NeilWillis

Yes it does, they are not in your line of sight, so they are effectively invisible. That aside, if you have an issue with Rift software, why are you raising it on the DCS Forum? If you want answers, try the correct location to get them.

Turn on the controllers, move them to a location outside your field of view (such as behind your seat), remove the batteries from the controllers. Problem solved.

There is a big "if" concerning the video. The model discussed is the Gustav. We are flying the Kurfurst. It may be a detail, but the devil is often in that detail. We have a trim issue to deal with, so we have to deal with it. These arguments have been presented to ED, and we still have the same flight model - clearly that is for a reason, to which we are not privy. Just accept that you have an issue to deal with, and deal with it we must, because no change is likely, and we do not have anecdotal evidence related to the Kurfust to change that situation.

A little juvenile don't you think? Aviodev are working hard, and all you can do is poke fun? Does your boss at work treat you this way? If he does, maybe it is time to find a new job!

The part of the supply and logistics being discussed was purely aviation. I think you'll find that aspect is supplied by the Navy. I was also just pointing out why the marines and navy are closely associated historically. All accurate as far as I am concerned.

I dare say that once the advanced features have been released with the carrier following the Hornet we will see a complete suite of nav aids on ships become more widely accessible by third parties too. Time will tell.

Trained at Warthogworts maybe Captain Orso?

I don't know why you assume that because the Tarawa - a work in progress - doesn't currently have TACAN, that everything in the future will be the same. I can be pretty confident that the to do list at RAZBAM will include the TACAN aspect of the Tarawa, and you'll see it sooner rather than later. What you have is a pre-purchase example of the Harrier and all that comes with it. Just be patient, and you'll get the incomplete features as and when they reach the top of the list and are coded.

I suspect there will be a Beta version of 2.5, and a release version of 2.5 by the time the Hornet arrives. By then, 1.5.8 will be obsolete, and the Alpha no longer relevant at all. As I understand it, there will be a gathering of data from the older versions into 2.5 when you install it, which will reduce the download size, and then you will be able to delete or archive the old installs and basically have a completely clean install of 2.5 to work with. It's all information that has been passed on by ED, so a search will bring up the source docs for this assumption.

Nice! :thumbup: :thumbup: Day one pre-release purchase - not that it wasn't already!

It's a little early to be asking detailed questions like this when we haven't got hold of the Hornet yet. Your best bet is to look at the data available for the real thing right now because ED are making sure it only has prototypical capabilities. I am guessing, but one possible reason for limiting the number of JDAMs on a pylon may be down to the fact that there has to be data transferred to the weapon prior to release. That could limit the use of TERs due to the lack of suitable wiring?

It is in a word the best flight modelling found on any Viggen module available today. I would be very cautious about the number of loud complainers here. There is no such thing as a perfect simulation, but some people seem to think nothing less than that will suffice. There are occasional bugs that spoil for fun for a while due to the every changing environment that is DCS World, but the devs are very active, and working towards a feature complete module. There is a campaign now for the Viggen, that I am sure you'll find very enjoyable, but you need the NTTR map and around $9.00 to buy the campaign in addition to the Viggen. Go ahead and buy it, you'll not be sorry you did - unless you are particularly OCD!

Care to elaborate Gunny?

At the speeds involved, and the energy that increases exponentially, a flake of paint in space can penetrate the wall of a space ship. Why are you so surprised that a single post can bring down an aircraft? They have mass and inertia, which is all you need to make the energy do lots of damage to something travelling at speed.

Yep, the Marines and the Navy are very closely linked. Originally, there was a section of troops aboard all naval vessels, the total number was in keeping with the size of the ship. - I'm talking about back in the days of press gangs and sail in the British navy when the establishment of the Navy was equal to the next largest 3 potential adversaries fleets, and the US Navy had around 3 or 4 frigates in total. The biggest adversarial navies were the Spanish, French, and Russians or Turks depending on the exact stage in that era. With pressed crews, there was a risk of them turning on their officers so the Marines provided security aboard ship as well as the role the soldiers had in leading raiding parties ashore. Though they were soldiers, they were under Navy administration - there was no central defence command, but 2 entirely independent branches - Navy and Army, and the Marines were not part of the army establishment even though they wore army style uniforms and had army style equipment and weapons. They were always considered a separate entity, possibly because of the security role they also filled, with separate messing, and an independent command structure on shore, but detached and under the command of the ship's captain at sea. It set the trend for all navies around the world, which is why the US Navy also has a Marine branch, and probably why they are also so closely attached even today.

IL-2 and DCS World both have their origins in Russia. It may well be that when the rest of the world adopted the wind from convention, Russia didn't fall in line?

What we really need is a major UK based development team - VEAO seem to have lost their desire to add much more to DCS World, and they were our best hope beyond BVFG. Love the work that BVFG are doing of course. Thanks guys.

I have the Crosswind pedals too. I use the either pedal applies brakes method because it is analogue (incremental control) whereas the joystick lever is digital (Fully on or off only). The pedals can be awkward until you get used to them, but they give far more subtle and precise control than an on off button can. I'm looking forward to getting hold of a VKB joystick with the analogue lever too of course.

I suspect they are waiting for other developers to pick up the baton on this. It is a huge undertaking to develop all the modules necessary for any one time and place. As you said, what we have in DCS World is not the result of a single strategy, and has resulted in an eclectic range of stuff which is a little disjointed to say the least. The bottom line is, every module is a big investment of time and money, and it is not going to be a simple task to get the whole developer community working in any single direction. I guess it is a little like herding cats! Would we like more WW2 - sure. We'd like a lot of things, but everyone wants something different, and until a dev decides to back any particular theme, we'll just have to get what we're given I guess. As to which WW2 theatre is most promising - given the airframes we have right now, and what we know are on the horizon, Western Europe late war bomber campaign map, followed by a Pacific theatre map, then we'll have to wait and see. If we get some Russian airframes, then maybe a Eastern Europe setting might well follow, though I guess you could have Russian Spitfires versus Bf-109K and FW-190D9. I'd sooner see more emphasis on completing the inventory for the theatres we have, and know are coming. It'll take a lifetime to realise those alone, without expanding much more, and further diluting the mix. But, it's in the lap of the sim gods right now.

Very true. I would have asked for the option to be paid in dollars if I worked for ED. It worked well for me when I was working overseas.

Mountain out of a mole hill. Or can't you add and subtract in units of 180? There is clearly a reason why this isn't a priority - possibly because of all the housekeeping that will be required to correct it - every campaign, mission, ATC voice and mission briefing card will need updating. There is also the small matter of every other bug needing fixing too plus 2.5 and F/A-18C launches on the horizon. Do you really suggest you can't work around it?

If you know it exists, how is it considered a bug? OK, it doesn't conform to convention, but it is what it is, and clearly there has been no urgency from ED to "fix" it, so we will just have to live with it.

Until we see what ED say, we can only guess whether the F/A-18C will have the hide stick facility. Bottom line is that some form of head tracking will really enhance your DCS World experience, and running without something effective is a real PITA. I'd definitely aim at this kind of solution long term. You're paying a lot for the module, so to spoil the ship for a hap'eth of tar is simply not an option.

Doesn't matter if you are a fake news fan. There are facts, and there are delusions. The majority are silent on all matters. "Empty vessels make the most noise" as my gran always used to say. We get a few pathetic souls who know only complaint, and we hear them loud and clear. That doesn't put them in the majority however. Every module in DCS World will be selling in the thousands. How many people actually complain? I'd be surprised if it exceeds a hundred, so please, cut the bull. And yes, I too would like to see a F/A-18C roadmap, but adding your final comment as an afterthought to your first post just doesn't cut any ice I am afraid. You're wrong, and you were the one causing the thread drift. Enough said now?

Doesn't matter what you think, or come to that anyone else who wants to chip in with negative comments. It's coming, end of story. Buy it, don't buy it, that's entirely up to you, but why do you have to tell the world your views when they are utterly irrelevant in the big scheme of things? FWIW, by far the biggest online community is the formation flying set. They'll be very pleased to get hold of the Christen Eagle 2. Maybe you need to do a little market research before jumping in with your comments.