Fred00

Okay, so then it's a question whether datalink targets are shown as track files or system files. It seems to me that datalink contacts are shown as track files only, and TMS up is immediately bugging the target, skipping the system file completely. If datalink contacts were actually system files we should be able to cycle between them like we can with regular system files (not using datalink). That is what's confusing, and it's not explained in the manual. Should we just accept that the concept of system files are not used with datalink supported radar contacts? It would be great to have it confirmed.

Then we get the following problem of symbology: When NOT using datalink: TWS track files have solid symbols. System files have hollow symbols. When using datalink: Targets that are only from datalink have hollow symbols. Targets that are also painted by own radar have solid symbols. Accounting for the above, it's clear that system files must have a separate symbol/designation when datalink is involved, since the hollow symbols are already used for another purpose.

I have noticed that I can increase brightness on one page, only to switch page and see it going back to dim. Is this a bug? It seems like uneccessary work to set brightness on several pages separately. I can understand regarding the TGP, but the other pages should have a "global" setting right?

I have just recently started learning the F-16C, and one thing I don't get. If I have non-datalink targets on my radar, I can enter TWS and choose system targets (all, or pick those I want). However, if I'm having datalink targets which are also painted by my own radar (solid red triangle targets) I can not assign system targets. If I TMS up with the cursor over a target it is immediately bugged. If I TMS right, the closest target is bugged, but further presses do not cycle targets. Is this correct behavior? That is, targets can only be assigned as system targets if only my own radar sees them.

I've been having the exact same "problem". The F/A-18 is no doubt the sensible choice, given the current state of the modules. For me, who is more geared towards A-G than A-A, the Hornet is probably also the better choice. However, I'm not crazy about the way the Hornet flies. I can't really put my finger on it, but I feel the F-16 is just more fun to fly and generally feels better in the air. I'm also not very fond of the HOTAS integration in the Hornet and the UFC/MFD integration which feels a bit clunky. I think rational arguments are only a part of the decision. How the plane feels and how you like the cockpit and plane itself is probably just as important.

The console lights seem to be way too dim. The problem is that even in daylight the shadows in the cockpit seem too dark (a problem shared with many other modules, for example M-2000C) and turning on the console light does next to nothing. I have a hard time believing that they are this weak in real life. It should be a very simple task to allow us to turn up the lights higher.

I've noticed (coming from the Hornet) that the A-10C MFCDS are alot fuzzier when reading text. The Hornet with the same gfx settings is alot more readable and sharp. Is this a feature or is it something that should be looked into? Even if the real A-10C has fuzzy text maybe it would be better to sharpen them up in game, to make them easier to read.

Works perfectly. I have to say though that the old cockpit didn't look as good as I remembered, even after turning on Ricardos HD textures. Back to the new one and it just has a better look to it, hard to put my finger on why it looks better. The new weathered cockpit will be very exciting to take a look at when it arrives!

Yes, I own all of them and have not noticed the same problem with any of them. Maybe the A-10C is modelled to a higher fidelity? I have to say though that it is annoying when the aircraft starts to bank just seconds after having started in the air. One would think that it could at least be trimmed out when starting.

So I've seen some people (for example NineLine) talk about the "retail" version of the A-10C. How will that work? Will it be a completely new module that those of us who already own the A-10C can buy at a discount? Will it feature a nicely weathered cockpit like the Hornet? Any other upgrades? When will we get some more info? :)

Thanks for the replies guys. I have to wonder though, those of you who say that there's no problem, do you fly any other modules? I'm asking since for example the F-18 is so much better. If the real A-10C actually has a bad trim system then fine. Then we can maybe view it as a feature. Otherwise I would love to see the same trim functionality as the F-18.

It doesn't seem to be any of those problems. I have a Warthog stick and no rudders. Setting a huge dead zone on the stick doesn't help either. Only the A-10C exhibits this behaviour. It does seem as if the trim is too coarse in the A-10C. Making fine adjustments is not really possible. The Hornet for example is much better. As stated, this problem was not present back in 2015-2017.

I think I've said this before, but why is it more or less impossible to trim out the A-10C in roll nowadays? I don't remember this being the case a couple of years ago. Seriously, just a few seconds after starting in the air it starts to lean left or right. A quick press to trim the opposite way and a few seconds later it starts leaning that way. Finding an equilibrium seems almost impossible and makes flying the A-10 a chore. Please ED, look over trim for this aircraft. Don't let something simple like this spoil the experience.

It looks nicer than the old cockpit for sure. However: * It's too dark. Areas not directly lit by the sun are hard to make out. * The cockpit lighting is too dim.

Not even when doing the test as described in my last post? It's buttery smooth? It's visible in all games/menus, not just DCS. It's easier to spot when close to something. For example it's not really noticeable when looking outside of the cockpit. This one is going back for refund, that's for sure. Need to decide whether I will try another one.

Okay, so today my brother came over and tested the Rift S. He could also easily see the problems with jumpy image. We then packed up the Rift S and went over to his house to test it on his computer. My system: 4790K RTX 2080 Ti His system: 6700K GTX 1080 After we connected it and started up the intro we could quite quickly see that it behaved exactly the same. Only conclusion then is that either my Rift S is broken, or they are all like this. My brother agreed that it doesn't feel like faulty/broken hardware. It feels more like tracking cameras are not good enough or maybe a software problem. So, could you guys please test this: Load up any plane in DCS. Do a strafing motion with your head, left, right, left, right. The Rift S seems to have a problem transitioning from one direction to another without the picture doing some hickup/stutter. Therefore, it's most easily seen when doing short movements (left/right or up/down). Please test and report back. :) Oh, by the way. We started up his old Rift CV1, and although the tracking is not 100% perfect in that either, it's definitely more stable than the Rift S.

Okay, I'll see what my brother thinks of it. Maybe I'm just really picky (but I don't think so). I'm thinking that I might go over to him and install it and see how it works. After all his house is only 3 minutes away by car. :) If it works on his computer then I guess that the next step is to switch out my old MSi motherboard.

Yes, maybe. But it seems the Virtual Link port provides more power than USB 3.0 from what I could gather. I would be surprised if it wasn't enough, but who knows?

Thanks for the suggestion. Though I have used both USB 3.0 ports on the motherboard and now I'm running it through the Virtual Link port on the RTX 2080 Ti, with an USB 3 to USB-C adapter. Could it still be a USB problem?

It's hard to tell, but I don't think it is losing tacking. It almost feels like the tracking is a bit over sensitive. It's more apparent with a strafing movement (up/down/left/right) than head rotation. If I move my head up and down smoothly and semi-fast the movement is not perfectly smooth on the screen, but instead a bit jumpy. It also feels like the headset has problems handling sudden movements smoothly. I can't say that it feels like faulty hardware, more like a software/hardware feature that you just have to accept really. It may be a combination of screen technology and refresh rate, but it may also be that the tracking cameras and software are not good enough. I will let my brother test it out later in the week. He has owned CV1 for a couple of years, so it will be interesting to hear his view.

I have to take back what I said. The jerkiness is present at all times ASW off or on. Maybe I was just trying to find the cause. Seems like more people are having the exact same problem: Otherwise I really like the Rift S in VR, and I actually feel that it's usable and not just a gimmick. Just not sure I could get used to the less than perfect image stability/tracking.

Okay, so I have tested some more. It seems that the whole problem of this slightly jumpy movement comes from ASW. I went into "Oculus: First contact". Looking at the thing before me on the desk, the movement was a bit jerky, like in DCS. I then hit CTRL-NUM 1 to shut of ASW, and lo and behold, the movement was a lot more smooth. Maybe I'm just sensitive to ASW artifacts or something? In DCS we have no choice. Even on the best hardware we are not getting away from ASW. Maybe ASW 2.0 will help. :)

I went out and bought the USB 3.0 to USB-C adapter and plugged the Rift S into the Virtual Link port on the 2080 Ti. Unfortunately it made no difference at all. Still the same jerky movement. Especially when moving my head up and down and left and right (without rotation). Seriously, are your headsets smooth when doing this? No occasional stutters when looking at edges and moving the head in the way described above?

From what I could gather there are no Virtual Link adapter for the Rift S yet. Should it be okay with just a USB-C to USB 3.0 adapter and plug it into the Virtual Link port?

I should add that I also have had problems with a very laggy mouse cursor in VR. Maybe it all adds up to USB power problems? The mouse is not using USB 3.0 though.