JayPee

Maybe I didn't express myself properly due to using the wrong words. Let the images do the talking instead. Notice for instance how the entire canopy frame, stick, panels, everything is completely distorted and how the distortion changes when tilting the virtual head up and down.. It somehow looks like it's stretched and the amount of stretching looks to me like a function of the zoom level, the more I zoom in OR out, the more this stretching occurs.

No, I do not mean the Z axis shifting forwardd and backward, I mean zooming in and out.

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS Yes the diagonal FOV in a circular lens. The game changes the horizontal FOV in a rectangular frame, effectively changing height/width ratios of objects..

Within the cockpit, zoom in/out seems to alter the FOV instead of zoom like you'd do with a lens on a camera, is there a way to alter the pseudo zoom functionality by locking the FOV and have it zoom in/out?

Hello Mustang, Just saying thanks. Only recently did I start using your clouds and sky and I must say it's exactly what I was looking for. I'm unfamiliar with the technical terms so hopefully you understand my description but the stock DCS somehow looks like my LCD screen is covered by a very thick gray dust layer. Stock colours somehow seem grim, not grim like in a gloomy horror movie but grim like in somewhere between a colour screen and a monochrome one. Using your shaders this 'layer' is removed and the environment looks much more alive. If I had a hat, I'd take it off!

As promised. Made a square of 800ft by 800ft and placed a total of 10 Abrams' on the perimeter and one in the middle. I tried it once with a 97 and once with a 105. Both times from a 7,500 AGL delivery altitute with a HOF setting of 700. Did the 97 using CCRP, both times the centre tank was the steerpoint on which I dropped. Both bombs seem to fall a little short, leaving the 'front' 2 tanks untouched but the remaining 9 all got hit. Sadly only 1 was destroyed in the first run (105) and 2 in the second run (97) but that's another issue.

Yeah I know about that thread and the ineffectivity of the modeled weapon. However by placing tanks on the perimeter of the 820x820 square and by making sure I set the SPI exactly on the intersection of the diagonals I think I have a pretty decent measurement tool.

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS Right! So the only reason to alter the 97's HOF is to find the proper effect balance by taking into account both wind and terrain relief. By the way, did you test the 820ft by 820ft as written in the brochure? If not I'll test by throwing a 105 exactly in the middle of a 820x820sqft field full of T80s using 700ft HOF with no wind.

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS Indeed it seems so. I also read the 476 factsheeit on the 97 and there too it is said that HOF does not influence footprint/spread. But, what does HOF influence in the case of a 97 and why would I change it and/or stick to Eddie's advise of setting it to 700 or 900 in case of uneven terrain?

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS I did look up the functional differences in terms of employment mechanics but honestly that didn't give me an indication of how to control for footprint area in case of the CBU 97.. I'll look up the differences again and while at it will try to confirm the 300x300..

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS Sorry, meant 97 yes. What will that setting result into then? In terms of effectiveness, dispersion, area coverage, etc.. Reason I ask is because if I set HOF to 700 for a 87 I can still choose between an area of 18x18 metres up to an area of 396x320 metres, depending on RPM setting.

Since I've got proper(-ish?) dumb and smart bombing completely covered by now I'm focusing on CBUs. There's a document containing the CBU 87's footprints as a function of HOF and RPM, which I find very handy bit of information. Does such a sheet also exist for the CBU 89? And what other parameters besides HOF affects a CBU89's footprint? Or am I asking the wrong question(s) because perhaps footprints are totally irrelevant in employing CBU 89s and I should focus on other aspects?

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS So, knowing the jet has relatively modern MFCDs, what does it look like in the real 10C? Monochrome grayscale or green, as the two pictures in ED's manual suggest the latter? Thanks

Very well possible, yes! Hopefully somebody around here has 1st habd experience.

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS I know the Apache uses a different sensor suite I was merely using the example to stress the fact that a recording uploaded on YT is not necessarely a 1:1 representation of what the pilot will/can see on his MFD with respect to the feed's colour/contrast.

The recording which is sometimes uploaded on YT is BW most of the time. This however does not mean the feed on the jet's MFD is BW as well. Every Apache 'gun cam' is also BW yet the Apache's FLIR MFD feed can be toggled to a green contrast scale according a 64D pilot.

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS P. 28 of ED's 10C manual shows a cockpit with a green TGP feed on the right MFD as opposed to the b/w feed used ingame. What does the real jet and TGP offer, b/w or green? EDIT and p. 84 offers a close up.

You didn't understand me correctly then... What I'm saying is, the vanilla beam has a sort of glow around it, more or less creating the impression it is a light/laser beam. With the NVG mod applied, the beam looks like a rough line of pixels and that's about it. If you Google RL pictures of IR pointers seen at night thru NVGs, they look more like the beam as seen thru the vanilla NVGs than like the beam as seen thru the modded NVGs. It's not a huge problem but I'd like to know if this can be easily fixed.

Here goes And here's the vanilla one

Like supernatural powers? Screenshot incoming..

I haven't read thru this whole topic so excuse me if it's already mentioned. I'm using this mod for a long time now without any trouble except for the IR pointer beam which somehow looks like shit thru the NVGs. Kind of like a 10 pixel wide dark green line drawn in MS Paint instead of like a green lightsabre blade.. Anybody know what I mean and know how to fix this?

Is somebody still using this mod in 1.2.9? Reason I ask is because I just tried it and I don't see a difference between stock and modded flares... (HDR's off if that is of importance)

Guess I'm becoming a big boy then.. No clue what has happened. Only option is messed up sensitivities in the past.

If there is no difference that would suggest something client side was causing limited flight model performance which is reset upon updating to 1.2.9... No clue what could cause that tho.

First of all I find it weird that ED explicitly states no changes have been made because obviously at least something has changed. Secondly, so far we're the only two noticing a difference, nobody is discussing it. Anyway, question remains what the realistic performance is, the sub 1.2.9 one or the new one...