some1

They can't because real western pilots rarely have to deal with true bearings. Their charts use magnetic north, runways are referenced by magnetic north, VOR and TACAN use magnetic north etc. At least most of the time. DCS map is skewed by its Russian origins, where use of true north in aviation is more frequent. Same with using QFE instead of QNH by ATC.

The Hornet throttle has two 5 way hats. You can use one for comms, and the other one for the rest of the stuff.

Because it's Aero and not Quest Pro. Much higher resolution = more gains from DFR.

I don't even use eye tracking in Qpro. Though it may be beneficial with slower gpus.

How so? Orion 2 does not have any built in detents. That was on orion 1.

Yes, you need finger lifts for the detents and idle stop.

That may be a slightly controversial opinion, but I think an upgrade from G2 to quest pro (or Quest 3 soon) may be a more cost-effective option that buying a new GPU. G2 is hindered by its obsolete lenses. You're pushing a lot of pixels just to get decent visuals in the centre sweet spot, while everything around is still a blur, even though those pixels keep sucking computer power. Even the FFR tweaks don't solve it completely, as they degrade visuals and add shimmering if you apply some more aggressive settings. Qpro has lower resolution, so less pixels to push, you can further cut the rendered area only to what you actually see through the lenses, and edge to edge clarity means that you don't really need to drive supersampling so high in the first place to get good and crisp visuals. It's not a plug & play device, still requires some tweaking and getting used to its quirks, but it's certainly easier to get good results with it than with G2. Playing in 2D is also an option, nothing wrong with that.

I simply mapped them to the other 5way hat. Forward and aft for the china hat, and up, push, down for the boat switch. Coolie hat I split between antenna slider and the two buttons on the left throttle. Sounds weird, but it worked out pretty well.

Hsi compass card shows magnetic direction indeed, but CDI deviation needle behaves like it's using true course.

Trimming the JF-17 changes the FFB stick forces, which is correct. But it also keeps moving the virtual stick in the cockpit just like with non-ffb joystick. The two trim implementations add up. This is not correct. With FFB enabled only the forces on the stick should change, but the virtual stick should not reposition by itself in the game, as long as the physical stick is firmly held in place. Basically the virtual stick position should be always synced to physical FFB stick. For reference, J-11 has correct FFB trim implementation. Virtual stick does not move when trim is applied, only the force on the physical joystick is changing.

IF I have the FFB Enable Trim Offset special option checked, then whenever I switch to the back seat, Iceman retrims the aircraft to extreme pitch, either up or down. He flies the aircraft without problems, but never stops messing with the trim, so it's a wild ride when I switch back to pilot seat. If I disable FFB Trim Offset option, Iceman behaves correctly, but force trim does not. Here the trim indicator is fully up with Iceman at the helm in level flight.

I confirm it's working ok now, but only if the FFB gain sliders in the special options menu are set to zero. Otherwise the trim does some weird things. Not sure what are those sliders are for. I thought they adjust the FFB strength, so set them to non-zero initially, but they seem to add some curve to joystick response.

With the special option checked in DCS options, trimming the aircraft changes the stick forces which is correct, but it also keeps moving the stick in the cockpit just like with non-ffb joystick. The two trim implementations add up. This is not correct. With FFB enabled, only the forces on the stick should change, but the virtual stick should not reposition itself in the game as long as the physical stick is held in place. Virtual stick position should be always synced to physical FFB stick. For reference, FFB trim is correctly implemented in DCS F-15C.

These issues are still here with us in 2023: - Viggen is the only aircraft in DCS that requires "Invert Y" to be selected. A minor issue, as it only requires ticking that checkbox in DCS options. - The virtual stick keeps moving when trim is applied. So we have both force trim and regular non-FFB trim acting together on top of each other. This is fixed in the Tomcat with "Use FFB Trim Implementation" option in the Special Tab, so Heatblur has the required know-how to make it work. But there is no such option for the Viggen.

I've also noticed the same issue in the latest DCS version. I think it may be an attempt to simulate different force levels required to operate X and Y axes in the real force sensing stick, but it does not translate well to a moving FFB stick. We just end up with a very unbalanced controls, one axis has very little resistance, the other axis is very stiff. A more symmetrical centring spring force like in DCS Hornet would be a better solution for FFB stick owners.

Correct, you can use this mod. https://github.com/RedK0d/CLICKABLE-FC3 Don't count on anything official coming within few months (or years).

F-8 guns were utterly unreliable, IIRC it had something to do with single point of failure (hydraulics? pneumatics?) that could disable all for guns simultaneously. So these numbers do not mean much, there are stories of potential gun kills denied by guns failure, just like missile kills denied by missile failure.

AI being able to sustain 2g more than a user controller aircraft without loosing airspeed is not "performing to perfection", it's straight up broken. It's already been reported multiple times. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/326798-ai-turn-performance-impossible-for-a-human-aircraft/

You might have been thinking abiut C101, which is more mature than mb339 and I think is the best trainer in DCS. The MB339 still has some bugs and missing features that make instrument flying much worse than it should be. L39 has russian instruments so it's hardly a trainer for an F16.

It looks like the last open beta update has fixed the long standing issue with fireballs not visible unless close to the aircraft. Great! (https://forum.dcs.world/topic/201010-explosions-invisible-fov-depending/#comment-4798804) However, now the smoke from damaged aircraft disappears at a couple hundred meters, or when you zoom out. The flames are still visible, but some of the smoke particles vanish. All ok here: null Zoom out a notch: Ok here: Zoom out a notch:

Just change them and test if they are stable. Preferably one by one. That's all there is to it, really. The gains are minuscule though. The primary timings are not used that often in the grand scheme of things.

It would matter more if you provided us with a source of this information, rather than starting with "I think". Context matters.

Yeah, right: or https://www.techpowerup.com/review/best-power-supply-psu-buying-guide/ If crmaris (one of the most knowledgeable guys about PSUs) says you need at least 20% headroom and with 850W PSU we have around 40% headroom for the setup discussed here, then that's more than enough for me. Even with extra headroom for a reasonable upgrade in the future. Btw, the difference in efficiency between 50% and 60% load is minuscule, you won't get any noticeable savings from that. As for the amount of future proofing you can get when overbuying PSU, that's also questionable. The shrinking process nodes for CPUs and GPUs mean that it's going to be more and more difficult to cool those beasts not because they need much power, but because the contact surface is so small. The new 7800X3D is using less power than the old 5800X3D. 7950X3D is using less power than 5950. Yet they are hotter and would be absolutely impossible to cool using normal means at power levels that Intel is using on their 10nm CPUs. And even Intel will switch to smaller nodes eventually.

Identical in resolution, different in terms of colors, brightness etc... It's just that for whatever reason they decided there is some gain to run the headset at higher resolution, so the "100%" target has been moved higher. Heck, Oculus moves the 100% position depending on the refresh rate you select, so why not? Both G1 and G2 headsets looked comparable at the same pixel resolution. You could run them higher of course, if your pc could handle that.

Currently you have to press the button where the pylon used to be displayed.