Fri13

The whole view like "stuttering"? If it is like double drawing the frames only when you move head, then that has existed since Rift CV1. It happens sometimes that VR device gets to odd mode where the tracking is no good and all. I have tried to source that for years, but what I have found is that it has something to do with the DCS World process and memory how it connects to Oculus software. Because sometimes it starts right middle of the main menu, sometimes after loading a mission. And main way to get rid of it is to shut down the DCS. And when DCS process is killed, even the Oculus main menu can stutter same way for a while, and then like 15-30 seconds after that it is all away. Launch DCS again and it works correctly. One time it was such that you got away of it by triggering the proximity sensor in the VR to shut off the lenses and then back. But it doesn't work always.

Let "the Gun Jesus" say something about that stuff.... I don't remember what video it was, but he talked about this that how you could use US .50 cal ammunition on the Russian guns, but there is the technical fact that you really do not want to do that. By the numbers you can fit it inside but it had some severe issues to do so.

It isn't. Why we need the bag.

Yes, it is amazing feature. I was first happy that 2.7 changelog included a box form as trigger. Until I tried it and realized that it meant that you can set it in any shape you want by moving all four points.

When the aircraft is coming at you, it is so far away that you can not spot it by any means from peripheral vision. You need to get your fovea on it. And you need to actually spot it. That is why there are trained search patterns and methods to scan visually the areas. You can not just turn head on generic direction and spot everything in 90 degree field of view that is moving. We are talking here about dog fight, the enemy is "coming at you" just in a couple kilometer radius. It is tiny, it is small, and it is stationary relative to your position. The aircraft stops moving already in the lag or lead or pure pursuit modes at the distance. It is question of relativity of the distances. How many degrees per second does the target move, how strong contrast it has to even become visible even. A black object on bright smooth blue sky is easy to spot, but that same black object on confusing background like ground and it becomes almost invisible. And are you doing a combat spread in a 1 vs 1 dog fight? This is not about flying in a patrol and searching possible aircraft. This is about BFM and such. You have already been engaged, you have already merged, the enemy is at your six coming for the kill. You can't see it because you are maneuvering and pulling G's and you have no means to move your body to get a required good visual to your rear on target that is stationary to your point of view, possibly even almost invisible. And in the such scenarios it is not enough that you spot where possibly a enemy fighter is, you need to recognize its pattern, you need to see the details so you can see that what is its attitude, so you can estimate its energy state, you can see what it can do. And nothing of those you can do with peripheral vision, you need to get the fovea on the target to get the idea of it. So you do not respect others because you are trying to refute things that you didn't read... Good thing. If you think you have better things to do in your time, it is better then start to read so you are not just repeating your arguments that has been countered in the first place as you are just wasting even more your time. Fact stands, TrackIR does not have the limitations that the real pilots has. And the VR is far closer to the reality in respect of those limitations. Players has custom to use TrackIR because it gives them artificial capability to look around, a advantage that is unfair over VR users. No one wants to be blind to enemy that is behind them, that is why you do not want to give that position for them. That is why you don't give them a means to get to be at your six. Why you don't need to look at there. The common youtube channels dog fights etc are boring as people uses trackIR and they give the picture that real fighting is without G effects and that you can just turn around your vision perfectly while pulling maneuvers and have perfect visibility to rear without any challenges. It just leads to the air quake elements.

When the aircraft is coming at you, it is stationary no matter is it a WW2 or is it a Eurofighter Typhoon. It doesn't move relative to your view point no matter where it is around you. And that is why you perform the turns to check your six because you can't see there well when flying still. You do the turn, the wingman does the turn. If your wingman is not like 2 miles to your side, they can't see much behind you. What is not helping you because 1) you can't move your head to even see there anyways. 2) You can't spot something moving that is stationary relative to you. Your whole argument point is covered and countered in my "great big wall of text". You just didn't read it to accept that your argument has no point.

For anything else than a MBT's the 57 mm would just destroy them. Even the MBT side armor is questionable as Sweden has shown with the 40 mm Bofors gun on the CV9040, but that is more about getting bottom part on tracks and AP round. But you know this as you are skipping every MBT that has their only strong armor in their front, just to go their side armors that are weak. A modern MBT can have at front a 500-1500 mm RHA values, but at the rear it can be as low as 55 mm. These things gets fixed when new damage modeling comes to ground units and we start to get proper modeling of the AP and HE ammunition.

Movement, that the chasing fighter doesn't have. When you have a fighter behind you, it is maintaining a pure pursuit, then it is stationary relative to you. Even if the pilot would be pulling slight lag or lead pursuit, it is still relative to stationary to you. And the human eye is not so sensitive that it can so easily detect a similar colored (again, aircrafts camouflages and all) low contrast tiny speckle that barely moves at all. That is why you need to get that fighter in your fovea and keep it there. Do not lose eye contact with it. Maintain it or you lose it. You can acquire it when it is so obvious that it is making huge movement across your field of view. But not when it is almost stationary to you. No it is not enough. That is in TrackIR because you have unrealistic rearward visibility, you have resolution that increase nicely objects contrast to whole field of view and you can just fix your fovea on your six without any problems at all. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-vfc-13-adversary-pilot-explains-how-you-can-fly-and-fight-in-the-iconic-f-5-tiger-ii/?fbclid=IwAR2wH1JMsU4EzlRDc_9hj8IXkDQuWrUe_kYn6QUnK70Q92-lDRACGlTK-Sw "The F-5E was a peculiar bird (VFC-13 currently flies F-5Ns, most of which were procured after 2006 from Switzerland). It was tiny for a fighter, especially one with two engines. It had no modern systems, unless you consider hydraulics to be modern. No Anti-Skid. No INS nor GPS. No HUD. Just a simple old-fashioned pulse radar and a basic gunsight. It had no defensive systems, no RWR nor expendable countermeasures, other than the fact that when pointed nose-on to an adversary it completely disappeared, like a cloaking device being activated. There was no sophisticated technology required to enable the disappearing act, just the fact that the pilot sat in a cramped little cockpit on the head of a needle with tiny, razor thin wings behind him. And when that needle was nose on to a Tomcat or Hornet pilot who had lost radar lock or situational awareness, his skin would crawl and the hairs on the back of his neck would bristle. Because he knew that the very next time he was sure of where the bandit was, was likely to be when he heard the dreaded, “Trigger down, tracking, tracking…” It was a plane perfectly suited to the role of adversary; fast, simple, nimble, eminently beatable by a competently flown front-line fighter; but capable of pouncing on an error and creating a learning point in the form of a simulated kill. If you lost to the F-5, you had something to learn, and that’s the way it should be." When you are trying to find someone that you know is at your six, coming straight behind you. You need to get your fovea in that target. You need to get it separated from the background by some means like rolling while pulling, and if that means you lose air speed etc, then you likely die for that you are searching it. That is the greatest feature of the backseater that they will keep their eyes on the threat all the time. Their job is to focus to that one thing and not to lose it because they needed to check a HUD or something. The VR does block the extreme peripheral vision, but you wouldn't be pulling high G's and pushing your head behind the seat to see your six. You are not there pulling 9 G's and having body rotated out of the seat and having excellent peripheral vision as you can't move your body. Your 5 kg head weights 45 kg at that moment. Your whole 80 kg body weights 720 kg. You can't move your arms, you can't move your legs... You just concentrate for the pulling the high G. Your vision is already blurred, it narrows down. You lose colors, you lose vision to around. And more G's you pull, more you need to use your center cone of your vision. You have all the glares, all the reflections and such from your canopy. From the surrounding environment, the sun and all. And you need to try and find that one slight grey speckle somewhere at your six where you don't know in which side or where. TrackIR is like parkin a SUV in empty parking slot. You can easily reach back of the seat to look back and you can put your head out of the window to look outside and you can have all time to look the mirrors and everything. And you do this all just by moving head by 15-20 degrees around. All the time your eyes are fixated to forward section to narrow less than 50 degree field of view. You can glance back and worth at instant speed and have automatic head movement behind the seat. The VR does nothing of that. You need to get your fovea on the target and that is in the limits of the eye muscle rotation. You can not just flick head 10 degree to left to check six but you need to actually turn your head that 120 degree to side. And that is not enough because you only see that the ejection seat is blocking your view. You need to actually lift your body from the chair to move further to your side so you can look around the ejection seat. Then what if you find the target at your six? What does it really matter? Why not use the mirrors in your fighter that shows it nicely? Why not use some piloting skills to actually shake the threat away? Make it overshoot, make it challenge for him to get the lining shot? The whole concept of the "Look at your six" is unrealistic because you can not do that when you are maneuvering for your life. You need to find ways to move head and support it. You need to know already where the target is going to appear based your move and have eyes looking in there instead just "I can just look 45 degree to my left and I will spot it because my eyes are extremely sensitive to movement at my six". Even when driving a car, there is a such a thing as "blind spot". That is the area between the mirror and your flank. And if you do not literally look over your shoulder that what is happening behind your 8-4 line, you can crash on someone else just next to you. A hue large truck, a van, a big orange ambulance... It doesn't really matter because your field of view is extremely poor at your peripheral vision. When you are stressed, focused to find something, you might not realize it even if you are lookin straight at it. Yes they are not highly experienced ones, but it doesn't get so that they start to avoid all the G forces effects to their vision and to their breathing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUsyeKAZvxQ With experience you get to be comfortable at the 6-7 G forces but it is still very heavy for the body as 5 kg head weights 30-35 kg. And you can get easily injured by doing radical moves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuDji9a_dqU The TrackIR problem is that it is way too easy and fast to look your six. The VR at least forces you to use your real head movements. And what you can't see in the extreme peripheral vision is not critical if you have already threat to your six as you shouldn't be flying by lookin to your six. If I need to look to six in turning fight, I don't do it to look around my sides as seat is blocking my wing. There are support struts an all on the way. It is easier to just put head to side of the headrest and look above the whole airplane. You get good visual to where your threat is as it is not straight at your 6, but higher than that as you are pulling upward from it. VR requires to move body totally different realistic manner but as we don't have G forces, we don't have restrictions for that either. But it is more realistic and immersive than TrackIR is ever. And thinking that dog fighting in DCS with TrackIR is realistic, it is not. It is just far more easier when you don't need to actually look around and find the target. It is almost same thing as using a snap view to closest enemy aircraft "Ah, there it is" and then back. It can be seen easily in youtube videos like:

And Arcade flight modeling. BF4 acquire lock in arcade manner. BF4 missiles pull maneuvers in arcade manner. and BF4 you can pull 50G turn indicated as only 5G turn in a deep dive with controls reaction capability that is.... Arcade. It does change everything. Have you tried to dive at 60 degree dive in F-15 from 800 meters at 450 knots while trying to aim and shoot a fast turning helicopter on the ground? It does not end well.... In your whole argument "I am going to do same as I do in BF4 and I will win" by not understanding that BF4 can not be compared because its arcade features. Exactly.... You can not use arcade tactics in a simulator that goes for realistic physics and all.... Both are games, do not mistake that. Other just tries to follow real world physics up to its best possible means. Other is just making a fun lookin game that gives shivers and happiness from quick action and make player feel that they are true stars. https://youtu.be/3NAXifmgDRs?t=107 Yeah, same tactic..... When you can turn in a dime in BF4.... You can do it so in DCS.... In real world the helicopters as well operate far outside their SAM net. Welcome to the AirLand Battle concept... You use helicopters to strike behind the enemy first wave units where the second wave forces are located. That is why the helicopters developed completely new means to fight because you got troops, vehicles and fire behind enemy front line. You are fast and mobile. Americans had UH-1 to go without escorts behind enemy lines, the AH-1 and AH-64 were to operate between to engage targets behind enemy lines to the second wave units. Russians developed Mi-24 that will not just shoot missiles and rockets but it will as well land special forces. It can mine the paths that first wave has cleared making the second wave not able to push through. Russia has massive air assault forces if required. They can come with 50 Mi-8's and 20 Mi-24's suddenly dropping troops just to enemy back door and enemy is forced to fight on two fronts, surrounded. The UH-1, AH-1 and AH-64 feared the Mi-24 because it had the speed to chase them. If they were operating 5-10 km behind the front line, they could not away from Mi-24 that was coming at them full speed. The Mi-24D/V has a rotating gun to just utilize speed and flank and spray the helicopter down. The Mi-24P could put just shots from couple kilometer range while coming at you. For the UH-1 it was not possible to even move few kilometers as Mi-24 was like a Usain Bolt behind them. Even if he would give you 60 meters lead in 100m sprint he would be waiting you to come to goal. When the Mi-24 knows where you are, it can just keep flying below you and you can't do anything about it really. And while you are chasing a one Mi-24 there, the others around you are just placing nicely a R-60M coming at you. Let me quote the US Air Force based their training and experience: "Apaches can hide in the radar clutter at tree top level, and use the INCREDIBLY sophisticated Longbow system to track literally hundreds of targets simultaneously. If I remember the numbers, the helicopters shot down ~5 fixed wing for ever chopper that got hit. Granted, this tested helos that were loaded with air to air weapons (NOT typical), but still… the Air Force left with the overall idea of “leave enemy helicopters the f**k alone.’" Mi-24P doesn't have radar, but it has excellent visibility to above them. And when you have enemy fast movers in your area, the GCI informs all the units in the area. They will operate and work together spot and report their sightings and information further. It is not so that there is one lonely MANPAADS waiting to spot something, they get the direction and distance to their targets from the network (radio, messenger and their own units). The ground forces has pretty good communication capabilities since the WW2. The portable radio changed a lot. Troops in contact can quickly inform about it. They can call the support and help. They can coordinate with the other troops in the area. And Mi-24P is there with the ground forces. It is in contact with the nearby units as with their own flight and further. They can relay the information across longer distances as they can get altitudes to do so. That is completely lacking at this moment in the DCS. If you do not place all the units inside a same group, they will not communicate with each others. You can place a EWR with perfect capability to one side of the map and it will not issue any warnings or any information to any unit outside of its own group it belongs. You can have a EWR tracking a F/A-18 flight through whole 200 nmi from the sea to the coast and 50 nmi to inland and it will not make a move what so ever to issue the warning to lonely MBT platoon sitting in a dark green paint middle of the bright yellow field - totally lost. And as long those F/A-18C do not fly inside those engagement ranges, they have no idea that there is a GBU-12 falling on them from 15'000 ft and they can circle and fly as wanted and there is nothing that happens. The whole valley is totally unsafe as there is no communication between different troops. The communication is the priority #1 in the war. So that you know: 1) Where your own troops are. 2) Where the enemy troops are. 3) What troops enemy has. It can be traced from the Napoleon wars to even further in the Chinese and Indians own wars (thousands of years ago their tactics were excellent for the time), and all that has today improved is the speed, accuracy and capability to react to information. And DCS models this how? AWACS and EWR radio calls. A simple few phrases for ATC and JTAC. A couple flight formation or "attack my target" kind calls to wingman. When you are trying to come high and above the MI-24P, all it needs to do is to fly below you. You are in deep dive straight to ground. You have no maneuverability to point your nose and try to get a gunshot or missile lock on them as they have all the keys for the engagement at that moment. Your best bet is really just leave them alone and not to get engaged with their weapons ranges.

Yes that is that what I have read but I don't understand what they can do more when already cockpit was updated in BS2 as free update. So maybe just a external model. The problem with the Eagle Dynamics is that it is not a Russian company. ED is registered to Swiss so it is a Swiss company, that has a office in Russia (in Moscow), and so on they are under "Foreign Agent" clause because they get funding from the foreign company (from Swiss where the money is handled and they pay everything to Russian employees). ED is a foreign company operating inside a Russian Federation. And that cause severe legal challenges when they need to acquire and handle a Russian military documentation. As the company that receives partial funding from non-domestic country/company needs to register themselves as "Foreign Agent" to Russian Federation. (Just like you do in the USA and many many other countries through a various other methods).

You extend the axis by using the X Saturation as I explained. The X and Y does not correspond the gaming device or virtual controller axis. It is only presenting the Axis tune panel white box relativeness. The red dot that moves horizontally is your real device axis. The black dot is presenting how will the virtual device move relative to your real axis movement. The another red dot that sticks to blue line and moves vertically as well is just linked to the axis presented blue line to visually show you the exact position so you don't need to try to plot it there. You want to concentrate that how you will get black box from left to right. That is virtual axis full movement scale. And how is the red dot (horizontal) moving with it as that is your physical joystick axis. In the end you can see that if you set Saturation X to 80% then it means you have just given 20% more input for physical axis as the virtual axis will reach full virtual deflection 20% faster than real one. Example with a physical joystick to virtual cyclic the black box will stay at the center when your joystick is centered in the axis. If you fully push joystick to one side then block will move to either left or right edge of the white area. The red dot moves with it meaning it is 1:1 ratio constantly. All the settings on the right you are manipulating that black box. How will it move from left to right relative to your physical joystick that is represented by a red dot. Always when you move joystick from one end to another the red dot will move from left to right. What you want is that black box would reach left and right edges sooner than the red dot does. That means you would need to move physical joystick less to get virtual cyclic reach its full deflection. If you have X saturation set to 80% then it means your joystick needs to be at 80% of its physical movement range when the virtual cyclic will reach 100% position. Now if you trim your helicopter so it moves virtual cyclic 20% forward (it is in 0-100% scale now at 70% position as 50% is center) and you are required to recenter joystick to apply trimmer, now you just lost that 20% as you have said. Now if you would need to pull joystick backward because you need to move cyclic backward, you can reach the joystick physical limit (0% in 0-100% scale) when the virtual cyclic reach only a 20% of position. How you can make the joystick have that extra 20% is to apply X saturation so you have that 20% extra in physical one. It will make your virtual joystick 20% more sensitive although, and might not be what you want for normal flying. What you really need to do is to learn to trim with multiple presses. So Move -> Trim -> center -> Move-> Trim -> center -> Move -> Trim -> Center. The only other option is really to get a non-centering joystick so you don't need to use "Center-Trim" function that is unrealistic but required for spring loaded joysticks.

Yeah someone insightful could lighten that thing. As so many discussions about back and worth that it got cancelled - not - just something - cancelled - postponed - it is coming - maybe... The KA-50 already received the 3D cockpit overhaul with new textures and 3D models. The BS3 would have been more than that but personally I have been waiting just the minor things 1) fix/implement the missing features and systems since the 2008 release. 2) Proper contrast lock system (for all modules) so Shkval could actually start locking easily on the air targets.... But if nothing of that is coming, then it is just 13 year old module with nerfed capabilities.

And BF4 flight physics are.... How accurate? That is the thing, unless the helicopter is hovering or stationary and doesn't know you, you do not get the change to get the lining done well. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat "The helicopter if properly flown will always maneuver to cut off the angle from the airplane, forcing impossibly steep closure maneuvers for the fighter. Typical helicopter turn rates are 30 to 40 degrees per second, three times that of the fighter, even at high g, so the fighter will find the helicopters weapons always engaging it during any serious contest. If the helicopter gun and missiles were selected for anti-aircraft (like the 30mm guns on the Mi-24 and KA-50/51), the results are that the attack helicopter becomes like a rapidly mobile SAM site, a very dangerous target.’" "‘It must be said that the fighter is only vulnerable if it drops down from its normal altitude to engage the helicopter. If the fighter stays high and prosecutes its normal mission, it is nearly invulnerable to the helicopter’s weapons." "‘I have personally flown many such engagements in trials, and the facts are obvious to fighter and helicopter pilots who know. The folks at MAWTS-1 pioneered the concepts I discuss above." ‘I have no idea why a fighter would engage an attack helicopter, and I can assure you if your erstwhile target is an Apache, KA-50 or Super Cobra with ATA missiles, expect to be surprised.’ One of the major benefits in the Mi-24 over others is that pilot and gunner has excellent visibility to above them. You will have hard time to get to jump on them from their front sector and need to get to behind them where they can't spot you. And considering that the Mi-24P would be operation 5-10 km from their SAM systems like Tunguska or OSA-8, you really do not want to get high to dive on a helicopter that has radio contact to nearby air defense to warn your presence and them flying in sections where one of them has good nice clear shot to you. These all requires doctrinal military behavior that current AI can't really perform (no dynamic radio communications, no dynamic independent units movement and shield-sword tactics) or players who are just with the battlefield attitude going on to do air quake and fly solo across empty spaces. This is why we need a Combined Arms to be prioritized so we can get a proper RTS mechanics to the game so on servers we could start to see dozen or so RTS players playing the ground war.

That is a good presentation of the problem. I had wrong understanding of that earlier as well. The key informations are already stated in this thread, a simple laser guidance and bang-bang wings guidance. When example a GBU-12 is dropping, it doesn't have any other energy than altitude and release speed. It has limited wing sizes and control method. Changing a 250 kg bomb direction aggressively is not really possible if target distance is unknown and bomb can not know predictive trajectory to it. This is what above mentioned GBU-48 gets with a GPS+Laser+INS guidance unit. The previous bang-bang unit purpose is just to keep bomb nose pointing straight to target. And now if you think about moving target or low altitude/low angle, but high speed release the bomb is falling by gravity toward ground. It doesn't have wings to glide or really alter it's trajectory. Even if the guidance wings can turn bomb nose on target, it doesn't mean that bomb wings has enough lift to start pushing bomb toward laser spot just by having it nose pointing at it. You would need a proportional navigation to it so bomb would try to intercept the laser spot by keeping it steadily in the field of view. This is as well reason why you shouldn't laze the target too early after release, as the bomb needs to use it's energy for the high trajectory to gain distance to above target and then use just aerodynamica to get it pointed around the already decided drop point. If laser is activated too early, then bomb will start turning to keep bomb nose straight to it. So instead high arc travel to above target, it is trying to go straight. And as more it is turning and turning toward laser spot, more drag the bomb gets and it stars to fall sideways by nose pointing at the target, and going short. If laser is activated too late, then bomb is dropping at high speed by it trajectory and wings has no enough lift to turn and alter it's trajectory. Relative to the targeting system, a moving target is same as a sidewind. There was a rule of thumb about how much you needed to lead the release point to moving direction (to the wind). It should be in the ED own bomb tutorials in youtube. But it was something similar as every knots you add a feet toward wind (direction of moving target traveling). And in A-10 you can program this to computer so it calculates the lead, or you could use the targeting pod lock system to point pod manually front of the target while it keeps off-set locked on target. So if a car is moving 40 km/h to east, it is same as 21 knots and so on you would need to aim 21 feet / 6 meters ahead, so about 1½-2 cars length. We don't have the bang-bang modeling in DCS and that leads to situation that GBU-12 and alike are too accurate for moving targets, windy scenarios and at short relase-impact delays as the guidance would be waving it around.

Seems that people don't understand that ED has nothing to do with this thread anymore. They have given their statement and you are not here to defend it by any means as there is nothing to change in it. You are to issue your arguments and discuss about the topic, and if you can not reason your arguments logically, then it is invalid. So far it has ended with circular reasoning against APKWS II with double standards across the whole DCS World offerings. And it is common thing here, be it a LAU-88 with count of Mavericks, a HARM and count of stations, JSOW count of stations, a cannon spread....

.....because very popular demand the custom weapon mods has been disallowed....

So they are redesigning it when they are making completely new system. The Mission Editor is directly responsible for the maps magnetic variations, GPS satellites, star positions, moon and sun locations etc. They have put a lot of stuff there from the reality. The dates are as well for tying up every single unit in the DCS World. That is why we have now this: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.5.6.52196/ "Introduced Historical mode filter in the ME. The historical mode is designed to facilitate the creation of historical mission scenarios. If the author of the mission wants to use equipment only for a given year, he can click on the small button with a clock in the bottom line of the Mission Editor, after which all lists of equipment and aircraft are filtered out for a given year. The lists will show only those aircraft or equipment that were in service with the selected country in a given year. This mode can be turned on and off in the process of creating a mission if you need to select objects outside a given year." And everyone are happy. Those who want realistic 2015-202x missions where US Apache is flying in a Syria, they can simply pick the APKWS II to their loadouts. Those who do not want to do that, can set their mission date to < 2015 and enjoy from not seeing even APKWS II. And those who want to fly Apache for odd reason < 2015 with APKWS II can just disable the filter and do what ever they want. And ED doesn't need to model dozens of different systems or anything as APKWS II is fully compatible with any Apache they are going to do.... Regardless the year! So do you want to follow the year argument or the technical specifications argument? As year argument leads that you can't fly with anyone else. While technical specification allows to use any ammunition there is that is just compatible - like APKWS II in 2015. It is stupid to argue that "this module will only model year XXXX" instead going "This module will simulate technical specification of XYZ" What is why we can fly as well various modules at various years than just one. Why now the technical limitation matters, but not when it would be about giving a fully compatible ammunition for the weapon when it would be flying in mission that would have it as authorized loadout? That is your argument? Why are they considering any specific individual year at all, instead a specification? And why all should be limited to history books and not to be allowed to be creative with the toys they are given? Why are you enforcing real world history, real world situations, real world politics to the simulator game that's purpose is to allow simulate scenarios that has not even happened in the history? Flown with a specific set of technical standards and compatibilities that should be the only factor that matters when it comes to what ammunition the aircraft can use. If it is compatible with it, then it is usable. If it is not compatible with it, then it is not usable. You want to fly them across different years, but you do not want them to have proper era matching ammunition that would be available to them.

You can try it already in the settings using another axis saturation. One saturation axis will lower your joystick ratio relative to virtual stick. Other saturation axis will increase joystick ratio relative to virtual stick. I don't remember from first hand was it Y saturation that will lower your ratio (the blue line rotates more horizontal) meaning your red dot can not anymore reach full top / bottom edges. If you put saturation Y to 60%, then it means that with 100% joystick deflection you have virtual stick only at 60%. Of course in helicopters this is bad thin as you just cut 40% of the cyclic movement range away. So, using Saturation X you should be able increase the ratio (the blue line rotates more vertical) and no your red dot reaches the top/bottom much faster. So if you set it to 60% in the settings, then you need to move your joystick only to 60% position before virtual stick has already reached 100%, so full deflection. And it doesn't care if you move joystick further as virtual stick is there. Edit: Meaning that X saturation will change ratio between physical -> virtual and Y saturation will change virtual -> physical. You can even make it so by adjusting both to 50% that you need to move joystick to 50% of its deflection to reach full virtual stick deflection, but you have just limited it to 50% range so you can never reach over 50% virtual deflection. Simply put, you just made stick again 1:1 ratio but you cut yourself to 50% joystick movement and in game.

Then simply make the official (default) loadouts based to that timeline they want, but let the mission designer to make the loadout selection as they see fit. https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4?t=1305 & https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4?t=3092 & https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4?t=1406 They are already required to redesign the rocket pod loadout system for the Apache. As you are not just loading one pod full of same warheads, but you choose what is going inside the pod. It will be plenty of choices and options how to arm it. So in Your opinion it can not be flown in missions dated any other than that specific year in DCS?

The forum software did it again, deleted all the text and left the pictures only. We have three choices for brakes. Axis for left brake Axis for right brake Axis for both brakes We need a fix where the third option works like a rudder does, it is centered unless moving either direction. When one axis is given it, like a TM16000 Joystick Yaw axis or VKB T-Rudders axis, then it acts so that when it is centered (50%) there is no braking applied. If the axis is moved from 50% toward 0% then it is applying left pedal. If the axis is moved from 50% toward 100% then it is applying right pedal. This is not a problem on todays 10-16 bit resolutions and having the "Slider" function do it automatically would fix the problem.

So how is that many can not roll their eyes further than the VR lenses show to them? They can not roll their eyes so they could get their fovea (the only thing in focus in whole field of view, about 2 degree) further than their VR gets. Again, some people faces are shaped so that their eyes are further from the lenses and so on they can see accurately the edges, but many can't as the get lenses closer and around their eyes. Yes but when you can not see details outside of the lenses, and you wouldn't be seeing colors or patterns on the current VR goggles black areas, it is very much waste of time to try to get those areas in high resolution and detailed as even if we would get a 270 degree VR vision around the head, our eyes can not roll so much. If we would be a rabbit or a horse, then we would benefit from such ultra wide view but we wouldn't be seeing well to front section. This is what someone tried to solve by having a color leds to illuminate the edges with colors that edge of the screen had. And they say it was immersive as you couldn't see anymore the blackness there but neither anything accurate but it just helped in immersion.

Let's say it is a business management decision because project budget and schedule, and it makes it more understandable because it doesn't need to reflect anything about simulated aircraft technical capabilities, historical accuracies or what the DCS World itself is representing overall with multiple different products.

As I explained, it doesn't matter what ED argument (logical or illogical) is, no one can do anything about it and can only accept it anyways regardless of anything.

Why we come to again conclusion that APKWS II should be included because: 1) It is already in the game. No extra development time. 3D/texture/programmin work is already done. 2) It is 100% compatible with the Apache in no matter what version or time variant you make. 3) APKWS II is special ammunition program that doesn't require any other systems to be changed what so ever for it to be there. It is not like others, you do not require to start adding new avionics or weapons etc as already everything you are doing for it, is being done. Only thing that ED would need to do is to slap APKWS II for a year for the year filter purposes and it is all done. Exclude it from the official what-ever weapon loadouts that presents only old years, but mission designers would be able to make it available in missions dated +n from it, like 2020 Syria scenario. If APKWS II would be a common weapon upgrade that requires new avionics, new updates, new all, then it would be logical not to be included as systems would not be compatible with it. But it is not, it is unique backward compatible ammunition to anything that can launch standard Hydra 70 rockets. And making a case for the APKWS II doesn't mean that ED needs to live in constant "Early Access" forever etc (that is slippery slope argument). But it is clear that ED doesn't consider APKWS II as what it is, and it will never be included regardless its technical compatibilities for older weapon systems.

It was already very clear on the second post where you said that it is the plan that it will not be supported as I said. We have already moved on, but ED reasoning why doesn't change even when a decision was made. No one can do anything about ED decision, no matter how illogical reasoning it would be. Everyone needs to just live with them no matter how they change through different modules and times.