Fri13

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.

"No plans currently" means It is open for discussion as it is subject of change" "Our plan is" means "it is not subject of change so discussion can not change it". When you use word "currently" then it means that you can change it in the future as there is no plan to any direction. If you do not like how you were informing ED plans to people, then learn not to use word "currently" as it has very clear definition and meaning for possibility of change for reason. You can learn more about word "currently" from here and what it means: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/currently

I already made it very clear that what You said, that you changed from the "No plans currently" to "We have now a plan". First You said: "we have no plans currently for APKWS on the DCS AH-64D " Then You said: "we have replied that the APKWS will not feature on the Apache" It is crystal clear that IT WILL NOT GET THEM, because you have in the time of this thread made a plan that there will never be them, even when first it was said that you have not had plans for either direction. No need to be insulting.

I can spot in Rift S from anywhere the lenses just show (except the very edge of lens). I can't VID them but I can spot. Against sky it is easy as they are dark spots. Against ground it depends that what is the surrounding. I like to use a Caucasus terrain texture mods that add more variation to ground and so on more challenges to spot things, as otherwise they would be too easy to see a dark object under a tree or anywhere open. At least the shadow system works well in the desert maps as coming from sun direction (obscured shadow) the vehicle can be very challenging if impossible to spot. But coming from other directions and you can see the shadows for multiple kilometers.

"When you're the first to die in your PUBG squad - Ghost": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm4OiGwrnhk There are different ARMA communities, even such where you have only one life and then you are out. It is not fun to be killed early and can't participate anymore for 30-60 minutes. That is what DCS servers should be able to offer from the start. KIA = No playing for X hours. MIA = No playing before pilot is returned by SAR Too many destroyed planes (crashed, shot down etc) = No playing for X hours. In the future dynamic campaing such functions should be there for servers to enable (notice, not enforced for everyone) so that players need to be careful not to be shot down or do anything foolish. Common thing is that players who enjoy from start -> die -> respawn -> die -> respawn -> die process are those who have low patience and high tolerance to rage when they don't get to play as wanted. So they would not like to play on servers that cause more tension and risks to be unable fly smart manner. Especially if it is a group of friends who continue campaign by themselves when the KIA/MIA one is like in cooling period. But it will put friendships very hard place if someone causes troubles for another...

That is the "Circa XXxx" argument that module is not to be flown in any mission that is dated for a year other than the one specific one that developer say it was taken from. And that requires to ignore that military vehicles are in-service for multiple years without updates and modifications (in other words, they would every year receive updates and changes constantly). It as well requires to ignore that DCS World is a digital combat simulator that is suppose to be free from real world politics, religion and weapon manufacturers influence, allowing players to simulate "what if" scenarios with only limitation of the real world physics (no flying UFO) and technical limitations (no Vikhr for Apache). So again, they wouldn't. The Apache would be flying in the 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022 in the condition that it is modeled by ED. Only thing is that later on new weapons come available, some are not compatible, but some are. It is up to mission designer to select: 1) What map is chosen. 2) What countries belong to what coalition 3) What is the mission date. 4) What modules are allowed. 5) What weather is in the mission. 6) What weapons and supplies are available in the map and where. 7) What is the situation for everyone, red and blue (and neutral). etc If someone does not want to fly 2005 Hornet in 2011 dated mission in Syria so they can fly with 2007 Viper and 2009 Harrier.... It is their on choice. Otherwise they should never fly in Syria or with those other aircraft because every one of them is from different time period. Through this thread ED statement has changed from "We have currently no plans to support APKWS II" -> "We now have a plan to not support APKWS II".

VR field of view for most is not narrower than their fovea field of view. You lose the extreme peripheral vision that doesn't have colors or shape recognition. You can spot a movement on high contrast objects but nothin small. Example take a normal sun glasses, they already cover a larger area than you can see properly. You would need to get those sun glasses field of view over the 6'clock position to see properly there. That is why if we could get the black VR edges colored and lit at the proper values then we would be fooled that we have full wide field of view. To do that it could be possible to have just a some very low resolution panels around changing just proper patterns and illumination and it would look more realistic.

You get already a good idea with this from F-16 and F-35 pilot: Every human is different by their eyes physical part, but the field of view is generally same for everyone. So that is what is the normal good area to look at for relaxed steady head position just to look with eyes. Why important avionics are placed in forward section (blue) and critical ones are wanted to be in the green area (HUD and so on) as when you have head supported for high G, you have easy time to look at the HUD. The next one is about the field of view of your eyes when you have head straight ahead. You have great focus capability only 30 degree forward from your head. You have 60 degrees for the 3D vision as both your eyes will see there (this is little variable by the people eye sockets depth, nose ridge size etc). And 120 degree is your peripheral vision that how much either your eye can turn in eye socket to see something sharply by getting eye fovea in that position, it is just about 60 degree left or right. Then after that you don't see sharply anything. You only can see a high contrast objects (lights, glares and such), movement and similar. So to see 180 degree backward position, you need to turn head 180-60 = 120 degrees to either direction so you can have your fovea in the area, that is 30 degree further than just looking straight left or right with nose pointing there. Typically people do not turn their head 90 degree to look side but they turn like 40 degree and then rest they look by moving eyes just so that they get both 60 degree vision area there. And they assist it with torso movement so head doesn't need to move much. Here is a example screenshot from a pilot checking his six. Blue line is where the vertical stabilizer is located. On me with the Rift S, I can see yellow line with just turning my head, no shoulder movement, no torso twisting, just turning my head. The orange line is how far I can see when I do similar movement as the pilot does by twisting my torso so my opposite side shoulder comes off the seat like he does have. Then I can turn my head so far that Rift S edge is on the orange line and I can see past the vertical stabilizer. I don't have the harness, I don't have any G forces, I don't have heavy helmet, I don't have basically any similar challenges in VR that the pilot has. You can see example here what the pilot does naturally to look further at his right side: That is just casual flying, staying in formation and observing the area and checking times for overfly specific place with a second accuracy. Now think about it all in the higher G's. You are not turning your head around and constantly keeping G's and check your six like with TrackIR you can. Why the VR already brings it closer to realism by requiring you to physically turn head and limit you. Some people have installed the harness straps with pullers, so when the G increases in DCS, their seat straps will pull them tighter to the seat, restricting more their head movements as there is tension in harness trying to keep their back in the chair.

That is correct. The Harrier doesn't have a "SOI" principle like in A-10 or F/A-18C. You have a "HOTAS MODE" that is the Sensor-Select-Switch 2x that will dedicate it to TPOD control alone. You "Enter" and "Exit" this HTS mode always with 2x push. And as long you are in the mode, the SSS will only operate the TPOD. The AV-8B N/A Harrier has very well designed layout (that Razbam has not modeled correctly) and at the time when it was new, it was something special. Because even compared to 2005 Hornet that didn't have LITENING or ATFLIR at the time, were limited to NITEHAWK targeting pod that was just forward seeing, so you didn't have good visibility to rear parts like today. And example in the first Gulf War there was only four NITEHAWK pods available. At the time (in-service since 1987) AV-8B N/A was huge factor as it could operate at night time and it had own contrast lock based targeting system in its nose, laser spot tracker integrated to same camera. As those Hornets that used NITEHAWK, couldn't designate target with the laser for themselves with it, as they needed a another The ASQ-173 pod to acquire the laser spot for delivery. At that time the Harrier operated without targeting pod as it was not required. You had ground troops designating the targets and DMT included LST to lock on that laser spot at night. You got FLIR imagery for the HUD or MFCD and whole system was without "2x SSS". Then later a laser self-designation was required, and AV-8B Harrier fleet received the LITENING before USMC C Hornets (D models got it too). And one simple way to integrated the LITENING to Harrier user interface was to make it a separate sensor. Hence the 2x SSS to enter and exit the HTS mode. Otherwise you just used SSS to switch the important systems to panels. SSS Left = EHSD and EW pages to left MFCD SSS Right = FLIR to right MFCD SSS Aft = LST/TV for right MFCD SSS Forward = HUD (INS) designation or maverick video to left MFCD. What there is not modeled is that first time you uncage the maverick, the maverick video should pop to left MFCD in any page. If you switch away from that maverick video page (using OSB or SSS Left) before launch, then to get it back you need to open Stores page and uncage the maverick again. But otherwise you shouldn't need to go to Stores page to get IR or Laser Maverick video visible on left MFCD. This way the SSS is very is and simple to use, you don't assign different pages to different sides as those are the only critical important ones that you quickly and easily open visible. So now when you add the Targeting Pod for your arsenal, it doesn't have a SSS direction control. It doesn't fully replace the DMT itself (you need to keep DMT powered so it doesn't brake its gimbal as it is otherwise freely moving) but you don't need to use DMT anymore as such way. But you couldn't put the TPOD as SSS Aft function because you wouldn't have any means to control the pod using HOTAS as you would only be able do so using the OSB then. So not so good idea. And this is why you need to use 2x SSS to exit the HOTAS mode so that you get to use SSS Forward to switch between INS/IRMV for TDC control. As when you are using TPOD, you are don't be using DMT at all, so it becomes little odd to use 2x SSS as it sounds first as unnecessary extra step, and especially stupid as you lose other SSS functions meanwhile.

Based to Mil's colleges the Mi-24 was a "VBMP" (Flying IFV) as well: https://youtu.be/JZ5je96v8H8?t=464 And considering how effective the BMP-1 became and fearful, and now you had such flying.

That is why the crews train for various basic tactics to hide and stay mobile. You wouldn't be spotting them easily to be engaged than when required to go open. Tank crews wouldn't want to go inside forests either as it is too difficult to travel and if there is enemy you are just sitting duck for infantry. And if the enemy artillery or mortars gets information of your location, the hell will get loose. Once one M1 Abrams commander told that they got surprised by the mortar fire, and he didn't even get to command driver to move, when driver was already pretending to be in a F-1 and put everything he got just to get out of that area, possibly braking few speed records too. You don't want to be front of the attack helicopter line of attack when it get to know your position as when it launches its rockets, it will be a firework display. As well being vulnerable for sudden hit from MBT at 1-2 km distance or 3-4 km for ATGM that you didn't spot in time. What makes those small helicopters with ATGM so effective that you can get quickly to flank or rear and just get couple missiles simultaneously launched and then vanish. That is why you hide, and you hide so well that you don't get spotted but you have the initiative to take target out first and then roll to cover.

I think it was said that Mi-24P pilots train for the night combat, using flares as well to illuminate the areas. In Afghanistan that got ambushers flee away from side of the route when lit up. This is the same thing as with Su-25, Su-25T that at least can use the SAB-100 illumination bombs for 1-5 min time period and Mi-24/KA-50 etc can use S-8O or S-8OM illumination rockets for less than a minute. In a pitch black night (or in bad weather at all) I don't think anyone want to be flying Mi-24P at least without NVG. We have interesting options for performing combat operations in Mi-24P at night, but it requires coordinates cooperation between various units. Like if we could get a troops in contact have flare pistols used properly, mortar teams to launch flares up in the air and so on.

You might be right. Maybe the better would be something with similar syntax like: DCS: 1980 West Germany DCS: 1970 USSR DCS: 2010 Russia DCS: 2000 USA DCS: 1980 Israel But it really should be so that all those units will come in the DCS World, but you only can use them in Mission Editor or in Combined Arms (command and use them) with the license. This way if your friend has a license, he can make a mission and you can both fly there and you see as well units and all. But you can't do anything with them even having Combined Arms installed. This way you can make a missions for multiplayer server where everyone can fly and bring units from different eras, like having a Persian Gulf Map and have Israel troops from 1980's there, with the US, USSR, French ground/sea units and so on. If someone wants to be using Combined Arms, they need to own the license.

It almost looks like that pilots are having a competition that who can fly closest to the people....

IMHO you have three main options for a VR. The discontinued Facebook Rift S that is dedicated PC VR headset. The Facebook Quest 2 that is as well mobile but you can wire it (and now use wirelessly) to PC be used as dedicated PC VR. The HP Reverb G2 might be the best option as price and quality now, a dedicated PC VR. To match these for a good performance, I would go for a Nvidia 3060 or maybe 2070 on older side for those depending your exactly CPU. (Don't know anythin about AMD side...) You are looking pretty heavy price range for the HP reverb as it is about 700-800 now, compared to Quest 2 that does it for about 350. I would start definitely with the Quest 2 IF YOU ARE OKAY FOR FACEBOOK ACCOUNT!

Why it would be nice that we could start getting the various era ground units assets packs. For eras like 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. And then for various countries in those, examples: 60's USSR 70's USSR .... 70's East Germany .... 90's East Germany .... 80's US 90's US XX French XX West Germany XX UK XX Israel XX Iran/Iraq.... All units to DCS World, where we would start to get making missions that everyone can join but the editor requires to own the assets pack to add them or command them in Combined Arms. We could start to see more proper missions. But I don't remember did ED say anything about the rebels or technicals for DCS, that were those too "civil" like units to be used? We should as well get various other cars than just busses, like from SUV to different vans and jeeps and such so we could generate more fitting Syrian missions where your task is just to observe and report. As well more various ships, boats and such to be hunted with Apache and KA-50's. This is why it is hopeful that Battlefield Productions would get deal done with the ED for these. We are getting Mi-24P soon and we lack the Fulda Cap map (but can pretend it with Caucasus) where Mi-24, A-10A, T-55/M60, ZSU etc would really be creating the interesting missions. MiG-23, MiG-21, MiG-19 against.... Well, that is where it really ends.