Rabb

I have watched your video very carefully, FragBum, and I don't understand what you've got... Maneuvers, motion, angles and a whole lot of things I have shown in videos is almost (or even completely) impossible to reproduce with this Gazelle we have in DCS. On a side notice, I have yet to see a helicopter which requires constant collective work during all stages of flight and a totally unresponsive and unauthorative collective during level flight.

MiG-21. Rabb

Well, my impression is quite the opposite. Did you know that, approximately until fortnight ago, you were able to buy DCS modules on Steam at ten times lower prices than those in ED store? Of course, depending on your local Steam site which related to average salaries and living standard in country you're living in? In that sense, Steam was a premium vendor. Which is quite nice. For instance, in Finland, traffic violation fines are not fixed, but set by the judge according to your reported taxed income (they are honest about tax reports ;) ). And that approach is great because nobody is at disadvantage. And, for DCS, it allowed for bigger community. Requiring separate installations for the same product bought at different vendors is something that's really hard to grasp. Buying the same brand/model/size shoes from, for example, Target and Gear will make them incompatible? In such a way that you would be required to store them in your house in separate lockers? And not mix them (well, I get that's unlikely, but why not?) Or anything similar? I find this a great disadvantage to customers. It may be vastly different now, but I remember that many years ago the following scenario was possible: You were living in Italy (EU) and you found out that Fiat "insert model name" car is cheaper in Germany (also EU) than in the country it was produced in (which is Italy). You were free to go to Germany, buy that car and bring it back without import taxes or anything. The similar applied to US brand cars produced in Canada, for instance. And, in essence, I would agree in my opinion with MadDog-IC. Bignewy, may I ask for a clarification about the news? Does it mean that all keys purchased from Steam, from today will be incompatible with ED stand-alone, or that M2000C and all future release's keys would be incompatible with ED stand-alone?

Thank you, Rudel_chw. :thumbup: I did something similar to most of the planes/helicopters with issues. To be honest, GGTharos, if those things are possible, I have an impression that that is something developer should limit. Sticking head out of a cockpit of a Spitfire with canopy open would be quite normal, although very dangerous or at least painful at high speeds. It is simulated in some other titles. Sticking head out through canopy is something that shouldn't be possible, and it should be hard-coded. Never tried 1 degree FoV, but considering how shaky and unusable 30 degree zoom in flight is with my head tracker, I can hardly see that would be of any use. Server view settings, when hosts weren't tuning them, really killed the joy on flying on some of them during previous years. So, I have to stick with what I had said, I think view settings shouldn't be governed by servers.

Some things about how Gazelle behaves in flight and how she feels or reacts don't feel right to me. I am no real life helicopter pilot, so my observation is based only on Mi-8, UH-1H, Ka-50 and my knowledge. I am aware that each aircraft is different, but mechanical/engineering principles are the same. Even with the lowest weight possible, Gazelle handles extremely tricky. Please note high-G turn: or these turns at 80 degree bank or more: or a turn and a nod to the audience. The nod was performed with no altitude loss and with very slow (like inertia induced and comparable to Mi-8 in DCS) and small forward movement: I find it quite difficult to simulate those in Gazelle. And, even loaded fully, constant changes in altitude require collective to be operated like a cyclic in a hover, ie. with constant input. One moment, at one setting, helicopter is in descent, and the next it climbs. Or vice versa.

I'm not sure whether this post belongs here, but have to ask. For some time now, I've noticed that it's vastly better carrying GUV-8700 gun pods instead of UPK-23-250. Apparently, 12,7 mm Yak-B has much greater armor penetrating power than 23 mm GSh-23L in game. And somewhat higher rate of fire. The other day I tested that in a mission and results made me wonder whether something is off. Basically, from very close or even point blank distances, I fired at different angles at BTR-D, and after spending all of the ammunition (it's hard to aim with Mi-8, my excuse for bad piloting ;) ), BTR-D was damaged approximately 80 %. Although not knowing the selected type of ammunition "loaded" in gun pods, the result is still hardly believable. BTR-D has 15 mm (front) and 10 mm (rest of body) aluminum armor, which should be penetratable by either 12,7 mm AP or 23 mm AP from distance of several hundred meters. On the other hand, two GUV-8700 pods with 12.7 mm Yak-Bs make short work of entire column of lightly armored vehicles, while GShG-7.62s effectively (read devastatingly) deal with soft-skinned vehicles and infantry. As it is now, UPK-23-250 pods are of not much use.

You're right, Zhukov. I tried several servers: Blue Flag, 104th, 159th, etc. I don't understand why view settings are subject of integrity check...

Thank you, ChillyWillies. The files are: mods/aircraft/m-2000c/views.lua mods/aircraft/mig-21bis/entry/03_views.lua mods/aircraft/sa342/views.lua mods/aircraft/uh-1h/views.lua In those files I modified FoV. I cannot grasp why these files are included in integrity check. They have NOTHING with multiplayer cheating, only with how I see those cockpits on my monitor. If I were to restore original files, playing any of those would give me more headache than plesaure. Really. Additionally, I cannot understand why these settings are separate from other aircraft, which are set in Server.lua, View.lua and SnapViews.lua? There is a bunch of other files, also, distributed between Bazar, Mods and CoreMods folders... Directory and file structure should be fixed and invariable. Without duplicates and obsolete files and code lines... FoV settings should not be set by server, but by client only.

All of the sudden, I cannot join multiplayer servers, and I get the message "pure client i required"... Since this rarely happened during previous years, I started to wonder... What is it this time... With JSGME, I have enabled Barthek's ground textures, with photorealistic mountain tops (my mod combo), FARP white textures and MiG-21 correct clicks. On my side, I have modded cockpit textures so they don't have mipmaps, reduced visibility settings for Medium, reduced FoV for all aircraft, reduced dreadful, totally unoptimized Gazelle cockpit textures in size and resolution, modified FoV for M2000C, Uh-1H, Gazelle and MiG-21 (using the latest My cockpit option). And not one of those things should have anything to do with multiplayer and I still cannot join multiplayer servers with "integrity check"... These mods of mine had nothing to do with previous integrity checks and least with any form of cheating. Only with making DCS playable on my PC. And it wasn't an issue till today. So, I wonder, what had changed since yesterday? And do we have a clue what integrity check should cover? I find it utmostly inappropriate for server to decide what FoV should be on my monitor and my plane or helicopter, for example...

Please, ED, make axis filters. Vast majority of players don't have Warthog, VKB, or whatever high-end joysticks. And most of those joysticks or throttles have potentiometers somewhere that will develop jitter/spiking. And I've even seen some brand new joysticks that have that problem out of the box.

DCS, since few updates ago, effectively prevents you from using curves with FFB. More info: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2999844&postcount=4

It's not a player's problem that RWR lamps are so dim they are unreadable. Personally, I have a lot of experience with and without JSGME. In several games. And it is absolutely tedious in DCS to check each file with each new version and backup and copy just to get something to work as it should from the start. And yes, Russian RWR lamps are undiscernible in bright daylight.

Rabb Lone Wolf MiG-29A MiG-29S Su-27 Su-25 Su-25T A-10C A-10A Mirage 2000C (whichever ;) ) Serbia

In my experience, Steam had usually preceded DCS with sales. Not this time. Wait a bit and see. Although it hurts my wallet (you cannot believe it), got myself Gazelle. Finally. Happy Easter, everyone!

Your late, BigNewy. :D

Sorry for my rush, sale is on! Happy Easter, everyone!

Ty, Bersagliere81, exactly my point. I have been waiting for days and today still nothing. The same goes for all legit vendors. LIke not one cares for Easter...

No Easter sale? Really?

Is there intention to make windows getting dirty during flight. Like, dynamic change. Like... bug kills. :D :D

When can we expect shaking and rocking effects? I am enjoying Mi-8 greatly. In my opinion, it is probably the best DCS module. Job well done, Belsimtek. But vibrations are missing. Each and every person I spoke with who flew in or with Mi-8 said it vibrates (or shakes intensively). They were not pleased with the experience :D . And some even said that tail shakes so much they thought it's gonna snap off. Of course, if there would be a chance to have multi-crew, I believe that would cement Belsimtek a top module developer.

In the meantime, I believe this would be helpful: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-uSpZROuEd3NVJwVjhQZG0xZ2M/view ;)

Solution is in this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170416

Of course, only vehicles equipped with smoke canisters can launch them. ;) In real life, T-55 and T-72 can produce thick white smoke though exhausts, which isn't modeled in DCS. Proper implementation of smoke would reduce target acquisition visually, and by laser and IR sensors.

Excellent idea. We need additional units of all sorts, definitely. You forgot stretchers. ;)

All vehicles in DCS use smoke canisters when hit in such a way it produces damage, unless they are destroyed with a first hit. You can use heavy machine guns to reproduce that on tanks, IFVs or APCs. BTR80 is a fine example. However, smoke they produce in DCS is very unrealistic in deployment, size, general appearance, range, effectiveness and duration. Also, many tanks can lay a smoke screen by releasing oil into exhaust.