of polygons affects performance and to be honest, how geometrically advanced does a tree need to be?

I agree, just make some new low-poly tree models that don't necessarily have to sway in the breeze, most conifers don't sway that much anyway unless very hard wind. I guess removing the photoreal textures isn't an option at this point but if they want to save storage space, custom made ground textures will do that because you can use the same tiles over and over again. Like if they really want to improve the map then priorities should be trees, towns and air bases. Those are FUNDAMENTAL things and should've been better from the start to be honest. I'm not bashing, just giving constructive criticism here, it's obvious someone pushed the release button way too early in this case. I really looked forward to this map, being a nordic native and all, but when I see the videos and screenshots of this map I just can't bear myself to buy it. I also don't appreciate that statements from some people "if you don't buy it they can't fix it", that's BS and really unconstructive. It's not the consumers fault that they release a sub-par map. Here's how it works in capitalism, you make something that's good and THEN there will be demand.

They have created the ”negativity” themselves by releasing something so unfinished, EVEN for an early access release. I also judge them by their previous work which has been of overall good quality. I’ve bought and used their products for over 11 years so I have a pretty good understanding of their potential. That’s also why I’m so critical.

Released way too early and with Orbx track record of abandoning low profit platforms, I don’t have high hopes for Kola. Please prove me wrong Orbx.

I even prefer Orbx own almost 10 year old products for FSX/P3D over the current Kola map. Screenshots below are all Orbx, northern Sweden. It's Orbx "plausible" ground textures which I think looks better and sharper than any photoreal and doesn't take up a lot of storage space. Combined with custom landclass, HD trees and vector data. ALL Orbx products. Great fps, minimal storage space and looks more authentic than the current smeared out photoreal textures amd totally innacurate flora.

Yeah, I’m from Sweden and it totally ruins the map. I’m not buying until they figured out a way to implement fps-friendly conifers. They’ve done it in their other work for P3D and MSFS. I’d be fine with low-poly trees, you don’t notice even when you’re low. Speedtrees are actually worse fps wise because they are overdetailed AND animated so I don’t quite get the excuse.

That's almost funny, a reveal of an upcoming reveal. Why not just wait until you have something to actually to show? DCS has really become a "Product Preview Simulator". Things that are coming but not yet, things that were supposed to be released but are now delayed, things that MAYBE have been cancelled or maybe not. Sorry to sound so cynical but the last month haven't been kind to DCS or my patience with it.