lxsapper

@veenee Like I said I was unsure which setting it actually was because I was away and unable to launch DCS. But I said it could be one of the other settings, as It happens, It's Saturation X, I just checked.

Just a small note, this has been referenced before, but even I was forgeting to mention this keypoint. You can actually have the same width FoV through the HUD with a single viewpoint, by moving the viewpoint forward. Which is exactly what I did in the screenshot I posted. And it's exactly how the old cockpit default view used to be positioned, in fact I also tryed to move it back in the old cockpit to a place closer (at least in the fwd aft movement) to where the Pilot head would be (not over the seat edge where it was positioned by default) and you also would lose the ability to see the whole thing left to right.

I'm sorry if this comes across wrong. But it almost looks like you are trolling andnot making a genuine question. It is rather obvious he drew the red makers to highlight the features he's refearing to.

I can tell you it's all visible on the horizontal. I'll have to go back and check vertical visibility with the given indication for setting the height. The think that's making me wonder though is the following, if that flat plate at the top of the HUD is suposed to be seen as thinly as possible. Then it means that if it's not angled upwards in some what. Then it's exactly in the pilots vertical central line of sight, puting the whole HUD on the bottom half of the pilots vertical FOV when looking straight ahead, this is consistent with photos where you see the pilot in the cockpit. Now if the HUD is bellow the pilot like that (also the reason you don't have this problem in F-16 /F-18) it's also to be expected that once in the air when the pilot had to maintain slight pitch up for level flight that you can see the zero pitch line that you couldn't before. But the GUN boresight, which it the top symbology displayed on the HUD if I'm not mistaken, unless ED got it so wrong at how many MILS it should be displayed, I don't see how that can be in the HUD with your head in the position that was described. This is not a matter with moving the symbology down, like some have asked for. If you move things down, you's be missaligning the HUD wih what it should be representing. So if something is indeed wrong we need to know what part of the geometry is incorrect.

Atually that's the limitation of the 2D view that was discussed previously. If it doesn't happen in VR it's not wrong. What Snoopy is bringuing up and may need investigating is the vertical alignment,

Sure you got to work with what you have, just makes sence to me to try to stay as close to real as possible. At least as far as the HOTAS goes, if for no other reason to do it like the real pilots do, and understand the machine from the perspective of its real interface. I have a Warthog and granted it has more total inputs than the cougar. But I can map every actual Hotas commands for all DCS aircraft I have on my hotas. Sometimes I have to get a little inventive of where I put them, but I do try to keep things close to where they are IRL. The only extra things I put on the HOTAS are trackIR related things. Everything else I usually use mouse on the cockpit buttons, and if I do use the keyboard to make it faster the position of the real control is in my mind. I also use mouse when flying VR, clickable buttons and HOTAS functions, don't really need anything else.

Go into axis tunning move your axis put it right to the stop. Then find which of the controlls I mentioned is the right one and move it until max (well min actually) value is reached right at the stop.

I didn't edit by file, I used the view comands to move the view point (RCTL+RSHIFT+numpad key) and then used the Save Cockpit Angles command (Right ALT+num0 I think). But I'll check my saved games folder to see what got saved there. Can only do it tomorow though.

Couldn't you go hybrid with trackIR by assigning in DCS which axis are beeing used for what? I tought DCS allows for this, am I incorrect? I'm not home right now so I can't check.

Glad you have it working as you want, but... and I gess inthe end it's none of my business, but why would you want to have an HOTAS that is the exact replica of the aircraft you are flying performing diferently? At least for me, it's always preferable to operate the aircraft in the most realistic way possible.

You don't need a curve for that just make sure your axis is a slider, and add eighter a deadzone, or a y or x axis saturation (can't remember which will be the right one for that). ALternatively you can just remove the detent when flying those... :)

Flamin Squirrel I respect your opinion that I voiced a concern unfound. But I don't belive I have. ED anounced a paid module, and have listed a list of features as part of that module. I think it's reasonable to assume that they mean to say that all feartures under that anouncement will be only accessible to those who purchase the said module. I'll certainly be glad if they leave that one item out.

By the way, this is the thread to the guy who makes the custom throttles. I forgot he had advertized here as well: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=221046

What do you mean it's implemented in other modules? The clickable cockpit? Yes in full fidelity modules. The F-15C is not one of those modules. Can someone create it? You mean in like a MOD? Because that module is ED (or Belteksim is in charge of it atm I belive) and I don't think there are any plans to make the F-15C full fifelity upgrade. Though that's definetely something I'd pay money for, individual upgrades to make FC3 planes Full Fidelity. The F-15C and other FC3 planes do not need to tune radios because they are allways tuned to whatever recipient you chose to talk to. If you are using them in multi-player with SRS, SRS provides a way for you to tune the radios for this planes. Countermeasures are not programable but you can get around it, by making "programs" in your HOTAS software, or other keybinding software that allows for the creation of macros.

The Flyable Modules? Oh and the sale of third party modules, wich I have no idea on the percentage. But I'm sure all parties conseider fair. ED makes the engine for said planes to be viable and fun to fly. Makes a proifit on all planes sales. Third parties have to front of the costs of developing their own planes and share a percentage with ED but do not have to develop the engine for those planes to operate. I Think you don't undertand The Idea of F2P. A Model ED from their own free wheel decided would be viable to keep the lights on, feed their families and make a profit. And I belive they are doing wonderfully (as well they should) but again, I'm not their book keeper. I could be wrong on that. But if that's the case they should let us know. And maybe not do free updates that are welcome but superfulous for Sim as a whole. Such as Updates to the cockpit art of aircraft. The fact they to those updates reinforces my idea they are doing well, as I certainly hope they do for a long time. I do not expect them to be without compensation. They were the ones that elected that the compensation for all of the work they do would come from the sale of modules, theirs and third party. So I absolutely expect the core engine to recive updates and new features. Because that is absolutely what they said they would do and I agreed by purchassing a healthy amount of modules. Or un-healthy from a certain perspective and that I don't have time to ever learn and fly them all and still I'm likely to buy more. Now disagree with me all you like. But you threw this questions out there as if they weren't well adressed in the first place. I belive they were. But here I am taking the bait again and explaining my self over and over. That was more than my two cents, that was like a whole two dollars worth. So I'll keep the rest for myself. Happy flying all.

Very interested to learn more about A-10C 2; BS3. And Very excited about the F-15E. Very nice to see a mosty ocean map for carrier operations as well.

Talk about missing the point and beating on a dead horse. For several pages of this tread I've hardly seen anyone complaining on the Super Carrier beeing sold as those who did where kwickly silenced out. Yet people one after the other who think otherwise still feel compeled to come and say how utterly wrong they were. Well as someone who somewhat seats in the middle, I feel compeled to chime in as well. I think the Op's and some of the other's point is not so much about the carrier beeing paid. But more about what else will be paid from now on. Lets not forget that it was ED's decision to move to a model where they provide the base engine free of charge and make their profit on the sale of playable modules. And lets not also forget that they profit a margin of third party developers sales without having to spend on those modules development. I don't blame people who think they should suport ED in any way they should, even though I think in a way they are contributing to practices that harm us all as consumers. But each should use their money as they best see fit. That's the nature of capitalism. But myself I don't see myself obligated to suport ED. Instead I see it in ED's best interest to make something I'll want to buy. And that is absolutely the nature of capitalism. I do own many of their modules, so I think they have been more than reasonably sucessfull at that. But I will not throw my money just to suport them, I don't patron anyone, but I'll be a costumer to anyone who makes something I want. That is how I chose to use my money. With all of that out of the way, I see it as a reasonable thing that the Carrier is beeing sold with the list of features it has. Wether or not I'll buy it, very much depends on pricing at this point. Don't get me wrong it's looking great and very appealing to me. But all things have a price, ED will put a value on their work and I will put a value on my money, if the two are reasonably close to one another I'm sure I'll get it, if not at launch, then at some point in the future. But I do not think all feartures in the carrier should belong in the carrier module. I think Advanced carrier comms should belong to the default DCS engine. The same engine ED decided to develop free to play, and make their profit on the playable modules alone. Which in my humble opinion the Super-Carrier isn't, the playable part I mean, It adds gameplay, but it isn't playable. But still like I said I agree that ED sells all those extra features. But comms, IMO should not be extras, and in fact we all know that ATC in this engine needs a major overhawl, carrier and otherwise. And this I think is the major point of the people who raised their concerns. What exactly is ED going to try to charge for next? Land based ATC? Weather? What then is the Free part of the engine anymore? I would absolutely have suported their decision to sell the carrier and make advanced carrier ATC avaiable to everyone (on the other carriers) regardless of having the super-carrier or not. Since they didn't, all I can say is... I'm kind of ok with it. I have no idea if they are struglling financialy or not. I hope not, as I very much enjoy DCS and hope it remains a thing for a long time. But I will only chose to suport it in the terms I mentioned earlier, by paying for what has reasonable value to me. But I don't belive they are, specially in the light of all the recent anoucements of all the projects. I belive DCS is alive and well and I am certanly glad for it. There's defenitely more than one thing on the newsletter today that has me wanting to open up my wallet when the time comes. Now having said that, and I have nothing against ED's profit margins incressing, in fact I hope they do. I don't think it's ok for them to seek that increase by going back on what they said would be their model for DCS: free engine, paid Playable modules. Assuming of course business is going well. I would be very disapointed if indeed next we were paying for weather, atc, etc. But maybe there will come the day DCS is struggling and maybe the business model has to be revised. If that comes to be, then I think some good comunication with it's costumers should be in order for ED. But on the current model what is understood is that there is a Free part, that is obviously suported by the paid part plus profit from partners sales. I don't think things that are easely understood that should be in the free part should now routinely be made paid. This I belive is what people had a problem with, not that the Super-Carrier with all the extras is beeing paid.

Glad to hear to it! :) I don't have a cougar any more, but I'm very much enjoying the upgraded Slew on my Warthog! Highly recomended!

Definitely a possibility, but someone also would need to design a new PCB as this style of microsticks is diferent from the ones on the Cougar, wich had the Pushbutton contacs in the center rather than on the side.

Err.... the whole point is that he can't use that very throttle...

There's a guy that makes custom throttles, maybe you'd like one of his.

Sure, but why when you can set and save your own custom default viewpoint? But I'll grant you this: something has changed in the vertical display of the HUD. As I haven't been able to reproduce the same exact view as before. But you can absolutely get a nice convenient view where all of the HUD is visible. Here I Saved this as the default view, it's not exactly as the old default viewpoint, but I think it's close enough on the new geometry, and you can read all of the HUD at once:

Well I'd argue that the module works in 2D just fine, specialy if people bother to follow the simple solution that was given several times by several people including my self. But honestly seems like people aren't even bothering to listen. And FYI i do have a VR headset but I'm in the process of selling it for a number of reasons, so I will continue to fly this in 2D alone. So it's not like I'm arguing for VR only looking out for myself here. As for what is beeing asked I'm sorry it is wrong. Again I simpatize, but you have not thought through the problem, nor through the solution that is proposed to realize, just how non-viable it is.

If you want a no hassle drop in solution you have this http://www.realsimulator.com/html/tusba.html. It is a bit pricey for what it is. But your axes (rotaries and microstick) will work a lot better than when connected to the Cougar joystick, as those axes in the cougar reached their limits before physical limit.

Though I simpatize with the premisse of your position, I don't think you realize what you are asking.