iFoxRomeo

Thx for this info. Is it going to be released as a official module via the store?

Offiziell nicht kompatibel: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/minimum/supported/windows-11-supported-intel-processors Also Windows wird die Installation erstmal verweigern. Aber es soll wohl workarounds geben.

I don't know how much processing power it would cost. Perhaps the heatblur effect could be used or something like the MSAA masking in a negative way. Honestly, I don't care about Track IR since I fly VR. And I fly VR only and the hard limits in the other game are crap. I don't want this to be forced on VR players in DCS.

If you think it breaks your immersion that you can stick your head out, then a client side option would be okay, but not a server side option. To prevent hard limits that can cause nausea or discomfort, yet to prevent cheating by looking outside of the cockpit boundaries, I propose blurring the outside world as a solution, as a server side enforceable option: Both points together give back the immersion to the individual that has his/her immersion broken by leaving the cockpit boundary, and those who don't like hard boundaries in VR are not forced to have them. And no one can use this to cheat if the server restricts outside views. Fox

A server admin can not reduce your visibility, other than with weather settings. But it is possible to increase your ability to spot a distant object by allowing labels. Either being a colored dot or even with "text identification". If you can't spot or identify a target, then it has nothing to do with the server admin tying to make it more difficult for players. Perhaps the other servers you are playing on have black dots enabled? I have no issues with spotting in VR with my HP Reverb. Is it easy? No! Does it appear to be more difficult than what I expect it to be in comparison to reality? No! Identifying an aircraft can be tricky, especially when motion-reprojection kicks in. But identifying was/is difficult in reality also. Fox

I have to quote Nineline I'm not talking about gameplay experience. Do you have e.g. knowledge in metallurgy, aircraft construction, a physics degree? Or do you base your opinion solely on games you played? Fox

On what do you base your opinion? And how much is a little bit and what is the unit for this little bit?

@Wags A bit late to the game,but still below 7 days, so it's okay I'd say. Happy birthday! And I have something like a present: Do you have an Alan in your family? Do we get a WAG'S "WAR-WAGON"skin for the mossie now? And Me410 to fly against Fox

The same cannons like the Spitfire has, but de Havilland was unable to put them into the mossie without a delay?... Hmmm... I'd really like to see the documentation, that says so. @NineLine So if ED really thinks, this is correct as is, but the community just can't believe it, how about this: Some modules have special options like: take off assist, nose wheel steering simple behaviour, (non)realistic TDC slew, auto rudder, disable gyro drift, simplified engine management, afterburner detent, canopy reflections, etc.. Why not add a -no trigger delay for Hispanos- option in the special tab for the Mossie?!

This 109 lost someting. Perhaps 1/3 of its left wing or skin. Hard to tell what it really is. The rest of the wing is covered by heavy smoke/fuel vapor. It isn't the complete wing that got torn off. IMG_5320.MP4 This is to show the smoke/vapor. And the flash before the separation of the wingparts appear to be bigger than the usual bullet strike At 0:07 you can see the flash illuminates the smoke

@btd you did an excellent job! I noticed the freq. beating immediately after takeoff and reducing rpm.

So, aber jetzt attacke! https://www.golem.de/news/amd-ryzen-treiber-korrigiert-kernauswahl-unter-windows-11-2110-160520.html

@Flappie It is a really old bug. Hard to trace. It happed to me perhaps 2 or 3 times in all these years. But when it happened during gameplay, in the track replay it didn't occure.

Gerne

Such mal nach AIRCREW TRAINING MANUAL Attack Helicopter AH-64D TC 1-251 das ist die "alte" edition, die approved for public release ist. Es gibt ne Neuere, mit neuer Nummer, aber die ist nicht freigegeben soweit ich weis.

Der PC/PiC/AC ist für die Führung des LFZ wie auch die Mission verantwortlich, das beinhaltet auch "the final approving authority for all weapons firing". Wer PC is, wird vor dem Flug festgelegt. Da der Hubschrauber idR nicht alleine unterwegs ist, muss einer bestimmt werden, der dann die Mission führt, z.B. AMC Wie kommst du zu dieser Aussage? So wie es ausgebildet wird, so wird es auch im Einsatz durchgeführt. Oder wie meinst du das?

Es ist zwar schon alles gesagt worden, nur noch nicht von jedem. Muss: nein Viel besser: ja Nicht zentrierende Pedals: ja ja Apache und FBW in einem Satz??? No Señor.

Zack, und schon spricht ED von Multicore im heutigen Newsletter

You didn't say that before. At 7400m MW-50 is supposed to be switched off. So sonder-notleistung can be used without MW-50 above this alt. The problem of this chart is, that it is a calculated chart. No actual flighttest. I find it difficult to discuss the performance without measured values.

There is no curve for 2600rpm with std prop. 694km/h with 2800rpm at 9000m and std prop. What is the issue?

Das geht einfacher: Wo ich bin, ist PIC, und wo "du" sitzt, lag früher meine Mütze. Easy, oder?

Swith to navigator seat, or use keybindings for the fueltank selection Fox

I can't edit my previous post. Don't know why. @burrittoYes, should be P81

He didn't say 1,8ata at 9000m. He said 1,8ata VARIANT, DB605DB with B4+MW50. The calculation expects the pilot to switch off MW50 at 7,4km. The curve shows a drop in speed when MW50 is deactivated. It is hard to tell up to what altitude MW50 would still increase the poweroutput if it was kept activated. Fox