NeilWillis

It's just for Harriers - clearly! Seriously, I am sure that the devs will be working on a fix soon.

Then it must be something else that's causing the problem. Try plugging in your peripherals to different USB ports. Try deleting everything associated with TeamSpeak including your preferences, and reinstalling a completely virgin copy. Also, have you contacted TeamSpeak's own support service? I can assure you that the latest version does work with joysticks still.

Always add memory in paired identical banks. Mixing different sized banks is a bad idea, so I would leave this whole thing well alone. If you want more memory, buy matched pairs or there may be a huge performance hit, with no great benefits.

I can't understand why anyone who hasn't been a member of a club; organisation or unit, would want to, or be accepted, wearing insignia to which they have no entitlement. Basking in the glory of people that actually served when you have no reason to is a bit weird I think. That said, if memorabilia and merchandising is sold openly by those organisations, then they cannot criticise people for wearing what they buy - as long as it isn't used to create a false impression. Personally, I wouldn't openly wear even the insignia I am entitled to. I don't like tee shirts with designer brand logos on them. But that's just me. What are people trying to prove? Brand loyalty? There are however appropriate veterans caps and stuff like that, and it is normal for a close relative to wear a deceased veterans medals - on the opposite side of the chest to normal. Honouring the memories of war veterans, at the right time and place is a good thing. It is a free world (mostly), so if people choose to associate themselves with anything at all, it is up to them - even if doing so makes them look dumb to the world at large. As for the Walter Mitty characters - they deserve only pity. There's clearly a problem with impersonation of any kind.

It's not really surprising at all that operating simulations is affected by the interfacing hardware. You get what you pay for - as in all things. You can find some excellent peripherals, and you can also find some that are dire. Read the reviews, hear what people on forums have to say about their latest purchases. Above all, buy the best gear you can afford, always.

You could join us at RAF Air UK. We have a number of pretty proficient pilots who are all learning the AV-8B at the moment. Check out the website for further info: http://www.rafairuk.co.uk. You can either join our sessions, or hook up with some of our members to fly together.

That link doesn't work Boris.

That's real world pimp. Though once 2.5 has been out a while I am sure we can expect all kinds of wow factor effects. Regarding the phenomenon of precipitation under clouds - The whole cloud engine is under development, and we are told the current clouds in 2.2 and to come in 2.5 are a modification of the old cloud system, and a new one will follow. Presumably the precipitation is just one feature we can expect along with that package. I hope rain/snow obscuration will be part of that package. Time - as always - will tell.

It'd be even better if we could add our own voice recordings and call signs to make the system completely "modable". Can anyone come up with the relevant lua amendments and suggest a way to implement voice recording additions?

Choosing a mission will naturally provide whichever terrain map is appropriate. Once there is a unified version of DCS World, you'd simply launch it, select a mission, and fly. Why would you even want to restrict yourself to a single map when you run DCS World? Definitely an unnecessary way to deal with 2.5.

I would highly recommend that you move Windows to an SSD if you have the space. However, the priority should be to have DCS World there if you only have space for one or the other. Fundamentally, HDD for mass storage, and SSD for program operations is the logical approach.

No, you can run 2.5 perfectly well with just the new Caucasus map - which will be distributed free of charge, just like the previous Caucasus map.

There is also RAF Air UK. http://www.rafairuk.co.uk

Low flying in those majestically forested hills of the Caucasus. They look amazing in both the live feed, and the winter low level flight videos.

I have lost the shortcut for simshaker for aviators on my system. Can you point me towards where it is installed so I can find it to create a new shortcut please?

Great news. A happy and successful new year guys.

Know as in know, or know as in I heard a third party quote from a guy who knows a guy? The trouble with all of us so-called armchair experts is that we are just that, and nothing more. Shouldn't there be a little more to all statements about why flight models are so bad than just plucking statements out of thin air, or failing to substantiate them in any what whatsoever? Anything else is just wild opinion, and bears no scrutiny at all. I'd be interested to know why the other sims are regarded to be so much better, and on what basis he suggests that the sudden stall onset is wrong. Don't get me wrong, he could be absolutely correct in what he says, but unless he adds something to support it, the statement remains utterly meaningless. In a word, unless he has personally flown the same model 109 as simulated, in exactly the same conditions, all he is doing is failing to quote anyone that could have. That's mere hearsay at best, wouldn't you agree? ED will simply not take a blind bit of notice of any statement that cannot be supported by more than "777 do it better". In that respect, why should anyone else? Just explain a little more why you reach the conclusions you have, and we can all take them as meaningful

I'd say there's much more to it than that. But you're totally right about flying by the numbers. Go outside that area, and you're bound to hit problems. The huge gap is also about seat of the pants flying, G effects and all those areas currently beyond our reach - which no home PC will ever be capable of simulating in my lifetime.

I suspect the flight model will be as close as possible to the real thing, but there is naturally a huge gap between simulation and reality. I also suspect it will improve over time like a vintage bottle of Bordeaux - trouble is, we'll all want to pull the cork on day 1 and quaff the lot instead of waiting for it to reach perfection. So past experience says - it'll be good, but don't expect miracles. It is going to be the flagship module going forwards in the same way that the A-10C has been since it's release. That alone tells me a huge investment will have been made in the F/A-18C, and it'll be streets ahead of some of the other releases we have seen. Just accept however that it definitely won't be complete in early release, and make observations, but don't lose the plot when flying it at first. Alternatively, switch off your PC, and wait a year before getting it in it's more complete state if you can't handle the development phase.

Wags Hootenany! - Can we have one every year? It seems to me to be a great way to see in the new year (new era maybe?).

According to Wags, the release version of 2.5 will be a completely fresh install, but will copy across any currently installed modules rather than requiring a fresh install of everything. The current 1.5.8 Beta being updated to 2.5 Beta. The 2.2 Alpha version will become obsolete. I suspect unlike previous updates, the 2.5 version will arrive as both Beta and Release together. So if you are stuck for space on your SSD, it might be worth while transferring the current Alpha and Beta to a HDD in the short term to preserve all your downloaded maps and modules, installing 2.5 fresh directly to your SSD, and allowing the saved modules to migrate during the install process. Alternatively, and probably not a bad idea if you have a good internet download speed would be to start from scratch with a totally clean install. Things may of course work differently when the time comes, but I am sure ED will advise if there is to be a change of plans.

Shouldn't your real question be "which missions and campaigns will be supported through the transition to 2.5"? There are bound to be bugs, but any paid for DLC is bound to be supported going forwards. It will really come down to which will be least broken in the short term. I suspect EDs aim is to make sure that every campaign and current mission will be rejigged to work with the Caucasus environment. Any 2.* missions ought to be unchanged. The truth is though that there are bound to be errors and glitches, but that really is the price of progress, and total fixes will take a while to trickle down I suspect.

I'd suggest that "none of them" is the real answer. There are really 3 avenues for flight simmers to approach the flying environment. The stage has now been reached where the next releases of VR headsets ought to be coming of age, with much better resolution, coupled with powerful enough processing power and refined software to compete directly with monitors. The other routes being your chosen one, and 360 degree projection - possibly in combination with a fully detailed cockpit. That does of course require a lot more space to achieve, and certainly isn't a cheap option. What I am saying is to think bigger if your resources allow, or to save your hard earned, and wait for the next releases from the top VR houses. Sit inside a cockpit, whether surrounded by hardware, or within the confines of a VR headset. I suspect the days of head tracking are now very numbered, and an entirely higher level of experience is well within reach..

I am afraid this is purely conjecture on your part. Expecting ED to conform to other simulations of a module purely to satisfy your - possibly jaundiced - view is unreasonable. As stated by the last poster, it is all well and good to pluck ideas out of the air as to what should and shouldn't be happening is simply not enough. Anecdotal evidence needs to be supported by some hard facts. And yes, I am fully aware that this is the same old argument that detractors always use when someone sticks their head above the parapet and complains. Or are you a real world 109 pilot with some insight that no one else has? I'd be very interested to know if you do have some foundation for your assertions.

I have been using 0/0/0 curves for years with all modules. They really aren't needed, and if anything, just make larger deflections less predictable. A longer lever on the joystick will more accurately mirror the real world situation anyway, so why not invest in a joystick extension instead? It will allow you to make the fine adjustments because for the same angular change at the gimbal, you will be moving your joystick further, giving you finer resolution mechanically with no consequent loss of definition further along the control surface deflection range.