mpdugas

Sorry to hear this; I just don't want to fly VR in something looking like the Republican Guard made a mess of. I can only say this decision makes the shabby cat a non-purchase.

They don''t call it "Dell Hell" for nothing; it's not a joke. Read their tech support forums before you spend your money. Dell destroyed them. Caveat emptor when it comes to Alienware. I'll not put another penny in their wretched pockets again.

https://www.amazon.com/HP-Reverb-Virtual-Reality-Headset/product-reviews/B07R768KJP/ref=cm_cr_unknown?filterByStar=one_star&pageNumber=1 Read the reviews; that's where I start with any product. I'm always curious about how many 1 and 2 star reviews show up, and why. If I can get past that as not applicable to my usage, I'm in. Hp Reverb is sitting at 40% 1 + 2 star reviews.

Fantastic scheme; the quality of construction and material choices is pretty extreme. That's definitely a budget-buster.

I sent my vision Rx to https://vr-lens-lab.com/ and they analyzed which distance I should prescribe for, since I wear progressives. The inserts move easily from HMD to HMD (Vive pattern) and make the experience very worth the cost and wait; as Gunner said, shifting back to outside, it's hard to read again until I put glasses back on. Nonetheless, having the HMD without also wearing glasses is great. I highly recommend them.

I'm running the Pro and a 1080ti now, with really good results. So, not quite what you asked for. My Pro has high enough HMD screen resolution to read small text now, which is very important in simulators. However, the Cosmos has one really strong attribute, and that is, it has higher resolution HMD screens; if you have a GPU(s) strong enough to push them. Be aware that it also requires a LOT of ambient light to maintain inside-out tracking, as do most such HMDs. Eventually, it will have the ability to run with base-station tracking, which is far better for positional support. Then you can run it in more normal room lighting. That's why I'm waiting to shift from Pro. Read the reviews for additional info. All good VR is pricey; like PC hardware generally, last generation pricing is better, but VR requires good, bleeding-edge gen HMD screen resolution to be effective, unless you are playing made-for-VR action games, which require very little reading. I'm going for Cosmos, wireless headset, Valve Index finger trackers, and two good overclocked 2080tis (like the EVGA 11G-P4-2589-KR) in SLI, so I will be ready when VR Works and LiquidVR become available. In my personal experience, HTC and Valve have high-quality gear and good support. Oculus has Zuck.

There are some 3D paint software programs, e.g Z-Brush, that will let you unwrap an object's texture, provided that you can obtain the object in an importable format: https://www.slant.co/topics/8643/~3d-texture-painting-softwares I didn't buy the MiG-19, so I can't explore your installation folder to see if you can extract it for painting. Try that out if Razbam won't support you.

This bug has been around since 2011.

Here's one to watch while we wait... If this module lives up to this video, then respect!

"Signal Strength"

I watched the mission through, and I thought the objective was to first use both radar antennas to track and shoot the bomber, then a switch to the track-only radar antenna, to find the low-flying fighter target, using the brilliant Soviet engineering. I saw what I expected for the bomber, but I never saw the track-only radar in action; it seemed to be just a WAG shoot-fest, visual only, with no tracking radar in sight. Where was the track-only radar imagery? Did I miss it? The radar simply appeared to be "off" the whole time of the fighter engagement. A simple time track place showing the tracking antenna in action would be great: thanks!! :thumbup:

MiG-21 textures Yes, please, some cockpit textures that give the users a choice, at least, between the ridden-hard-and-put-away-wet crowd and something more reminiscent of what a normal aircraft working environment, maintained by people who cared about the aircraft, might see. From what I've seen of some other new, up-and-coming aircraft modules, that ultra-worn beater look will keep my pennies in my pockets. I'm not buying something that looks so tatty and damaged. Detailed flight operations and complex aircraft systems are nice but please don't put them into an aircraft cockpit that you wouldn't want to sit down in. It would be so nice if a module-maker didn't force their customers into just one look; user choice is nice. :thumbup: p.s. bug fixes are nice, too; the MiG-21 is such a nice module.

What are your VR frame-rates that make for a "fine" experience (i.e. what settings give what performance)?

If it were true, yes, it would be; not all Grumman F-14s were beaters.

I know that the various kitty-kat cockpits have "dynamic" textures, each rather wear-worn, etc. Are there any cockpit skins that are factory-fresh from HeatBlur?

Hadn't given this much thought, before now, but with the plethora of dual-cockpits arriving now, I am wondering what the license requirement is to fly in the backseat of any of them? Do I have to have my own license of each of the planes, and each other person must have a license for flying in it with me? Probably a self-evident answer, but I don't know what it is, really.

TL;DR version The takeaway is fairly simple: there is no discussion section in the DCSW forums for the TF-51D. It is an aircraft module that was apparently intended by ED/TFC to be released as the free P-51D, but perhaps, for sales-sake (to not compete with the upcoming Belsimtek version, perhaps?) was name-changed to the TF-51D with a dummy second seat sans controls thrown in for appearances sake. It appears to be a separate and distinct software module from the Belsimtek version of the same airplane. The TF-51D might be the ED/TFC version of the P-51D in dummy two-seat disguise. Well, thanks for that answer, DracoLlasa! It prompted me to do a lot of research and thinking about good old DCSW before I made this long-winded post. I would never have guessed that asking such a naive question would lead me down a veritable rabbit-hole of DCSW arcana, but it did, indeed, do just that. I did, before I posted this question, go to the DCS World folder, looked in the sub-folder called Doc, where I sort of expected, you know, documents to be, and found the DCSW User Manual, which is no longer current. So, yes, documents were there, which confirmed my belief that documents would be found there. A quick search of the whole DCSW folder for a document covering the TF-51D comes up dry. However, I can safely say that knowledge of things like basic aircraft information manuals to be found in a sub-folder called Mods is...counter-intuitive and in-line with your comment about DCSW structure for people looking for basic information from scratch. The DCSW User Manual does mention, briefly and in passing, an aircraft called the P-51D, which I suspect that ED intended to be part of the base/free DCSW, but that aircraft name was changed, at some point, to the TF-51D for reasons buried in the mists of ED/TFC antiquity. The DCSW User Manual does not, however, tell a new player where to find manuals for the individual aircraft modules of the free version. Nor does it cover any of their aspects. No links, no instructional mention. I would think that the User Manual is a good place for that, i.e. telling new users where to find specific information about each of the included aircraft in the base DCSW, but, since it is not updated much and was last revised in 2014, that is not likely going to change. So, yes, after looking in that obscure "mods" place, thanks to the suggestions of those who answered my question, I found a manual for the P-51D, which apparently does not exist in the base version of DCSW, in the folder C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\TF-51D\Doc and is entitled "P-51D". The TF-51D aircraft 3D model, which does exist, has a dummy second seat, but no controls or user manual information to cover the use of the backseat. I would have thought that such a visual-only modification might generate some discussion, but I see none. So that lends support to my belief that the TF-51D is just a neglected middle child. It looks like the TF-51D/P-51D user manual is likely written by ED or The Fighter Collection, or whoever programmed aircraft modules for the FC3 collection, I would guess. Neither aircraft are found in FC3, but they are temporal contemporaries. The P-51D quick-start guide, also found in the TF-51D sub-folder, is really confusing, since it links to the Belsimtek version of the P-51D forum subsection. It probably does cover the operation of the ED/TFC version of the Mustang, though. There is really no way to know unless you have both versions. So that forum subsection reference is probably just wrong. Or maybe not... Which just goes to show that there is apparently little to no community involvement with the TF-51D, since its informational presence is only found in the Mods sub-folder and some training missions. Sad, really, because it is the first ED/TFC aircraft module with a clickable cockpit. It could have been the first dual-cockpit, multi-crew ED/TFC plane, too. It wound up just being obscure. If it would be upgraded to the latest, best, FC3 flight model standard, that would be awesome! If it were a modified to be what it is purported to be, a true dual-cockpit version, with duplicated controls, then it would be even more awesome! And truly apropos for a trainer version in the free DCSW installation. As a point of curiosity, it would be a really interesting idea to fly the "TF-51D" and the Belsimtek P-51D versions side-by-side, to compare their software performance. If they match up, that would be sad, indeed. $40-$60 sad. It would be very disturbing to see that the TF-51D and the Belsimtek P-51D were one and the same aircraft, with but visual changes. Very disturbing. I enjoy discovering these sorts of irrational bits and pieces of the software world; this whole subject matter is truly illustrative of the true ad hoc nature of DCSW.

I appreciate the info, but of course, the "where" of posting my question is found in the question itself; there is no specific place to ask about it that I could find, thus the more general post here. I care not if the post is moved. It was never part of FC3 to my knowledge, nor was the T-model. There is a similar paucity of info on the A-model Sukhoi, which was part of FC3 originally. Nonetheless, the TF-51D has training missions written specifically for it, and since the P-51D material is only available if you have purchased that separate module, then the lack of info in the "free" version of DCSW is the "why" of my question. But I'm not arguing, just explaining that, in the simple, free version of DCSW, where it is found, there appears to be no information at all, save for a few training missions written for it. It just struck me that, with all the interest in trainers now, with their much-easier-to-model systems, I was hoping that there was some written material for the original one. Thanks for helping, though, it''s nice to get a reply in any case.

With the renewed interest in training aircraft, after the release of the latest of many trainers in the form of the Yak, I started wondering about a forum place where the TF-51D was discussed. I did a forum-wide search, and the aircraft occasionally shows up in some threads as a mention, but I don't see a separate thread for it, even though the P-51D has its own separate section discussing that individual aircraft module. I also see that the SU-25T and SU-25A seem to be lumped together, with most of the talk centering around the T model, in the Flaming Cliffs 3 subsection, even though it is not an FC3 aircraft. I do not see the trainer Mustang mentioned in the P-51D section, though. So, two questions: 1) is there a manual for the TF-51D, and; 2) is there a forum section to discuss it? I have always sort of felt that it was an orphan in the DCSW world, even though it is the first cockpit-clickable DCSW aircraft that any DCSW user will encounter. Since the performance of the TF-51D eclipses that of several other trainer aircraft, the Yak-52 included, it seems to be more pertinent now. :helpsmilie:

a keyboard plane is no less realistic than a mouse-click-on-monitor plane...

Many thanks for the direct answers; I'll try to find it in the setup dialogs and bind away. Funny the SU-27 tutorial doesn't mention it. It (the tutorial) calls for keys to emulate the rudder turning, which don't work either; is it a recent addition?

Refreshing myself on various airframes, I see that the SU-25T taxis as expected, responding to rudder input for turns along with expected external views of rudders moving in the right direction for ground turns. The training mission for taxi and takeoff for the SU-27 is identical, the same exercises, except that the SU-27 does not turn with rudders, even though animation in F2 view shows rudders working correctly, as do pedal animations in cockpit. The airplane just moves straight ahead. I can brake one tire with Lctrl and A, but that is all the Sukhoi responds to. In every way, the control setups are the same between the two airplanes, the control options setup recognize the proper axis actuation, i.e. it shows rudder pedals controlling the rudder with axis Z. The SU-25T turns as expected, the SU-27 just plows straight into the grass. This same behavior is found in DCSW version 1.5 and 2.5. Setup problem or bug?

Thank you, sir!

As a caution, I am installing 2.5 in a separate directory so that I can continue to use 'stable' version while new one gets sorted. I would like to use my modules in both, but will doing so burn an activation for each version of DCS? :book: