some1

Nah, nVidia is very conservative with their rating and on top of that, they have to account for Intel CPU's that can pull 100-150W more than yours. 3070 takes around 250W, up to 300W with OC. Your CPU is 65W, up to 100W with OC. Plenty of room for the rest of the system and peripherals. I wouldn't change the PSU unless you really start experiencing issues on the new system.

The mission is specifically set up for offset bombing, so that you're lofting bombs from behind the mountain, without visual ID of the target.

Where, in the campaign?

You can simply rename the old .diff files to make them work on a new system. Easier than exporting/importing the settings from UI one-by-one.

The summary of my playthrough of Caucasus campaign in November/December 2021 Overall, eight out of thirteen missions had various issues. I can appreciate the effort and production values, but like everything in DCS, it seems to fall apart when you try something more complex than the simplest stuff.

The PI mode currently works the same way as Computer IP Offset Bombing in the F-14. In both cases you have to visually designate "reference" point in a close proximity to target, because INS is not considered accurate enough to guide you for an automated bombs release otherwise. Makes sense. That being said, if the current implementation is correct, then the last mission of the Caucasus campaign is broken. There is no reference point to designate at the last waypoint, so you can't initiate the bombing run without some guesswork.

Not really. The most efficient way to learn the aircraft is to fly that aircraft, not a different one. You just don't use every feature and system from Day 1. Trainer aircraft exist in real life exist because they are cheaper and safer to operate. None of those matter in the simulator. You do something stupid, just hit refly. Besides, none of the trainers we have in DCS would be considered a good trainer in real life for F-16/F-18 transition. They don't have glass cockpits and modern navigation systems, so apart from basic airmanship there isn't much you can learn that would carry over to more capable jets.

It's unrelated to overheating, even the first burst from the guns goes way behind the target.

As I said before, for G2 you will be replacing one middleware with another one. I wouldn't expect much performance gains, if at all. It may offer a better implementation of some aspects than SteamVR for WMR, or it may come with its own set of issues. For Oculus and Valve Index, you'll be actually adding another software layer between DCS and the headset. OpenXR is more for streamlining developers' work, not to squeeze more performance out of the headset. *OXR device plugin interface is optional.

You're all wrong, we need RBCF-4XYZ MacnaPhantom

Yes, he's serious. F-5E is an older module and the textures haven't been updated to work correctly with the lighting in the current version. Welcome to DCS.

I did not have an issue with that part of the mission a month ago, but make sure you're overflying the right truck. There is another group with a vehicle nearby, closer to the bridge than the actual suspicious truck.

Yes, that seems weird. May be a bug. It certainly limits the practical use of Auto and Semi Auto modes.

Also make sure that you're assigning to the correct aircracft, L-39C and L-39ZA have separate set of controls.

No it doesn't. The real wheel returns to center when you release it. A wheel on the cougar throttle does not. The real one is a 1-way HAT in the shape of the wheel. If you really want, you can reprogram your throttle wheel to act like 2 buttons, but it's really easier just to use one of the spare HATs for that.

Haven't flown the aircraft recently, but it worked fine last time I checked.

BTW the default Bingo setting when the aircraft first loads is 2800kg. Isn't that too high? That's almost full internal fuel tanks capacity.

I created a separate command for paddle press and release, so I can map it to two spare buttons on my joystick grip. It doesn't make the autopilot activate automatically when I release the stick, but the airplane flies very stable anyway, so it's not a big issue. {category = _('HOTAS'), name = _('Autopilot Standby Mode DOWN'), down = iCommandPlaneAutopilotOverrideOn }, {category = _('HOTAS'), name = _('Autopilot Standby Mode UP'), down = iCommandPlaneAutopilotOverrideOff },

Sure, here you go. Even when there's less glare, it's still hard to tell if a button is lit or not. m2kIns.trk

I wonder is that really supposed to look like that? In VR the parts of image disappear unless you keep your head perfectly in the middle. It's worse than an ATM with privacy shield.

Only one of the buttons is really lit. Guess which one. Where does this glare come from? The whole panel is in the shadow, yet at some angles the buttons glare like molten metal and the screen becomes unreadable.

When I switch to the rear cockpit, Iceman will not take control over the airplane unless I bring the stick to centre position first. Which is a serious problem with a joystick with no centre detent.

How many enemy aircraft are supposed to be there in this mission? The voiceovers suggest there should be two, but I had four (+transport). In the end I shot down four aircraft, the lead shot the fifth, everyone seems to be happy, yet the final mission score was 80/100.

The attitude indicator is botched in a way that causes it to show progressive bank if you try to follow its directions. It will right itself after you switch back to flying using the horizon outside. That obviously makes flying in the clouds challenging. Considering that the fast erect function is not implemented correctly, and that the device shows the same error as standby ADI that is a less complex and completely independent instrument, I doubt anything in DCS F-5 artificial horizon is simulated correctly. As reported here https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/267104-horizon-fast-erect-no-im-not-selling-pills

Thats highly improbable, because a computing gunsight working in such scenario is much more complex than the one which assumes in-plane motion. So your explanation using JF17 simplicity is invalid. If they really made something simple, it would work in the scenario I described. That's why WWII gunsights work, no computers there. And the Sabre sight works on the same principle, it just uses radar to solve the distance problem, instead of stadiametric rangefinding.