lxsapper

Yea sounds like you really need to adjust first of all your angle of the camera and second your TIR profile so that you can confortably reach all extremes of virtual head movement, without displacing your real neck. I had used TIR for a while and it was fine, but after I made a profile adapted for me and my setup, total game changer.

Rarely use it but maybe you want the camera frozen to input stuff into the cdu while you orbit in AP, for example.

Try to look for him on viperpits.org or the BMS forums.

It depends on the plane. I try to replicate the plane's hotas functions as much as possible, so it depends on what's left available. For example on the a-10c I use MSU short press for recenter and long press for pause. On the f-18 I use TMS up for recenter and down for pause.

Reddog used to have them pre-soldered on a new PCB. It's also possible to unsolder the microstick from the PCB, get a new general PS controller microstick, pull the pots from that replace the cougar MS pots with those and resolder the original MS with the new pots on the PCB.

Don't want to be an ass. But why is this on the bugs and problems for the A-10C? There's a section in input/output for TM controllers.

They don't, they were removed from the real Jet sometime after entering service. They were meant to deploy in the transonic region to improve controlability there. They were found to be unecessary.

Watch your AoA. Try to not go over 15-17.

LoL it's not the first time I have imagined past behaviour. Thank you for clearing that up.

Is it just me, or it's like the Fuel Flow counter is not adding Fuel burned by the AB anymore? When going into AB the FF doesn't rise from what is was already at in Milpower (preaty sure the AB is still burning all that fuel though). Also I could swear this was not so before. So maybe it's a new bug?

So... I wanted to run something through people here. The F-18 seems to me to be considerably harder to trap, in the sence that if you are not on speed on the correct AoA, it will fail to trap every time. The F-14 seems to be a lot more forgiving in this regard. How authentic do you think both actually are, compared to each other? Are they both authentic as in this are diferences the real planes had/have? What say ye, DCS forum?

Thanks YoYo I'll have to investigate that then. It certainly is in line with something I found on some reddit thread. But the Thread you posted is the first that points to a real way of finding the problem. Thanks a lot for the tip.

Also you can save your default head position...

I have always been vocal of how much I dislike TARGET, but it is still the best/most pratical way for me to set the AB region on the throttles to work painessly with DCS. So I'm want to give TARGET another go with a diferent twist. But I'm running into an issue with TARGET on my machine that I've been aware for a while, but since I wan't using it anyway. Wasn't bothering me too much. The issue is as follows when I launch a TARGET profile the physical controllers are not getting virtual disconnected as the Manual states they should and as I've always witnessed them to, until a while ago, which I'm not sure when it was, but might have been when I upgraded to windows 10. So this is what I get: The Physical controlers remain avaiable to windows and any software even though Thrustmaster combined is connected. This is somewhat of an issue for me and I'd rather everything was working as intended. So I'm asking if any one has encontered this before and have you been able to fix it? I have already reinstalled TARGET and Drivers with lastest Version. EDIT: And yes both the throttle and Joystick are included on the profile beeing run. Apreciate if anyone can help.

Yes and No. The circle projected onto the HUD is a Reflection of the CRT on a mirroe and then passed thorugh a lens to set the focus at infinity. So you are not seeing the whole CRT and by moving your viewpoint you can see more information on the edges. This is also the main reason the HUD has a limited FOV.

Really people are making a huge deal about this, when you can just move your default viewpoint to closer to what it used to be. Problem solved IMO or at least it will be the same as before, which was always a compromise.

I don't think you necessarily tried to be insulting NL. I just thought it was insulting in the nature of the response because it sounded dismissive. But I'm sorry if I came down to hard as well. Maybe I'm ignorant of all the people who do play outdated versions of DCS. To me that's a totally invalid approach, and I supose that's why judged so harshly that an ED representative would present that as a solution to someone. But I appreciateunderstand I'm not everyone and maybe some people think this is fine. And I totally understand ED not wanting to keep the two cockpits, again, its perfectly fine to say no. Just as I think it was perfectly fine for him to ask. And heavens know my SSD can't handle the growing size of my DCS installation, I certainly don't need two sets of cockpits for an aircraft. I disagree with the above poster that this thread should be closed. I think we are all adults here, we should be able to handle a little disagreement. But the matter of me disliking your post is closed as far as I'm concerned. I hope I was able to explain clearly why I didn't like it, but if not, I don't think I will be able to do any better than I already have. Anyway, I appreciate the way you handled it now. Thank you.

I said nothing in that post about the 3d in the cockpit. The only thing IMO that must be improved is the lighting and I have no doubt that ED will adjust this as necessary. If you bother to check my previous posts in this thread (even just before) you will see they were actually trying to explain to some users, why there is nothing wrong with the 3D model in the new pit. I have not complained about the new pit. You really should read with more attention before chimming in. What I criticized was NL's response to a user whose opinion about the new pit I actually disagree with (See how things can be nuaced like?). If you had actually paid atention to what I said and read 3 posts above you would easily have seen that. Now I think what had been asked was reasonable to ask, in the sence that's a reasonable thing to put on a "wish list", it IS not reasonable to expect is that ED would be in anyway responsible to oblige all such requests, and it's fine for ED to say "we will not provide such feature" What I absolutetly don't think it's allright is the answeer that was given by NL. Because you are giving the user (a costumer) what is basicaly a non-solution. But you may dizagree, that's fine too. But please don't missrepresent my position. Criticizing the way you adress someone is not the same as saying "I dislike the sandwish you made", please don't conflate the two. I happen to like the "Sandwish". I didn't ask for a new cockpit, but I'm glad it came. I tried to explain here several times why there is nothing wrong with the "new" hud, and I never mentioned the lighting until my post about NL's response, because enough people have comented on it and ED has ackoledged that it's going to be looked at. Really disagree with me all you want, but please make an effort to at least try to understand what I was arguing for, and what I wasn't.

Thanks for the update @Hollywood_315 .

Now this is the most insulting answeer I could possibly have imagined from someone representating ED. Was the request reasonable? I think so. Was it feasible? IDK, only ED can decide on that. But if the answeer is no. Then just say no in a polite manner. Don't suggest to a client to permanently lock himself in a soon to be outdated version of the software that will never be updated and never again able to connect online to other users. I'm sure if he wants to do that he'll do it on his own. By all means defend the new cockpit ( apart from lighting, particularly backlighting, glad to know that's getting looked at, really needed...). Explain how it's not that different, show a couple of wireframe comparisons. Explain what actually changed and why people are perceiving it as different. Or do none of that if it's an unreasonable use of your time as a Community Manager. But don't use what is basically in insult to a ED's costumer. Am I over reacting over this? IDK, I suppose you could even have said something along the lines of "unfortunately from now on the legacy cockpit will only be available in legacy versions of DCS, as maintaing it as an option would not be feasible". But telling a costumer to actually go there? Doesn't sound right to me

In the A-10 the HUD is in a position privileging looking down over the nose for it's ground attack role. Again this is a much lesser problem to view that information both in RL and VR, but even TrackIR helps. To "amend" it all you have to do is change the default head position.

Exactly! Think about it. VR and 2D are using the exact same cockpit 3D geometry. The difference is in the limitations imposed by a 2D display.

You can program a macro on a joystick or voice attack etc.

Higher PD will give you a better image at the cost of performance up to a point. It's good is to remember what it is actually doing, which is to render a higher resolution image than the display which will then be downscaled. Nothing like experimenting but having that in mind should give a starting point.

Yeah all of FC3 cockpits were updated as well as flight models and most exterior models. Maybe you think it's a little less good than others (it's fine IMO) because if I remember correctly this was the first aircraft updated?