Monkey21

Did these ever get uploaded anywhere?

No, that's not my idea at all. My idea is to reduce the intensity of the simulation of reflections, dirt, and scratches on the canopy to better represent what a pilot actually sees when they look through a transparent object. This is because those things are not in focus when a human eye looks beyond them and focuses on the outside world, and therefore appear less prominent. It's as simple as that.

Glad we agree that certain obstructions should be blurred then. Nope; if you actually think that then you've fundamentally misunderstood the argument, but I suspect you're just being flippant.

Not true, human eyes and the visual processing of our brain is fundamentally different from a digital camera, such are the limitations of meat-based optics. The most relevant factor here is nicely demonstrated by your own video: the depth of field the "sensors" are capable of. As you can see, the depth of field the GoPro is capable of is massive, with both the instrument panel and the terrain in focus, even when the latter is several kilometers away. Your eye, on the other hand, has to refocus when switching from looking inside to outside the cockpit and vice versa, this is why HUDs are focused on infinity, so you don't have to refocus on it when you've been looking outside. Go and try it in your car or something, you'll need to refocus your eyes to read the tach after looking through the windscreen. Another factor is that we have binocular vision so when focusing on distant objects we're quite good at filtering out unnecessary or obstructive stimulus from close to our eyes; anyone who wears glasses understands this as you don't really "see" the frames unless you're actively trying to, despite them being well within your field of view. Even if you don't wear glasses, your brain removes your nose from the image your eyes feed it, despite it also occupying a significant portion of your FOV. Perhaps the best example of this is the halo in F1, where a big titanium pillar sits right in front of the driver's eyes; ostensibly a terrible idea, except your eye focuses past it and it becomes entirely unobstructive while racing This means that, while looking outside the cockpit, items close to you are not in focus. Items such as the scratches and reflections on the canopy. This is why I say it depends on what you consider realistic; are we (the player) a camera or a pilot? If we're a camera then the way the scene is rendered is very realistic, but I don't think we should be looking at what a camera sees, I think we should be looking at what a pilot sees.

Do we want DCS to be a simulation of what a gopro sees, or what the pilot sees?

Depends on what your interpretation of "realistic" is; If you think it's what a camera sees when it focuses on a pane of perspex then sure, the reflections are realistic. If you think it's what a human eye sees when it focuses on the world beyond the canopy, then they're not. The point is that yes, everyone is aware that smooth surfaces (like the canopy of the FW190 A8) reflect light, but pilots focus their eyes on what they're actually looking at, and that means the canopy is not in focus, blurring and diminishing the reflections to the point of insignificance. Anyone who's ever taken a photograph through a window and been disappointed with the result knows what I'm talking about.

It was produced by @Magic Zach as far as I'm aware.

Such a shame that this is still an issue. I loved flying the F-5 with this mod, and the erroneous interpretation of the default RWR logic is all that stops me from recommending it to others. I'd really love to see this longstanding inaccuracy corrected.

I want to truck 8 heaters around and kill A-10s

Canopies would be cleaned before flight, makes no sense to have them dirty from the outset. Would be cool if it was connected to how long you'd been in the air or at low altitude: the occasional splatted bug to scare the bejesus out of you.

Yes please! Have really been enjoying WWII stuff recently, and this is one more layer of high quality to the authenticity.

I'm sure I can't be the first person experiencing this, the epitome of first world problems, but I have a sim rig for racing games, and having every single connected controller appear in the DCS control binding menu makes setting up my keybinds for various aircraft much more tedious. I don't expect the game to know which controllers are to be ignored by default, but I would like to be able to right click on the column header and select "ignore" or "hide controller" to grey it out and move it to the right, after controllers that have not been hidden. Alternatively give us the ability to "prioritise" certain controllers to pin their columns to the left side, or just the ability to drag the columns around to our preference. Currently we can disable each column, which is good for preventing accidentally binding a control to the wrong controller, but it doesn't help with the unwanted columns getting in the way of the controllers you actually want to use. It's hardly the most pressing of issues, but I've just done a fresh install of the game and have found rebinding stuff rather tiresome. The other option is that I stop being lazy and just unplug my racing sim stuff from the wall when I want to play DCS, but I want a solution that doesn't require me to get up from my seat.

Just had a panic because my mod stopped working. Luckily disabling and re-enabling it fixed it! Frustrating that even after all this time, this obvious flaw in a major system hasn't been fixed though.

Yeah this has been bugging me for a while, the scan line is supposed to have a smooth tail that follows it with a delay, rather than a big block of green. It's a minor graphical thing though.

Not really, the radar isn't designed for it all, and the radar points itself at the ground whenever it can. I have heard than some Tornado GR.4 navigators were able to get their AG radars to work as crude air-to-air radar, but could only be used for scanning. You certainly couldn't guide air-to-air weapons with it.

Are you planning to make the files available? I love this!

Fantastic news!

I also love missing the point.

Guys, nobody reasonable on either side is saying the Eagle shouldn't break apart at a certain point (probably 13-14G,) so many of you are arguing with imaginary opposition. I fly the Eagle almost exclusively in PVP and I would be 100% fine with this change; anything to improve the realism of FC3 is great IMO. The point the Eagle guys are making is that nowhere in our real world fpight envelope do we come anywhere close to that level of G, so the proposed changes would actually make no difference to how we fly and fight, so while it's important fix for realism's sake, the real world implications are minimal, and that's why it's not as big of a deal as it's been made out to be.

Just in case some of you aren't salty enough yet 23.3G

Seems not to work with Tors, Osas or Chaparrals from some quick testing, I've repaired my game and disabled all mods, still doesn't appear to be working. To be clear, this is a single player custom mission with the checkbox disallowing the modules to be fitted not checked, and I'm happy to create a video showing my problem if that would help?

No, 1.5.6 OB although it happens in 1.5.5 stable as well. Haven't tried 2.0 yet.

I'm still having issues with the D2M, the modules appear to be fitted to the pylons, and they are definitely selected in the mission editor, however the switch in the cockpit by the right knee now does nothing. No indicator light comes on, and I get no warning from Strela launches that are within the cones of detection. Is there an additional step I'm missing?

Have tried them out, seem great to me. Thank you so much for the sharp fix! How about "Decoy Program CW/CCW" or maybe "Next/Previous Decoy program"

HA!