DefaultFace

Interestingly enough I also noticed that seeing the centreline is much easier on the old carrier model than the new one in VR. Seems like the contrast is much higher.

It's not perfect and certainly you cannot see it as well as on a screen but I find if I fly the numbers right I can see it 'good enough' to stay roughly on glideslope until I get in close, at which point I can read it decently well. And that's with 1.0 PD. My short tests at 2.0 and 1.5 seemed to make it visible from slightly further out as well.

You can still spool the engines all the way down in the air though... You get to idle in the aircraft itself, it’s just that it takes less movement of the real world throttle to do so.

I fail to understand why this was moved to the controllers section as its clearly not a hardware issue. Unless this is for some reason intended behaviour its a bug......

First 10% of throttle axis not used So I was fiddling with the custom curves some people have been suggesting in order to get Mil power at the Detent on the Warthog and noticed that the F/A-18 doesn't seem to utilise the first portion of the assigned throttle axes. Regardless of whether its set as a Slider or not, a custom curve, or just plain old standard linear it's always about the same. The controller is recognised and the movement is shown in the Axis tune page but in the aircraft there is no throttle movement (or any change in engine parameters) until the throttle is past about 10% of movement. Its a good cm or 2 on the Warthog which I'm using. I checked with a couple buddies and they confirmed the same behaviour. Is this intended somehow? Seems like a waste.... Particularly in an aircraft where fine throttle movements can be quite important.

Was just asking since I believe on the first or second page one of the devs mentioned that they would be included at some point.

Were these ever officially integrated?? Its a bit of a pain to have to copy them every time an update happens.

IMO this is the only solution in the meantime. For whatever reason right after 2.5 came out Eekz had it setup exactly backwards so that during the main playtime the Normandy Anticipation mission would be running with a full server and turned into a vulch fest on both sides, and then during off peak hours the Evreux or Gali missions would run and it was essentially like playing free flight in singleplayer. I always thought the other Normandy missions (ACG and BS) were a good balance as far as distance. Even if it was a bit repetitive having everything centred around the bay near Carentan. Ironically people were begging for the huge airfield spacing before, because they were upset that the normal airfield spacing didnt let them climb to 30000000000000 feet and BNZ without risk.

You're thinking of Auto-GCAS (Ground Collision Avoidance System). It's only installed on USAF F-16s AFAIK.

Funny you say that cause the only comments I’ve ever seen from an actual F-16 Weasel pilot were more along the lines of ‘harm is a waste of a good weapons station’ and ‘you’re an idiot if you think lobbing smart weapons over the horizon is weaseling’. No doubt there is a decent amount of typical pilot cynicism in those statements and I’m sure the tech has developed since the Iraq war (where the author flew in combat) but considering he’s been hailed as the USAF pilot with the most Sam kills in history etc etc I’m gonna take his word for it. Certainly comparing real life sam engagements to how it is in the other well known sim harms and jsow like things are disproportionately effective. That’s because the sams we have in games like these are more or less brain dead fixed sites that sit there lobbing missiles just waiting for you to come and kill them instead of using real world ambush tactics etc. would not be surprised to see the same thing be the case in DCS.

Not high res enough but seems to be the same marking on A21-20. Got it from here http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/ A21-46 seems to have had it as well https://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/cache/5003/DefenceImagery/2016/S20162448/20160824raaf8178707_066.t57bc9882.m800.x12df1a79.jpg If there is a higher res version of the one you have that'll probably be where it is. Maybe try searching for aerial refuelling pics of the aircraft, sometimes they do some close up shots there.

I agree with MAD. Modify existing aircraft to better fit the map. Otherwise P-38 would be cool to have. And since he can’t post here anymore: David says 109 F-4. TBH I wouldn’t complain about this either.

Not fixed last time I checked.

+1

I don't even mind 'grinding'. If it were a proper dogfight server that would be different. But all it is atm is just people either camping the base for easy kills or running away to hide in the flak every time they get outmaneuvered.

This lol :music_whistling: TBH part of the problem is just scaling the mission for the amount of players. Road to Evreux is great with a decent amount of people and the smaller maps are ok on week days when there is no one online. But we waited for years for a decent WWII map and we are still flying the same silly multiplayer mission over Novo. I understand DCS is always WIP and stuff is broken and that making missions that work well is not easy, but that is a poor reason to stick with literally the WORST mission out of all the working ones you have had running in the last couple months. This would be awesome, but unfortunately with the regular player numbers it just won't work. Especially with spotting as it is. The sad part is that the Buddyspike guys even ran a second Case Blue campaign when Normandy came out, but no one played it. The original was awesome.

If you pay for it I will.

Seriously don't understand why you continue to run this mission. Just baserape cat and mouse garbage non stop. Literally any of the other missions, no matter how finished or buggy were better than this.

I believe he means the tendency of the camera in the 109 to get glued to the cockpit bars or the metal part of the armored glass behind the pilot. That and that sometimes your pilot becomes a dwarf in the cockpit. Can be very tricky to keep SA when you run into these issues. No matter how much fiddling I've done with custom head positions, trackir profiles etc it's impossible to completely eliminate.

No Problem. Glad I could help :)

Is the safety cover off on the stick? (Shift + Space) Otherwise if you’ve only tried on the ground the MGs fire through the prop arc and there is a system in place which won’t allow them to fire below 500-550 RPMor so.

G-14s = late G-6

I would gladly fly a G-6. And I know plenty of others who would too. A couple of us would even fly F-4 if it was made. That being said the performance of a late G-6 and a K isn’t as different as some people think it is. Same goes for a little bit extra HP on the mustang.