WelshZeCorgi

Basically you solve these by throwing money at the problem. There are additional peripherals that you can buy that mitigate, but not completely solve, most of the issues you are listing. One such peripheral is Pointctrl. Another is a virtual kneeboard that you can write on, (I think it is called VKR) which is useful if you need to remember things. It's basically a Ipad like device+program that copies whatever you write on it to a blank kneeboard page in DCS. You can also try looking into the captogloves. I'm sure there are additional VR tools in development or been release that I am not aware of. Should take a quick search for them. Additional physical button/switch boxes also help for controls and functions that you will either need in a hurry (so you're not forced to look away during a dogfight to flip a switch or push a button in VR, you just do that with a physical switch or button that you should have muscle memory for over time and practice) and perhaps for functions that force you bend uncomfortably to access in VR (like Ejection seat arming for the F14B, oxygen switches, which are usually somewhere behind the hip.) That will save you some annoyance.

I looked through the HB F14 manual and found that the section that explains all the functions on the CAP drum does not mention what most of the functions do. Like what does MULT TGT do? What does IFT AUX LAUNCH do? What does IFT MENU do? What does HOME ON HELI do? Does anyone have documentation that explains all of it?

So TWS takes 2 seconds? 2x5=10 seconds? I don't think I've ever seen a lost track get correlated after the second pass (I guess that's 4 seconds).

Hi, it seems that US MLRS really starts to tax the system when the missile start to hit their targets and split up the DPICM submunitions, is there a way to mitigate chopping up the frames? (this is a multiplayer coop mission) Is there a way to load in HE rounds in the MLRS or have the missiles despawn after launching (after the rocket motors are done firing.) I mainly use it for eye candy so I wanted to know if it was possible to get it to not tax the systems too much.

Hi, wanted to know if it was possible to put in a "tape player" function for all multicrew modules like in the F14 (so Huey, L39, Gazelle). I really like the tape player for the F14 and thought it would be cool if I could also blast Vietnam-era music in the Huey with human Co-pilot and gunners to hear as well.

The link is not working for me, how do I join your discord server?

I think it would kind of work like Zeus for ARMA, though I would prefer my enemy human commander to not have access to magical weather and lightning powers.

Can we get this main menu back? Now that we have clouds? I really miss it.

I know that Viacom Voice attack is a thing and stuff, but I always wondered why modern flight sims still default to menus and stuff like that to communicate orders to wingmen, sections, etc. when it has been proven that voice commands are reliable (given the proper setup and environment) way to interact with the sim. I guess the question is why it's not the default standard, but rather relies on 3rd parties to provide that level of interaction. The use of a mouse and keyboard in order to communicate feels so antiquated and antithetical to the experience of aerial combat. You can't spend 10 seconds in WVR combat to click and navigate through a wingman order menu to get it to behave appropriately because that's time your hands are off HOTAS and SA starts to dive through the floor. Even with AAR, by the time you've clicked through the menu to clear contact, you're so out of position that he denies you and you have get back in position to try it all over again. Even in BVR, with such high closure rates for modern fighters, it becomes difficult to properly communicate with AI and with the upgrade to AI on the horizon, it doesn't make sense for DCS to still revolve its future implementations around keyboard/mouse as the default. I get that click and keyboard menus might still serve a function. Whether that be because the simmer doesn't want to buy a microphone for whatever reason or other. And I agree that it should be a secondary or backup of sorts to voice commands, but to update the AI, ATC, Carrier comms then revolve the entire design of those upgrades around click and keyboard menus instead of voice commands seems like putting old Model T wheels on your new Porsche.

Also, I don't think you can flood Vegas if you broke the Hoover dam.

I mean, if there was a way to do so without turning it into a resource hog, I would agree, but as a magical light box muggle, I assume modeling such a thing would chew up frames.

My take is that, while it's fun to theorize and thought experiment my/your way through this question, any conclusion you/I or others come up with on this forum is probably wrong. And IF by chance or by a complete understanding of the 35's situation, an "opinion" ,or take, was correct (or the least wrong), I doubt any of us would be able to tell the difference between a correct conclusion and an incorrect one. So I guess if you have an opinion and belief of whether or not the 35 was (ultimately) a success or failure, I would also advise holding the notion that you can just as well be completely wrong and be willing to admit that, as well as be open to the idea that depending on the type of conflicts that the 35 gets into, it will definitely shape the perception of the program and be a fair or unfair component in the final judgement, long after the 35 has served and is finally retired, and your willingness to change your opinion should reflect that as new information comes in. As far as my impression goes, it seems to have failed in the cost savings dept, succeeded in integrating new technologies into the airframe (with teething problems of course, as with most new airframes that used new tech in their time), still has an undetermined and hotly debated combat/dogfighting effectiveness (this includes the effectiveness of its stealth), and also undetermined long-term effects this airframe may have on geopolitical influence.

I don't know if this is a dumb question, but I do have to ask. Does lasing produce enough heat to draw the attention of any IR guided missiles? So lets say that an 18 is lasing a SA-8 gecko and for whatever reason, flies into the WEZ of that gecko, and it fires its IR missiles. Lets also say that the 18, for whatever reason, continued to lase the target but did evasive maneuvers to avoid getting hit while dropping flares to defeat it. Would the still lasing pod become such a significant heat source that the IR missile will be able to guide in on it, increasing the chance of the 18 getting hit vs an 18 not lasing the gecko? I know lasers get hot, I also know that it gets nowhere near burning-jet-fuel hot, but after hearing stories of pilots using IR missiles to guide in on the hot engines of tanks (not sure if true), I just had to ask.

I don't know if this is just me, but I still can't get use to the fact that in VR, the A10C feels like a cathedral hall compared to the more cozy spaces of the other cockpits. Is the A10C cockpit really that spacious? It seems just as cramped as the other cockpits in RL A10C over-the-shoulder pilot videos. Everything just seems sort of... blown up? Like the switches are massive, the MFDs seem bigger than those on the Hornet. Not sure if this is a RL optical illusion or something, but everytime I fly, I'm always wondering if this is what the real cockpit is like, just cause everything seems so big.

Or optional, additional spawn locations all around the boat that the mission editor can turn on and off. Again, this is so that non-quake, organized multiplayer groups can spawn in and launch 20+ aircraft in short, rapid succession instead of having to rotate spawns in 4-6 aircraft at a time, which makes the whole process of launching take way more time than in RL.

To be clear, nothing like complete dam collapse + water physics of the water draining from the lake and flooding the areas downstream. More like a large crack decal over the impact area + some waterfall effects. No water physics, so you can't see the water level dropping in the lake and rising downstream. This would make dam busting missions a bit more convincing. Instead of seeing some crater decals clipping over the dam with no visual break in the dam.

Would it make sense to apply the propeller tech used for the WW2 birds to the Huey, Mi8, gazelle and the upcoming helis as well?

Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm reaching asking this. But can't help myself.

I have a convoy driving in a circle on a road in order to present moving targets for a training/practice mission. However, the "move to waypoint" order causes the convoy to stop traveling on road and instead goes off road. Is there a way to get the convoy to cycle through the waypoints indefinitely while also continuing to use the roads?

It seems like the quality of the clouds are higher with flatscreens than with VR. Not sure exactly what it is. Ignoring the "wobbliness" of the clouds that the ED team is already aware of, the clouds in VR seem... blurrier? Not as sharp when compared to flatscreen render, I think. Also, it looks a bit flatter. On flatscreen, the clouds have depth because you can see the little nooks and crannies in the clouds where one part of the cloud is casting shadows on another part of the same cloud, giving it that perception of depth, but in VR, they seem more uniformly white, absent of shadows to the point it doesn't have that shaded variation that gives it that perception of depth. Just my take, good work with the clouds otherwise, was expecting a huge hit to FPS and it seems like performance has actually IMPROVED.

Can we get that menu screen where you're flying through the clouds? I remember this menu screen a few years back, but it got removed for some reason, (cause clouds weren't coming for a few years?) Now that we have clouds, can we have that menu screen back?

It seems like pieces of debris from destroyed aircraft don't really follow any physics modeling. Instead of detached flaps and wings, etc., fluttering to the ground they seem to rotate around an axis as they fall.

How realistic would it be to have terrain deformation implemented for stuff like bombs, rockets and crashed aircraft?

New fire and smoke effects for destroyed aircraft look great! but they do only seem to appear on wing debris. Could we get them to also appear on the bodies of destroyed aircraft?

Will it be possible to use the dynamic campaign that ED is developing online? It would be interesting for 20+ players on the blue team to try and defeat a Human red team commander coordinating the AI on his side using the RTS system that ED mentioned on a server using the dynamic campaign. Would that be something we could do with the dynamic campaign?