SeaW0lf

Cool, thanks, that's not bad. Perhaps the numbers will go up with the new DM. I might install the game again to give it a try. abçs,

I would like to ask you guys, how is the multiplayer scene for WWII nowadays? I might need to take a break from Il-2, but I would like to know if there is a crowd in multiplayer. My WWII experience is also almost non-existent, I only flew WWI in the last decade, but I may adapt. I got to fly DCS for a couple months in 2017, but I didn't even get to map all of my controls. It may be that this time I get hooked. Anyways, I might install the sim to see how things evolved since 2017, perhaps take the P-51 for a ride / I love the startup procedures. I think I have 3 WWII modules. As a note, single player has 0% appeal to me at this point. I appreciate any input. Cheers, -------

Thanks, I'll give it a try when I have some spare time (I'll return a feedback). If it does not work, I'll redo them sometime in the future.

Should I consider the profiles lost? I think that I did the right thing. The same procedure I did when I bought the Normandy map / and it worked OK. Do someone from DCS check these bug reports? Its been a while.

To make sure that I was doing the right thing, I just did one change to the P-51 profile (ingame) and a folder named P-51 was automatically created in the folder "Input". Then I just copied all my aircraft folders and pasted to that folder (Input). The aircraft folders have subfolders named Joystick, Keyboard, Mouse, Trackir.

I pasted all my old profile files to C:\Users\[username]\Saved Games\DCS\Config\Input\ and nothing happens. It appears that I have to redo them all from scratch. Does anyone know why that is? It is a bug or the procedure to handle profiles changed?

I pasted all my profiles to C:\Users\[username]\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\Input\ and nothing happens. Does anyone know why that is? Do we have any feedback from the developers? Is it a bug or do we need to redo it all over again? EDIT: I'm with the released version, not the open beta (had no idea there were two). Mods can delete it. I posted at the released version section.

That's a module that I would buy even though DCS is on full backburner for me. You can also lobby (if that ever works) for it here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=189449

Good to know, thanks :thumbup:

I don't see that way. DCS created an 'official mod' with tinted glass for whatever reason (might be a internal bug) and now we have to create a countermod to fly the real thing. It makes no sense. Unless they don't have time to fix it now, but whenever we have a release version it should not come with a tinted mod version of the real thing. Dang, it is not historical and it impairs visibility. How come that should be an official version? And in all modules? It is not even a version. Let's say Preddy had a custom made tinted glass on his P-51 (hypothetically) and DCS releases a "Preddy version". Fine, people can even buy it and help the cause, but not in all modules. It is a matter of good sense.

I agree. I expected to see a fix with this last update. Not everyone has time and dedication to be looking for fixes, and even some veterans are having problems with it. Is there any official word regarding the problem somewhere else?

THanks guys :thumbup: I might try it tomorrow.

Cool, I'll research about it or I'll compare with the 109 to see how it is done. Thanks :thumbup:

Can I change the glass for multiplayer or this is just for SP? It is the same as making a skin? As a matter of the simulation per se, it does not make sense to create a tinted glass that is fictional and force everyone who wants to fly the real thing to create a mod. It should be the other way around. So I hope they fix it.

Thanks, that's bad news. They should offer it as a mod for the players who like to give a twist to their planes. I rather stick with simulation and functionality.

Is it just for the 109? The P-51 is also messed up. For the thread in general, I agree with you all. Whatever they doing right now, the official version (whenever that comes) should not have tinted frontal glass. It is not realistic and visibility against the ground is too bad as it is. If a specific P-51 had that kind of glass, make a vintage version, but to not force us all to use a modification.

I agree. I've been hearing this rap about visibility since 2014, when I bought my first WWII modules. It is surprising that people were flying in these conditions to this day. I was not, because all the talk prevented me from even trying (I was flying elsewhere). Hearing about the Normandy map, I gave it a go at the 1.5 version to begin getting acquainted to the modules, because my plan was to fly basically everyday, and yes, I am not sure how people were flying in those conditions (simply unplayable). After a few weeks of struggle I quit the 1.5 version and waited for the Normandy release. Then they release a new engine with the same ghost / blend planes against the terrain. Dot spotting is better, but visibility in turnfighting against the terrain under blue skies is still awful. I could be right now at the servers, but I am not. I just log in to test the visibility to try to understand what's going on. For some reason it seems that visibility is not on their radar, because the WWII modules are out for years. They really need to look into it.

Today I found a strange behavior in lighting. Looks like the aircraft only lightens up against the Sun when it is in the sun glare radius. In other words, looks like the sun glare and aircraft reflection is binned together, which should not be that way. The wings of an aircraft (especially) can and should light up (at different intensities) if it is facing the Sun, or even luminosity for that matter depending on the clouds cover. I've done turns and turns with a P-51 against two 109s and they never light up, except if they cross the path where the Sun glares in the eyes of the pilot (me) so it seems. Otherwise sometimes there is a little color change to indicate it is facing the Sun, but no glare or not a drastic change in color. It is as if we are flying under a mat canopy in the sky. Spotting cannot be only palette against palette -- it must be compensated for by volume and shade, brightness, reflection and contrast against the terrain. All this taking the Sun in consideration, but I think any 3D model should handle it with ease. Could anyone explain this behavior? I will try to fly more to see if I can see a pattern, but I'm a bit slammed right now. The other problem is that the palette is shaded at close distance. Near sight rendering seems to be a very blend solution that only renders the image of the plane with a single layer. It is almost as in a color blind test -- to spot a colored letter against a similar background. At altitude the contrast is a bit better because the background is faded (still I think it is not near enough), but at low level it really becomes a color blind test. I don't work with 3D, but if this is correct, that reflection is binned to sun glare, something is off. It might need some expert work on this to reproduce how objects behave in space for the human eye. And there are good solutions out there, not many I admit, so it is not just a matter of wanting to make it right, but to allow us players be able to play. Late note: I flew 109s and 190s against the P-51 and the Spit and they seem to have better lightning. Of course the P-51 is more visible, but still something is off. Is the visibility handled by each studio (which might indicate that each module will behave differently no matter if it has a camo skin or not) or it is the same for all?

I agree, I was generalizing in the sense that both were underperforming and the Allision Mustang would most likely become a footnote in history or a very side show aircraft. Very different from what the P-51 became with a new powerplant. The P-40 I think will always be remembered by the Flying Tigers. If they were replaced by Allison Mustangs, people would still to this day talk about the P-40 and the Flying Tigers much more than what the Allison Mustang was doing in France in 1942. But I am not a WWII aircraft buff, so I am entering a space where I can bite my tong :pilotfly:

Yup, I would buy the module in a heartbeat. I cannot attest for these accounts (especially the *highest roll-rates of any fighter*), but she seemed to be a nice lady nonetheless, fork-tailed and all :)

It is obvious that the P-322 was a forgettable aircraft. The same way the Allison P-51 was a forgettable aircraft as well. If DCS ever releases a P-38, it will certainly not be the P-322, but most likely be the P-38L with hydraulically boosted ailerons and supercharger. So I don't think it is fair to judge a plane by its worse version. The P-38 would certainly have a special place in DCS.

I just did a more thorough test and found that the Visibility Range option does not affect aircraft spotting. Or at least it does not look like. So I put it on medium and the stutters at the deck are almost gone. Now I can use 2XAA (Anisotropic Filtering OFF) and increase the resolution of the cockpit, but the rest remains with low settings. I might be able to raise a couple things. Let's see. But it has greatly improved the stutters. I do not know what the Visibility Range option does, but if I put on Extreme it stutters a lot even at high altitude with 2XAA (or Anisotropic Filtering). Mind that I use TrackIR 5 and I personally need the frame rate above 55, preferably at 60.

I don't mind either, but only if a proper DM comes with the official release. Otherwise it has a chance to become another WIP with no timeline for the foreseeable future.

Thanks, and does the DM have a WIP of its own or is it coming along with the official release of the Normandy map? Or the official release is one thing and the DM is another?

What worries is that the B-17 is a brand new FM, so it was supposed to come with a fresh / well thought DM. If this is a temporary DM / pre-release, would be nice of them to state something, because people were commenting about the B-17 DM even before the alpha release.