Johnny Dioxin

Maybe MilViz - or whatever they call themselves now - would consider this as they already have a great T-38 model and have had for many years. However, anyone who just wants to learn about flying jets and how to navigate etc would do well to grab the C-101 and do the tutorial missions provided. Take a look at this thread to see how much it will teach the new pilot - starts with the Yak-52, moves on to the L-39 and then finally gets to the C-101EB followed by the -CC to put it all into action. You can use any of those that tickles your fancy: https://forums.mudspike.com/t/ukraine-pilot-training/15642 C-101 training starts here: https://forums.mudspike.com/t/ukraine-pilot-training/15642/65

Yes, I did this myself - bought the necessary bits from Amazon and put the connectors on myself after cutting a reel of cable to the required length. It's very easy - I made a simple picture showing the correct order of the wires (by colour) so that it was an easy reference for future jobs, too. Much easier than it looks.

I have been wanting to learn this module since v2 but there has always been something either done to it or needing doing or about to be done etc etc and now I have time to do it and come along to see what's happening, as the tutorial missions were made 'n' years ago, and not to my liking in any case (I prefer to use a good manual and proper, dev produced tutorial videos such as ED/Wags do if they exist - I don't trust 3rd party fan videos and don't think I should have to, anyway) and see that after all this time there is still not even a fairly recent manual available? Very poor - I mean very poor. There is no excuse - it's an essential item in any module and I will act with my wallet. Really disgusted that this is still an issue - and adding more to the module is absolutely no excuse. ED managed it with the Hornet and leaving space to add the stuff that would come later. Also explains why my pictorial guide was so popular, which was a real surprise. I don't usually come on forums knocking developers at all - but there's a first time for everything, and this is inexcusable and has made me that angry. Said my piece. I'll check back in another few years (during which time my money will go elsewhere) - if I can still fly sims then, with my deteriorating condition. Not happy.

I did have dwVAC (formerly just VAC) set up for DCSWorld comms for years, but unfortunately it's now finished - can't even activate a new install license any more. It was very good, though it didn't have the wide range of functions that Voice Attack has, it was great for just comms. Used with AHK it was more powerful. Oh well, guess we have to change and adapt with the times.

Hi - thanks for the info on the guide. Unfortunately as I mentioned, the progs using the MS Speech Engine must do something differently - why would I have zero problems with every one I use, but only problems with Voice Attack? It doesn't make sense. The VA devs were unable to work it out, either, but using exactly the same audio gear in the same sims, dwVAC did everything I asked of it, but VA kept telling me it didn't understand. I do the MS speech training thoroughly, multiple times, plus I also do the VoxATC flightplan speech training multiple times, and load up several different flightplans to train with (I've been using VoxATC for years and it needs training before use - and has always worked great for me). Thing is, I've also found that I'm not the only person who has this problem. Something, somewhere, must be different in some way. Maybe it's because dwVAC has default settings - you don't have to fiddle with anything at all (you can't in fact, there are no adjustments with it) and those settings happen to be just right for me, whereas VA has some settings that can be altered to try and make it understand better - and a threshold for incorrectly interpreting words (or something similar - not tried it for a while). So maybe the base settings for VA are not good for my voice and will only work if I have it exactly right? Just guessing - but it must be something. I'm a qualified class 1 radio operator and have been a licensed radio amateur for over 25 years, running radio nets for forces radio societies so i think my voice and procedure are good/clear enough. This is why I ended up giving up before - after a lot of trying. PS - you can hear my voice in these: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3315693/

I have a couple of questions: Is my guide & info for VAICOM PRO still valid for the current version (i.e. set-up etc)? I had it from the start but never used it because I could never get Voice Attack to recognise my commands (and yes I got advice and attempted help by the VA devs but still no joy - Hollywood offered me a refund but I wanted to support him so refused), despite programs like dwVAC, SimVoice Checklists and Voice Buddy having no issues with my commands. Work that out! Anyway, I'd like to give it another go - also, does the chat add-on that I bought still work with it? Thanks

Obviously the site no longer exists - Ron had said he would arrange for it to be freeware before closing down - or at least customers would get an unlocked version. But this didn't happen - he was a good and reliable bloke, so I don't know what happened. Problem is, now I have a new Windows install and am unable to activate cos it can't call home - home doesn't exist any more. Has anyone managed to get round this or heard from Ron with any solution? dwVAC remains my favourite voice control software - and also recognises all my commands and I have a huge number of profiles I've made over the years. It would be a real shame to have to give it up cos nothing else comes close to it (yes, including VA). TiA

Well that's it - I want my money back! Only kidding

I did until January this year - was fine for me, using Virtual Desktop (866Mbps). At the time I used the medium setting in VD. High textures and high terrain... hang on - looky here - these were my settings... **NOTE: this was with 2.8

I switched after reading that - and promptly forgot about it. I wasn't having issues beforehand and haven't had since switching - so for me there was no difference. I will add that I've elected to stay on 2.8.8.43704 due to some aircraft mods not yet updated for 2.9 I just switched to see if how it ran.

Yeah, I never bothered reporting such errors because, well, why? If a dev asked for them to be reported that's one thing - but if not I don't see them getting any kind of priority and they don't really affect anything except perhaps one's perception of quality control etc, but again with non-native English speaking devs it's understandable that mistakes will be made. Although I'm always available to help with any such things if required - and I don't even charge a fee!

Do be aware that if you use multiple headsets with Virtual Desktop, using the beta can cause problems with one of them. Last time I downloaded and installed the beta for the Pico 4 and was then unable to use my Quest 2 as it could no longer 'talk' to the streamer. Even after official updates to both, it wouldn't work right and I ended up having to manually delete everything to do with VD from both headsets and reinstall them, as well as the PC streamer app. Just something to bear in mind if you have both.

If I had a pound for every grammatical error I came across in this sim I could buy a new VR headset!

Just looked on Github and it says it was updated to v0.8.0 yesterday

My normal start-up time is less than 3 minutes, which is fine - same as MSFS, but after running even just once in 2D it always seems to mess up the next VR start. I use 2D if I want to go through my controller settings or take screenshots for a pictorial guide as it's far better on the monitor than in VR.

I'm a bit reluctant to update to 2.9 as it reportedly stops some things from working, but this is encouraging. I don't see any advantage in getting the Quest 3 when I have Pico 4 - rather the opposite. I just hope I can get back to reasonable start times in VR - it's been taking an age to start the sim in VR even after a clean-up, having run it a couple of times in 2D for settings purposes (this always seems to happen after running in 2D then going back to VR). I gave up in frutsration yesterday. Whilst the sim displays the starting DCS World splash screen my CPU is running at less than 4%, so no wonder it's taking so long to load up.

I've seen plenty fo people saying they liked the Pico 4 better than their Reverb G2 (not all, mind) but I was wondering how the graphics on the Pico 4 stack up against the Aero. Anyone done that? My Pico 4 is outstanding in DCS World and other sims, but if the Aero is better I would have to seriously consider it, at the currently reduced price.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It's just too bad that you didn't use it straight away, but it has absolutely zero reflection on their responsibility to repair or replace anything. The device is over 2 years old and it's normal practice for companies to charge for repairs on a device that is out of warranty. There was a time when the only response to a fault found after 12 months on a VPC HOTAS was "good luck" on their forums. Had emails ignored myself when I had problems similar to yours. It's good to see that things have improved.

I didn't think of trying 72hz - that's actually a good idea - and pretty obvious - shows how much I'm slowing down as I age! I get excellent performance with Pico 4, at 45fps with SSW forced on all the time. yet in my Index (which used to have not as good performance even at 60fps, as well as lesser clarity, of course) I'm getting a solid 120fps. But the quality has dropped - especially since the last big stable update and I'm talking about terrain/foliage quality. I never have grass on. Trying 72hz makes sense, but I've not had to do any testing and adjusting for so long now, I can't remember what to fiddle with for better terrain graphics without killing the performance. Seems I'll have to put aside a couple of days for testing VR - such a shame as I had really thought those days were over now for me in this sim. At least ACM is still awesome with my headset Was flying over Caucasus yesterday in my Hornet and thanking the simming Gods that I wasn't on an A/G mission, cos spotting ground targets would have been a nightmare.

At least when people use autostart they are actually using the starting procedure, even if automated. It can be a good instructoral tool, or for checking if your manual start-up is not quite working, to see if you are forgetting something. Unfortunately there are many who just keep maligning FC well as any so-called "cheats" in the DCS modules. They'd do better to just worry about how they want to fly and not about something that has zero effect on their own game. It's just vanity at the end of the day. Personally, I couldn't care less how or what anyone else wants to fly. Some call it "arcade" which makes me doubt if they even know what arcade is, and are so quick to forget that without FC, DCS World may not exist, having been propped up by it's sales for years to start with, quite apart from the history behind the sim since LOMAC.

I don't know if it still applies, but we've heard a few times in the past that Flaming Cliffs was the most popular part of DCS World. Given that fact, I don't see why there should be any issue over the question of whether MAC should be released or not. As for the poster saying that it should be part of DCS World - I didn't know it was going to be separate, as I hadn't followed the 'news' about it that closely (for me it's out when it's out) but I can definitely see the logic behind it being an independent title. I think the kind of customer this is aimed at won't want to be downloading 150+GB of terrains and then updates of around the same size (last one was 130GB). So from that point of view it makes sense. (even excluding the mods folder altogether my DCS World stable install is 125GB) and with terrains it's 386GB)

Because its fun.

This is exactly what you're supposed to do in the campaign that comes with the Gazelle - you should set autohover and jump to the left seat, fire the weapons, jump back and shift out of there. From the words of the chap who made it to my very ears It is a necessity and cowboy tactics (or maybe better called 'Hollywood') are not the answer. I'm sure they'll fix it at some stage, though when is anybody's guess - who knows how complicated it is to code with this model. This is one of the reasons I keep 1.5.8 installed, so I can still fly currently broken campaigns - whether the campaign itself or the aircraft that flies it.

Well thank you for the mission itself! Without it there would be no guide

Pictorial Satrt-up guide is up: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332110/