Robert1983NL

Lol, is this thread serious? There's no bug nrk98. It's your flying. Just keep practicing :)

Thanks for sharing, AWESOME video. And what a hero!

Well, nowadays TTS can be pretty good. At least you should have the option. It would open up a whole new can of great immersion.

Agreed, custom callsigns should be possible, that can be text-to-speeched.

Yeah... That's the kind of missions I'm working on as well. Wouldn't it be awesome if we could fly the Chinook? First wave every Chinook carries a platoon of soldiers, and in the follow up waves the vehicles are brought in together with supplies and everything :) Freaking cool!

Awesome! Looks good. I wish I could produce stuff like that myself.

You would rather be an easier target for IR threats :smilewink:

As long as you keep some power in so that the full weight stays off of the ground, you can slide on and on. This would be possible in real life if the surface is really flat, and guess what, in DCS, it's really flat :)

Yes it can be GAJ52. I've done it. I've mapped so that I can enter stuff in my CDU while having that tiny button depressed. I can't recall doing anything special to map that button.

Nope.

I've said it earlier... But I'll repeat myself, again. You don't need to recognize things in your peripheral vision, as long as you notice it. Could you explain why 3x 27inch doesn't show FOV like the Rift? The Rift shows 90-110 degrees? I can imagine 3x 27inch showing at least 140 degrees. And ofcourse superior resolution.

You STILL don't get it. I might've trolled a little bit. But the core of my message remains and is very valid and also summarized in the picture. But I guess people just don't accept any form of criticism/rationalism here. That's a pity.

You still don't have all of your peripheral vision.

It would surprise me if the A10C didn't have that 'ready' mode for a fast alignment. Another question that pops up right now, why do people always put the UHF radio on MAIN, instead of BOTH? Most of the time I have the A10C started up, rearmed and most of the profiles set in about 2,5 minutes. You can actually already be airborne in about 2 mins if you do the air alignment. Just trim the aircraft and you won't need autopilot.

Thanks for the clarification! Like I thought, nice technology, but not suitable now and in the near future. Maybe for DCS 3.0.0

Borrowed this one. It's absolutely hilarious and totally sums up this thread and underlines my point EXACTLY.

Lol. I have to disagree, I understand you can tilt your head without trackIR as well ofcourse, but here's an example how I tilt my head, flying a helicopter: If I'm in a sharp turn I like to learn forward, to look over the nose and tilt my head at the same time to see as much as possible of the terrain, so if I'd be in the left seat turning left, I would basicly look up through the roof window and get the horizon straight and see as much as possible into the turn. The other way around, left seat and right turn, I need to lean forward, look past the nose and past the upper console to look into the turn. Again, getting the horizon level is more natural and provides the best FOV, since human eyes have wider horizontal view than vertical.

Why ask for ground power, if you can also just start the APU? Fastest way is to turn on the battery, start the APU, turn on the Inverter and APU GEN, then turn on the CDU.

The flight models in DCS ofcourse can't be compared to Arma's. That's why I think that if DCS improves on the points I mentioned in the OP, DCS will absolutely slaughter Arma :)

For your information, HEIGHT is ALWAYS AGL. Altitude is MSL. But I think it's not correctly used in DCS.

Again, this is fixed wing only. In helicopters it's more natural and better imho to tilt your head so the horizon stays level. I do agree that the basis should always be that the instrument panel is the horizontal 'baseline', and trackIR should let the user decide how to tilt the head.

I don't think you should want to do this. I think it's an outdated procedure, or used for basic training only. 8 to 12 degrees is more normal for a steep approach like Huggybear said. I've done these 30 degree angle steep approaches in the Huey, to get a slow and very controlled landing in situations where you have a very small power margin, like at high altitude and a pinnacle landing spot. That way you require less and more gradual collective inputs. But it has nothing to do with tactical flying.

Yeah ok, making it easier to test missions via the Mission Designer is probably the only fix that's not that simple lol. But maybe something would be possible by having an instance of DCS run the mission, while you can edit it via an instance of the Mission Editor in real time? Just thinking out loud.

Hey all, I've jumped into the mission building world and unfortunately I'm encountering many many limitations. I have many ideas for missions but after some hurdles my development usually comes to a halt because of this. Since the introduction of the Huey, a whole new array of missions can be flown. Troop transport opens the door for missions like Air Raids, Air Assaults, Car Blocking Operations, Resupplying etc etc. The possibilities are limitless. Unfortunately DCS is still very limited here... Most of the missions I have in my head or have tried to design in the Mission Editor are complex actions taking place in a small area, with a lot of (scripted) things going on. Many things are hampering me, and probably others as well, in building a convincable realistic and immersive mission. Since the Huey seems to be a great success but still doesn't really have a purpose on the online battlefield, I really think the following list of improvements should be high on the priority list. In my eyes it'll be a great game-changer. -First and foremost: AI. AI. AI. Right now the infantry AI is pretty terrible... They often won't move when asked, or move when not asked. Triggers often don't work, or when an enemy unit is near, all units just freeze cuz they can't shoot eachother because there's a building in between, for instance. A LOT of more fun and immersion can be achieved if the (infantry) AI will be improved. -Troop transport. I'm a noob in DCS. Never heared of lua before this game. Reading through threads about lua almost makes me dizzy. I'm not a programmer and never will be. Lua's are too complicated. I would just love an 'action' that makes troops emplane or deplane aircraft. -AI pathfinding/landing. Often when I set speeds/heights for waypoints, the AI just doesn't follow them. I don't know why, but is sucks. Also, I tried designing a mission where you land off-runway together with Chinooks. The whole landing is screwed up because the Chinooks just hover at around 40ft wiggling around for like 30 seconds before they finally hover straight down to the ground. Byebye quick air raid.... It shouldn't be too hard to have helicopters make a convincing fast landing, right? -Testing missions takes a really long time. In the Mission Editor you can place units all you want, you'll really have to load the mission and check everything out to see how it turned out. And this takes time. Hours and hours. Would be nice if there could be a solution for this. -ATC. Right now ATC is so poor in DCS, it's almost better left out. A lot could be gained here as well, and it'll hopefully force people to better and more often use the radio's. Also, it should be possible to operate as a formation under one callsign. That way you won't get the "C/S, hold position" 20 times when a formation is taxiing out together. I think these are relatively 'simple' and realistic fixes which have a GREAT 'effort : gameplay improvement' ratio.

Life must be hard if you see aggressiveness all around you lol. Don't you guys agree that, even though Oculus Rift is a great piece of equipment, it's not nearly good enough to even be considered useful for DCS right now, and probably the next couple of years?