klem

Thanks Flagrum. I don't think it's meant to be sand - if it is it's a pretty poor way of doing it. And it occurs over what would be deeper water too. As you say, probably a bug - let's hope it gets picked up and looked at. I can live with it but it's a bit of a distraction.

I have checked my details in the User CP. The box is ticked to receive emails for Threads I post in and the email address is correct but I am not receiving any emails. Is there something else I should do?

I am running three screens in Surround with a fourth below for lower cockpit view. GPU is EVGA GTX980 SC and resolution is 5040x2100. I have MonitorSetup set to have Center viewport as 5040 (3 at 1650) x 1050 plus Bottom viewport picking up middle part of the lower screen as 1680x1050. Actually, overall it is 5140 wide to allow for bezel correction. All runs fine n DCS. However if I Alt+Tab to desktop or other application the entire 5040x2100 shifts to the left hand monitor and can't be recovered. I have to use Task Manager to close it and start again. I have other sims (CoD, FSX) where this does not happen. Any ideas how to fix this in DCSW guys?

First a big thank you to the guys who replied to my PMs asking what their setup and results were. Actually things have moved on now. I dug deeper and bought the new EVGA GTX980/4Gb as the price wasn't much different to the 780Ti. If it is of help to anyone (as this is a new design GPU) .... I am running four screens, 3 in Nvidia Surround at 5170 x 1050 (adjusted from 5040 for bezel compensation) and 1680*1050 underneath for instruments. DCS is set as 5170 x 2100 so that I can 'cut out' a middle 1680x1050 viewport from the bottom half of the total resolution for my bottom screen. By the way if it's of interest, my three monitors are Samsung 226BW 1680x1050, AOC e2752VQ 1920x1080, Samsung 2333HD (tv)1920x1080 which all get pulled down to three at 1680x1050 because Surround defaults to the lowest resolution. I should have two more AOCs come Cyber Monday It runs at 30-35fps on the ground and 40+fps in the air. If I run it as (5170 Surround + 1680) x 1050 = 6850 x 1050 the FPS goes over 40 on the ground and 50+ in the air but I then get the entire lower cockpit width of 5170 x 1050 on the bottom screen which is squished and no good. Hope that's of interest....

I am seeing 'watermarks' (see attached), almost like reflections although there is no suitable background to reflect. As I raise and lower my head with TrackIR the watermark follows, moving up and down the screen from it's position over the water and disappears when I 'point' it over land (perhaps 'absorbed' by the land textures?) I am running four screens, 3 over 1, in 5040x2100 using the new EVGA GTX980 4Gb Superclocked GPU. Top 3 are running in Surround. I have never run this screen configuration before, it used to be 1 over 1 with a GTX570 and I never noticed the problem before. I am running latest 344.48 Nvidia drivers. Is anyone else seeing this? Any ideas?

I'm fairly new to this myself and it looks as though things may have changed. I can't guarantee anything but I doubt it will do any harm to try. Under windows 7 there is an options.lua in your folder : C:\Users\[your_name]\Saved Games\DCS\Config\. MAKE A COPY OF options.lua FIRST! Open it with Notepad++ Find the ["graphics"] = { section and in there you will find entries for ["height"] = [enter your resolution height here] ["width"] = [enter your resolution width here] Whether this makes the entries appear on the Options selection list I don't know but I think it will force the resolution you want. I did have the resolution I wanted on the list (probably because it is in my Windows screen setup) and, having selected it, it now appears into that options.lua file so it looks as though that list is just a pick list for writing values to the options.lua file. If it doesn't work, just restore the copy of options.lua.

I just moved to triple screen with one below for cockpit switches, etc. Where there are defined views like MFD it's easy to send these to another monitor but for just a downward view of the cockpit switches in a P-51D there's no named viewport/device so I have to try to create the view I want in the .lua. I can specify the screens if I don't use Surround: but I don't like the angled left and right views and in any case the click points are way off. I have tried Surround with 3 + 1 monitors ... and you can see I squished the height of the Bottom view ( height = screen.height/4 ) to get the aspect right but that's a shallow spread of the entire 'Centre' view on too small a scale to be useful. Of course I can get what I want in a 3 over 1 setup but that goes from 6600 x 1050 to 4950 x 2100 with a huge fps hit: Does anyone know a method of using 3+1 which places a scaleable cockpit view in monitor #4? I tried shifting it left and enlarging it in the lua but of course it creeps back into the right hand side of the third wide-view monitor. Is there a way to define a downward cockpit view (as is done - somewhere - for, say, the MFD) which I can assign to monitor #4? Or perhaps a custom, named, SnapView, that could be assigned. Any ideas really........

Virgin straight responses on all axes. I assume YoYo designed the FM using conventional, linear, Windows controllers and their output range.

Can we have ASAC on the FW190. I think I could use if even with both wings still on. :lol: :pilotfly:

Well, I don't get the squirlies any more after lift off (between 200 and 300 kph). I admit I raise the tail at 100 kph with full or nearly full throttle (more rudder authority) but she now lifts smooth and straight (no, takeoff assist is off).

I just discovered that elsewhere but apparently these are not stored automatically by DCS. I have to save them myself in an HTML file?

grrrrr...... Why do DCS insist on wiping our input files, it would be a simple matter for the update to at least rename the Input folder to Input_Old and then at least we'd have our settings preserved. Every flaming time..... grrrr.....

GTX570 1.28GB. Two screens (canopy view over instruments). Looking to go to 780GTX 3GB or 6GB / triple screen, 5760 x 1080; maybe four screen 7680 x 1081 to cover instruments.

Is he available for lessons or has he the pilots notes? Just joking about the lessons. True, all we can do is think it's odd.

Interesting point Buzzles. I have full trim and some back stick on top of that to keep altitude or a reasonable descent at approach speeds (below 300kph). Perhaps it was not meant to be trimmed for landing but one thing is certain, a lot of up elevator is necessary to keep it from diving into the ground with gear and flaps down in the approach. You do not see that in the video but, again, that's an A model not a Dora. The amount of stick back necessary smacks of bad design - not very likely I'd have thought, especially from Kurt Tank. So tell me please, without trimming do you find you need a lot of stick-back when approaching for a landing and at what speed do you approach and then touch down. By the way I have no trouble landing it, it's just the way I have to land it that concerns me.

I have my own suspicions about the stability of the 190 at low speeds because the smallest inputs will get her all squirly. However, regarding the video it's important to remember its an A series FW not the longer and differently powered Dora. Still, here's what I notice: Takeoffs at 1:40, 10:00, 11:20 1. The elevator is raised, i.e. stick back. until speed is established when he lets it off. 2. In the external views although I se a little wing wobble I don't see excessive aileron, rudder or elevator action. I wish we could see what his hands are doing during takeoff and landing. There is some directional control down the runway, watch the canopy against the background, but not excessive and he seems to go into takeoff power very quickly. 3. The 11:20 takeoff is a touch and go - is he really trimmed back as far as we have to for the landing making it tricky to go into a touch and go? Is the landing trim required in DCS excessive? Landings: 8:30, 10:55, 13:40. I watch his upper right arm and in the very late finals he does appear to be working (the ailerons?) but not the elevators until he flares for the three pointer. At no time does it look as if he is working as hard as I have to to keep it straight immediately after takeoff!

Actually I found that having made the three point landing it is best to pull the stick back immediately and use rudder inputs to make small adjustments to direction until it slows a little. Even using light brakes tends to throw it too far off direction and it is strangely difficult to apply both brakes exactly evenly.

The problem I have with this Poll is that it is ambiguous and slanted towards change. For example: Yes, I would like the default cockpit view to be centered with the current default as an option. First, the default cockpit view is already centred. It is only the gunsight that is off centre. Of course the OP meant the default view should have the gunsight centred but that brings two questions. 1. Is the gunsight to be centred on the cockpit coaming, i.e. on the aircraft centreline? That is not historical as it was physically offset and there may be many objections to this even though it gives us a successful 2D solution (also see the previous 'binocular' post by MACADEMIC). or.... 2. Is the entire cockpit view to be offset so as to pull the gunsight into the centre of our screens? This would lead to many objections to flying with the eyeline off the aircraft centreline, especially as the default view. Also, there is no Poll option for the 'centred gunsight' to be the option rather than the default. No, I would prefer the cockpit view stay off-center for ease of gunsight use. Well, if that gives ease of gunsight use, why the Poll? Of course it's just the simple question 'No I would prefer the cockpit view stay off-center with no other changes' because changes are what the first option is about. By the way, as far as I can see there is no advantage to moving your head with TrackiR because the reticle is already fully in view. In CoD you can't see the reticle centre unless you do move your head. And, as my previous post, the rounds go straight ahead of the gunsight and pass through the reticle centre. The odd thing is tracking a target in normal view and then moving off-centre to fire at it with the offset reticle and gun boresight (which is not historical). After more thought, my preference would be to align the actual gunsight to the a/c centeline, not historical I know, but that would overcome our binocular vision problem as well as the current need to track a target off the a/c centreline. There are other issues with the offset gunsight: in normal binocular vision we would see along the side of the sight to turn on the gunsight and to see the range setting. As it is you have to move your head with TrackIR or move your head with the keyboard to see the range setting (you can just about see the switch). My second preference is to leave it alone.

This is my current set up (picture shows CoD but I fly full cockpit view including instruments below in DCS) but I will soon go triple screen plus the instrument panel below. I will be scrapping the controls front board and building pedestals for throttles and centre stick plus right hand console for mouse. I have an Eliza Tinsley office chair which is very comfortable for gaming.

Well, the point of the betas is for us to try them out and feed back any issues. I just hope everyone is doing that or when it is released there could be a raft of complaints over things that may have been overlooked. Having said that there is no specific Bug reporting Sticky, the issues are all mixed in with the general posts. 'In another place' some betas were taken by the guys to be a finished item and just complained about faults instead of feeding them back. I know that's not what you are doing but some guys do lose sight of the point of the excercise.

I don't understand all the fuss. It is not 'offset as in IL-2/CoD' where you cannot use it without moving your head. In it's current 'offset' position the rounds still pass through the centre of the gunsight, you do not need to move your head or view to use it. I wish MG had done this in IL-2/CoD instead of the exaggerated pedantic 'it must be real' when with a two dimensional screen it can never be. I think ED have got this absolutely right for our two dimensional viewing.

This thread is far too long to read all through and may opinions are being repeated anyway so here's my 2p I have Saitek X52 Pro (Hall Sensors) and MFG Crosswind Pedals (Excellent by the way, better than any others I have used). I have no control curves set, just the 'virgin' slopes. What I say next is without any real flying experience since gliders and Chipmunks 50 years ago plus 20+ years of flight simulators both 'game' and professional and like everyone else here, I haven't flown a real FW190D-9 so I can't say how it should be. I have little trouble keeping the Dora straight on takeoff using locked tailwheel, providing I have lined up accurately and I stay right on top of directional control with the occasional kick of rudder. At 150kph I gently ease the stick to the centre and allow the tail to come up before it flies itself off during which its a case of more very careful rudder control as the speed builds. Lift off is around 200kph usually with a tilt to the left requiring a smidgen of aileron plus rudder to try to centre the ball. Then the trouble begins as first the nose kicks up calling for frim elevator control and then it squirls around and constant quick but tiny control inputs are necessary until it reaches 300kph when I raise gear and flaps and I note I am roughly on TO heading but never on the centreline Above 300kph it settles down nicely. 'Tiny' inputs may be a matter of stick scaling but I prefer not to do that because it flies well without it and I assume the FM is designed around non-scaled sticks. On landing I get the same 'instability' with landing flap down below 250kph and it squirls around at the slightest change of power or control. Now I know these changes will cause flight changes but I question whether the FW is too unstable at these low speeds. So that's my question, is it too unstable at low speed? Can anyone shed historical light on this?

+1 Does anyone know how this will be handled?

Is the FW190 trim gauge reading the wrong way round? i.e. when I trim the nose up the gauge reads -ve degrees. I know the trim tab actually goes down (-ve) pushing the elevator up (+ve). It just seems intuitively wrong for elevator and nose 'up' to show -ve on the gauge. Is it showing tab degrees?

Frequently getting an error message titled as above. I am mostly flying the Instant Action missions and a simple takeoff mission I made. Message reads : Line -1: Error: Subscript used with non-Array variable