some1

I have them off and start dcs from Windows like any other program. Don't use the dashboard at all.

Always nice to see updates to some older modules.

Mine has been working for half a year so far with zero maintenance required. Best to check their Discord and look at the support requests there, but I don't think there are any serious issues so far. A few people damaged the thread on the part where you screw the grip on, but that's fairly easy to replace. Belt drive may need tensioning after a while.

The heading indicator should have four fixed markers at 0, 180, +45 and -45 positions, allowing for precise orientation of the compass card. They are missing in DCS. You can spot them on every real cockpit photo of the instrument.

Yawn. Wake me up when there's a meaningful performance difference between gen4 and gen5 in the games we can play on a PC. And by meaningful i don't mean "0.5 s faster loading". Then I'll go and but gen5 drive, most likely with better specs, and for a fraction of price of what is available now. Until then, well, at least you can keep getting excited about benchmarks.

Nope. What I'm stating is that in real world applications the actual technology inside the disk is the primary thing which determines performance. The interface also matters to some extent, but not to the level synthetic benchmarks suggest. The current PCIe Gen.5 disks can produce huge numbers in synthetic throughput benchmarks, but it does not translate to practical results much. Direct Storage works on any NVMe disk, even Gen. 3. So far in that one game which has Direct Storage and which people bothered to test, Gen. 4 disks are basically as fast as Gen.5. And while Gen.3 is slower, it's nowhere near the difference you can see in CrystalDiskMark or other benchmark software. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/directstorage-testing-shows-pcie-3-drives-are-basically-as-fast-as-pcie-5 As for the current version of DCS, I have both NVMe Gen.3 and Gen.4 drives in my system, and loading times are the same on all of them. I tested. No word from ED on Direct Storage coming to DCS any time soon.

The results of practical m2 benchmarks are nowhere near the synthetic ones, especially with computer games. Here you can see that some Gen.4 drives score better than Gen.5, Gen.3 are mixed with gen.4 with no clear difference and sometimes even SATA drives give better performance than NVMe. And overall, the difference between "decent" and "top" drive are so small, they aren't worth paying for. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/crucial-t700-pro-4-tb/16.html

That's not how any gunsight works. Wingspan is not an input to a ballistic solution. It's only for the pilot to visually estimate range to target. Which he does not do if there is a radar lock, like in this case.

The radar gunsight does not use wingspan setting, it's only for visual aiming without radar lock.

In DCS the distance markers presented on the gunsight are weirdly spaced. They are at 2000m, 1200m, and 300m respectively. Which makes it quite hard to estimate distance to target. 2000 meters is way to far for effective gunnery. Even MiG-29 real manual gives 1200 meters max for accurate gun aiming and 800 meters effective gun range. Doubt the older system would fare much better. The marker at 300 meters is useless, it's the same distance you get "breakaway" red lamp next to the gunsight, so it's redundant information. On a real footage you can see the markers were evenly spaced, so it was possible to read the distance like on a scale. https://youtu.be/inOKZ7kIRnA?si=1wqcgD-EM6Q2KDav&t=2379 And here is an interesting interview with technician, who worked on Polish Mig-17s equipped with RP-5 radars. He says the 3rd marker was at 400m and the max effective range was 800 meters. https://www.polot.net/en/wsk-mielec-lim-5-p-radar-izumrud-rp-5-1959-675 So unless Razbam has better source that clearly states that currently implemented markers are correct, they should probably be placed at 400-600-800 meters respectively. Or 400-800-1200 meters if you believe MiG-19 would be set up for longer gunnery range than MiG-17.

Since somebody from Razbam on their Discord claims that it's been fixed for ages. No it wasn't. It's as bad in the latest DCS version as it was 3 years ago. New track attacked. 300 meters and I'm not hitting anything. 19-2.trk

Many of the early and pre-wwii fighters were like that, including Hurricanes and Spitfires. But none of the models we have in DCS. What we do have is the ability to turn off the automation and control the pitch directly in manual mode in p47, fw190, bf109.

It happens because it's bugged, simple as that. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/333296-ffb-trim-issues-with-iceman/ You can disable "FFB Enable Trim Offset" special option for the Tomcat, this seems to be the culprit, but you'll loose realistic force trim effect.

Yes, this has been improved but not fully fixed yet. What works: CDI and bearing pointer now align correctly in all three modes. CDI is centered when the course is set to the bearing pointer. VOR mode shows correct indications. What still does not work: - HSI TACAN mode shows true bearings instead of magnetic - HSI GPS mode shows true bearings instead of magnetic - GPS screen shows true bearings instead of magnetic, which contradicts IFE own manual This can be checked using the mission I posted here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/316047-vortacan-course-setting-incorrect/?do=findComment&comment=5336338 The waypoint is over at LSV Tacan, so the bearings should be 25 degrees, yet both TACAN and GPS modes show 37 degrees. null

For the keys assignments, most (maybe all) of them will work if you load the old profiles, it's just they are located now in "SA342 Pilot" folder where they used to be in "SA342". Click the "Load Profile" in DCS, point to the old diff file in "SA342", and it should work.