AndyJWest

Regarding pressurisation, I found a T-45C bingo reference table online, which gives the altitude for the longest-range (250 nm) bingo fuel calculation (gear up, flaps up, drag index=0) as 40,000 ft. I'd assume that a long-range cruise is the only time you are likely to benefit from operating that high. A word of caution though. The VNAO Quick Start Manual says that the OBOG (on-board oxygen generator system) is 'not simulated'. Oxygen deprivation at altitude does however seem to be - or at least, after flying at 35,000 ft and 220 KIAS for twenty-odd minutes, checking fuel consumption, I got DCS's simulation of hypoxia - blurred image, and the onset of greying out. Whether it does this consistently, and under what conditions, I don't know. Not a criticism (this is a free mod, and a WIP) but something you may need to be looking out for if you are up high for extended periods, and don't want to have to do a simulated emergency descent.

I've had mixed results recording tracks. Sometimes they will play back fine, often they won't. Given the general problems DCS has with tracks, and the fact that this is the initial release of a free mod, I'm not particularly surprised at this.

I find having to hold a switch on while I'm looking around the cockpit with TrackIR rather awkward.

I've bound 'start' and 'on' to joystick buttons, but presumably they work the same way.

I had the same issue - the Master Engine switch needs to be returned to 'on' from 'start' once the engine is running. That gets the generator running.

You can move the LSO with with the WASD keys. If you move inboard as far as you can, you can see right down the deck. You can even raise the viewpoint slightly by pointing the camera down, then pressing S, though that doesn't work with TrackIR.

My first landing, after one bolter: The LSO may have been assessing it as a Hornet landing, of course. Mind if I join you, fellas?

Yabba dabba dooo!

Click on your existing avatar on any forum page. This will open your profile (you can also do it from the menu at the top of any page, but this is quicker). At the top left there is an enlarged view of your existing avatar, with a 'profile photo' icon overlaid. Click that, and you'll get a dialog box which allows you to upload a new one.

Another update? As always, a big to Chuck for his work.

I think it would be a mistake for ED to create civilian aircraft for DCS. There is quite sufficient demand for more military stuff - which is where their expertise lays - to keep them occupied, and profitable, for a long long time. If a third-party developer wants to give it a try, and thinks they can make money at it, why not? I doubt very much I'd buy it (MSFS meets my needs well enough for civvy sims, despite its issues, and Cessnas are about the least interesting aircraft out there, as far as I'm concerned), but if other people want a C-172 in DCS, it won't affect me, so good luck to them.

Yes, they fund new content by making it popular. By offering options for people wanting to fly with different levels of realism, same as they've always done. Anyway, I'm done here, since I'm not interested in going around in circles arguing. ED will make the decision as to what options they provide - and as always, such decisions are going to be dependent on financial considerations, rather than on the vociferous opinions of a few forum members who apparently consider the way they personally use DCS to be the only valid one.

I've just run the update. LIke CobaltUK, it seemed not to download anything. Which makes sense, since the patch notes only refer to campaigns, and I don't own any of those named there. Nothing to update in my install. And no undocumented change to the F-16. Personally I find that 'aircraft handling' varies depending on my mood. If I'm tired and grumpy (not rare) a normally well-behaved aircraft will notice, and start acting up.

Since that's what they've been doing up to now, and it is working, judging by the way they can fund increasingly more new content, it seems unlikely that they will do things any differently. Having choices is good. Even if a specific player choses not to use them.

@BIGNEWY This is the same issue that was reported back in June last year. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/237931-lso-grades-3pts-after-landing-on-main-gear/

The LSO grading-algorithm is flawed. I'd concentrate on trying to make proper landings per procedure, and ignore it. You are liable to acquire bad habits otherwise.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/ Some of us like to relax sometimes. You should try it.

Yup, true enough, ED aren't adding more FC3 aircraft. It wouldn't make sense to since they announced it's presumed successor, Modern Air Combat. Which I assume is still under development. They haven't said anything to the contrary, as far as I'm aware. Certainly, forum members still seemed to think it was going ahead a week or so ago: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/204006-mac-modern-air-combat-discussion/page/10/

So how exactly is pointing out that businesses (or at least, successful ones) base development plans on prospective sales a 'weak argument'?

In the dimension where adding new features depends on sales volume. More sales, more opportunity to add optional features. And I don't think that ED are in business to produce software in order to 'separate it from casual games', They are in business to sell stuff, for profit, using the knowledge expertise they have. There is clearly a market for 'ultra-realism' in entertainment-market flight simulation, but the flight sim market as a whole is much bigger than that, and appealing to the broader as well as the narrower makes simple economic sense. Which is why they do things the way they do. They have been quite successful so far, selling e.g. FC3 as well as the more detailed products, and all indications are that they intend to continue that way. If they were, for no obvious logical reason, to decide that from now on they were only going to appeal to the smaller 'ultta' market, they would have to accept lower sales, and less opportunity to develop new products for the 'ultra' crowd. Whatever you say, son... (P.S. thanks for the belated welcome. I joined in 2013 though. Shouldn't I be welcoming you?)

I have read the thread. What started as a simple question about whether the DCS F-16 will replicate a specific feature has degenerated into an argument as to whether said feature should be optional, or compulsory. And the arguments against it being optional seem mostly to amount to 'it shouldn't be optional because I don't think other people should have a choice'. Like it or not, DCS is sold to the gaming market, and ED's own documentation explicitly describes it as a game, in several places. It is software sold for entertainment purposes, to a mass market that may not all share the keenness for ultra-realistic simulation of every possible feature that some players do. And without the purchases of the more casual players, ED is less likely to be able to justify adding further such 'realism'. If you want accurate-in-every-possible-way simulation for yourself, you are going to have to accept that sometimes ED will elect to provide simplifying choices for others that you personally won't use, because they sell more stuff that way. That's the economics of scale for you. (And please don't call me 'bro'. I'm not your brother, and from personal experience most people who use the term tend to be from a generation that would be more likely to call me 'grandpa' if they met me in person.)

Personally, I boy DCS stuff to fly it, not to complain about what other people do with it.

Yup. A nicely-printed 'DCS Startup Sequence' placard would solve D4n's problem. And wouldn't be a bad idea for me either, given how often I've forgotten to start TrackIR before running DCS. Though I've sort of solved that by arranging the relevant icons on my desktop in order, making it less easy to forget something.

TLDR thread summary: When I do 'thing', it breaks stuff... Stop doing 'thing' then. But I want to do 'thing'! Then you'll have to put up with 'thing' breaking stuff.

Source? This thread. You are having problems because Windows controller software is flawed. ED can't do anything about it. Go complain to Microsoft. @Dagger71Personally, I fly with a gamepad plugged in. Partly because I sometimes use it as a cheap 'button box' in DCS (and other flight sims), and partly because I also play games that work best with a controller. I keep it plugged in because the flawed Windows controller API gets flaky when you plug in and unplug controllers. Doing it that way, no issues. Or at least, no more issued than as usual with Windows USB stuff.