shadepiece

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114030 Here is a link to the guide for the command prompt stuff. Should help those who don't wish to mess with the GUI. Also, thanks SerpantsTounge for the reply, currently 20% downloaded.

How do you input the command line??

Hahahahahahahhahahaha! Nailed it. It really is just air quake at the moment. To say that it is anything more is to be completely blind to the fact the the same experience is had in Cliffs on ATAG, Wings of Liberty in BoS, or even War Thunder (shudder). The reason so many people have left DCS WWII, or not joined in the first place, is because it is the most unsatisfying air quake of them all. Historically accuracy arguments aside it is easy to see the 109 has a massive advantage over the Mustang. There is only ONE allied fighter. No wonder people are unhappy. No choice, and the only choice is obviously disadvantaged. Solty is sooooooo correct. The .50s are tragically underpowered. The DM is absolutely unacceptable. The DM leans the advantage even further to the Axis. I might try to look past the terrible DM if I could change my damn convergence!!! All those reasons make it harder, and harder to get people to come back or try it in the first place. It really doesn't help that the DM hasn't been officially addressed or updated.

What a mess this thread is. I think it's pretty clear from those I talk to in the community, who are never on these forums, that they have given up on DCS. At least until we hear something about the Normandy map that is tangible. I think most folks would have preferred older models of the 109, and 190. I love flying the 109, but in all honesty it should have been a G model, and the 190 probably should have been a late A model, although the D-9 is much closer to the Mustang than the K-4. K-4 is by far the best performing aircraft of the three. The argument is either make the older 109s or 190s like most people would have wanted in the first place, but that just isn't ever going to happen. Obviously. Instead blue guys would like an update for the Mustang to the model that actually saw combat with the German planes that we have. As is right now the Mustang just isn't as fun to fly for me. I know from the outset that I am at a severe disadvantage (mainly because I can't hit anything with the convergence set on the Stang, but I have opened that can of worms enough). After faffing about in the Stang I decide I'd rather fly something that I can get results in, and I switch to the K-4, and do faaaaarrr better than I'd do in the Mustang. Bottom line: although the planes are modelled very well, and accurately, there is a huge gap in performance between the German aircraft and the 51 we have in game. I don't want to "balance" the two sides unrealistically, but I think having the version of the P-51 that actually flew against the German planes we have isn't that much to ask.

So here is testimony that at least in the RAF gun convergences were altered to preferance. I think it should be in DCS.

Exactly this! Thank you Exorcet I think you nailed it. I see no harm in being able to enforce historical standards in one srever, while allowing pilots to try different things in another.

But Crumpp you absolutely ARE raining on others parade! When you say "gamey" slider, and think that certain features that may take you out of the immersion, would also take everyone else out of the immersion, and that is just not true. Once again on page 9 I was in agreement that that would be an appropriate solution in a 100% historical based mission. Again that does not mean that you can't have it the other way where people could adjust their guns how they wanted. I'm curious do you think that pilots altering their convergences to be shorter would be exploiting that feature the same way you think pilots who take less fuel are exploiting that feature?

You 100% did call it a "a gamey addition as a slider". Page 7 of this thread http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147256&page=7\ Not to mention you completely ignored the fact that I stated that these different settings could both be in the game, and open for the mission creators to use in which ever way they saw fit. One does not have to exist, and completely take the place of another.

Well within the context of keeping it historically accurate a slider may not be appropriate. Although I much prefer to enter the information manually to include what vertical convergence I like all my guns to be set at, and that would be appropriate in another server perhaps. As I said before I do not think that the two kinds of experiences we are talking about are mutually exclusive. That one person could only be all about the historical accuracy, and not also like being able to see what these machines would have been capable of under different circumstances. I could enjoy an environment where we are held to such historical pre-sets and loadouts, while also enjoying time on a different server in which I can set up my plane the way I want. Not to mention the sentence I said right after that quote was "However, that said you can still alter to any distance via the .lua files if I have understood correctly, and if that is true, then there is only one difference between that and a slider." Additionally there were multiple people who seemed to be in support of the fact that it was in fact historically accurate for pilots to be able to change their convergence ranges, but you seemed to be pretty adamant that there could be no compromise, at least to me. Also, you talked about a "gamey" convergence slider in that post as well, which seems to follow suit in this thread. The notion that people who enjoy these things are somehow less "study-simmers" who would see DCS turned into an arcade game is preposterous. So again a server could exist were everything is completely by the book with all the historically correct presets, but just as well there could be a server that allowed you to alter your convergence, fuel loadout, weapon loadout, ect.

Although I think evidence was provided that in fact it was historically accurate for some pilots to change their convergences, I definitely remember you being competly against the addition of that feature in the game even though I, and a few others had said it would be something we would enjoy, and would in no way affect anyone else who did not choose to change their settings. I think the ammunition slider is just as viable as the fuel slider, and would also like to have the option of removing a gun from each wing, and carrying more ammunition as a result. I think all of these things would have they're own place in the sim while still being realistic.

I know it's been said, but I'd like to put my two cents in as well. I think the modeling of all of the systems in the aircraft have been exquisitly done. However, I do think the visual models are lackluster by quite a large margin. Now before I list the things I'd like to see I'll put the disclaimer out that I do not know how easy/difficult it would be to code these things, or if they are viable within the current engine. That said here it goes, - I'd personally like to a much more dynamic visual modelling for the surfaces of the aircraft. I honestly think that there are two to three different visual damage textures for each modeled module. So say for example you hit the wing root. You'll maybe see a few small holes. Then you hit it a few more times, and the amount of holes in the texture increases, and that's really as far as it goes. I'd love to see more dynamic visual ques of what kind of damage your actually doing. For example, currently in game I can get some decent hits, but not a huge amount of them, but the aircraft will look as though it's been hit literally hundreds of times, and I'll look in the log and I might have only scored a maximum of 40 hit in one solid burst with the Mustangs .50 Cals. So essentially trying to show severe damage with a ton of holes, but really there should be far fewer, and maybe instead critical hits may not visually look any different. This approach to damage models has always turned me off in flight sims. If I hit a huge amount of times then I should see an incredible amount of holes like we do, but only if I actually score that many hits without the aircraft being destroyed first. Also clusters of holes could be added in one area possibly exposing the frame of the aircraft underneath. If you score some critical hits maybe that could be reflected with pieces of metal being throw off the aircraft, and possibly small amounts of oil or fuel spraying out. -20 & 30mm mine-shell hits are not very different from a normal MG hit visually, where as if you look at footage from that specific type of shell you'll clearly see huge plumes of fluids, and dust being blown off the wings, and other surfaces of the plane. -In my opinion most damage models in flight sims are very flat. They conform to the normal texture of the aircraft in an overlay type look. I think a lot of precived realism could be had by simply adding some jagged edges protruding from the plane's surfaces. Again if you reference gun cam footage you can very clearly make out exactly where a plane has been hit. Not only because of bright flashes, which the game already does pretty well, but by how jagged the affected area of the plane is. A good example of how great a less flat damage model can look is in Rise of Flight as canvas wings get shredded, and you see the canvas clearly torn, and jagged in places. The 100% biggest improvement that I think DCS's visual damage could make is the way fluids venting from an aircraft look. There are times where a stalled out aircraft getting punctured, and expelling all of the fluids the aircraft has to offer looks absolutely stunning in the new engine. However, a fuel leak looks rather bland, and uninspired, and flames, and resulting smoke suffers from the same dull look. IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad, and Cliffs of Dover have very good looking damage models, but I think what really gets me is see an aircraft I hit start trailing something. Easiest way to confirm hits! I'd like to see a wider variety of amounts of fluids being leaked from small hits to the oil radiator giving off a small squirt ever once in a while, all the way up to full plumes of glycol venting from multiple holes. -I will also go ahead and say that accuracy of the damage inflicted to systems is paramount, and should be a priority. However, seeing as most of the issues have been voiced I'll not waste my breath repeating them. In conclusion the visual damage model is what really draws me, and I am sure many other to this genre. There is nothing better than seeing the results of your handiwork up close and personal. I understand that it is a priority for the internals to be sorted out first, but for me the visual damage model is what always keeps me coming back to this genre. Not something I can do I real life, or would ever want to, but it is absolutely what keeps me wanting to get better, and better so I can see beautiful machines reduced to hole ridden husks by my gunnery. Hole ridden husks complete with a pilot who is safely away under a silk canopy let me mention.

I have read this thread in it's entirety. I have to say that II think the fuel slider is just fine. I think there are more than enough tools in the mission editor that would allow a creator the ability to make missions long, and far enough to require the full use of all the fuel tanks. A mission that would require us to fly for an hour before we got anywhere, or did anything, would not be for me. Much like Echo, and OP I like the current missions. Missions in which I can get turned up in a fight shortly after joining the server. I do not perceive the ability for the virtual pilot (which we are) to make choices that a real life pilot might not as a bad thing, or something that is less hardcore simulation wise. The argument could be made that it isn't necessary historically accurate in the sense that these are not historically accurate situations, or missions, but the FM and how the aircraft perform in these varying states are incredibly accurate. So the notion that we are fans of a "gamey" simulation is ludicrous in my mind. Just because I don't necessarily want to fly perfect historical missions, or want to conform to every minor detail in regards to how my virtual aircraft is set up does not mean I want a "gamey" simulation. Although, I do think that allowing a mission creator to enforce a historical fuel loadout is not too much to ask for. That being said, I also think there are some pretty severe double standards here. I remember when Crumpp was on my thread fighting tooth and nail against allowing us to be able to alter our own gun convergence. I shouldn't see how this argument is any different in the way that both features were in fact "possible" in reality, so not like having infinite ammo, or unlimited fuel. Crumpp has said he sees no issues with there being a choice to enforce the historical fuel loadouts, while also allowing the fuel slider to exist on servers that are open about their settings. However, when it comes to something else in the game that might be something that the so-called "gamey" simmers would in fact like to have control over I seem to remember him thinking that that would be quite unreasonable. I bring that up to show that you cannot have the cake, and eat it too. You can't argue to allow players to have a choice in one situation, while maintaining that players shouldn't be allowed to in another. I think that mission creators could just as easily enforce historical fuel loads, and convergences just as easily as a mission creator would rather allow their players to experiment with different loadouts to get an edge. They way one enjoys the game is much different than another, and that is okay. As long as everyone is following the "study-sim rules" of keeping the options grounded in the relms of reality. If someone wants to go in with a crazy 200 yard, 30% fuel, adrenaline charged mission I think they absolutely should be able to, as long as he is on a server where everyone has the same opportunity. Just as much, someone who wants a painfully recreated historical mission should be able to fly that. There is nothing that says that this person is not the same person on different days in different moods. Bottom line: I think that the real conversation should be that of allowing mission/server creators to have more power to create the intended flight experience that they have envisioned. Whether that is the hyper accurate historical kind, or the equally as realistic, if not historically accurate, experimental server which would allow virtual pilots to try things that may or may not have happened in reality even if those things were possible, and put them in a place where they could try those setups against other real humans, and not just AI. *steps off soap box*

Sorry boys and girls I just checked, and Amazon is out of stock at the moment. Was gonna post a link, but looks like I wasn't fast enough to spread the word. Keep your eye out though, you never know if they might restock it soon.

Hey everyone, If you act quickly the Warthog HOTAS is on sale on Amazon for $315. Some massive savings if your looking at getting this HOTAS, or just looking to get a HOTAS in general. Hope this helps someone pick one up! -shadepiece

Hey guys, I seem to have run into a hiccup. I loaded up DCS this evening, and even though i was just playing this morning, I found that my pitch axis is laggy. I re-calibrated my stick (3D Extreme Pro), i reset the curves in game, and made sure my stick worked fine in other sims. The issue seems to be that when i pull back on the stick it only registers for about a second before automatically returning to neutral in game while IRL i have the stick cracked all the way back. If I jiggle the stick it keeps it there in game, but of course this gives me a terribly bumpy flight path, and as soon as I stop moving the stick, the pitch axis in game will center. I'm not sure if it's an issue on my end, or a bug. Edit: Also, just took a look at the stick in game, and left and right are fine, as well as the rudder peddles, but when the stick is moving back and forth for pitch it's glitching out like crazy. Also for the record I'm flying the Mustang. For the record I posted this exact post in this thread as well (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=148434). Hopefully this might get seen sooner. RESOLVED: Had a separate controller plugged in that isn't normally. Should have known. Rookie mistake.

Pitch Axis Hey guys, I seem to have run into a hiccup. I loaded up DCS this evening, and even though i was just playing this morning, I found that my pitch axis is laggy. I re-calibrated my stick (3D Extreme Pro), i reset the curves in game, and made sure my stick worked fine in other sims. The issue seems to be that when i pull back on the stick it only registers for about a second before automatically returning to neutral in game while IRL i have the stick cracked all the way back. If I jiggle the stick it keeps it there in game, but of course this gives me a terribly bumpy flight path, and as soon as I stop moving the stick, the pitch axis in game will center. I'm not sure if it's an issue on my end, or a bug. Edit: Also, just took a look at the stick in game, and left and right are fine, as well as the rudder peddles, but when the stick is moving back and forth for pitch it's glitching out like crazy. Also for the record I'm flying the Mustang. RESOLVED: Had a separate controller plugged in that isn't normally. Should have known. Rookie mistake.

I just got into DCS, and I have to say I had no issues with the P-51D, or the Dora, but the Kürfurst has been kicking my butt. I agree with the White Whale description!!

Hooozahh!! Is this open to the public, or only for members? Also, what is included in the modpack?

There is no confusion. I knew you only meant one or the other referring to the distances, and that is exactly what I want. A few historical pre-sets to choose from. I.e. 250 yards OR 350 yards. I do NOT want a slider in between those two settings. However, that said you can still alter to any distance via the .lua files if a have understood correctly, and if that is true, then there is only one difference between that and a slider. The difference being that you have to do all sorts of finagling to get the guns where you want them instead of an easy to use option in the load out screen. To me that sounds about as ludicrous as having to alter the .lua files to change your bomb/missile/rocket load-outs. So again I'm not saying I want a slider, I'm just saying it doesn't seem to me like an outlandish ask to polish a feature that's already in the game. Hell, maybe even some could make a mod to do all those things for you, so guys like me don't have to try to alter the .lua files for hours on end to get the results we are looking for... So I will make this as clear as I possibly can. What I WHAT is to have three or so preset convergence distance, and pattern choices to choose from in the load-out screen that is functional for both single, and multiplayer. Not a slider. If a mod came out that helped me get these things that would be welcomed on my machine. Edit: Also, thank you for the warm welcome.

As did I! Terribly disappointed. Hopefully another one soon!!

Firstly, I would like to thank Fredrich for citing my original post. I had hoped that this sort of conversation would play out. There is a lot of cool information, and video evidence coming to this thread, and I have enjoyed it all immensely. However, I am still, and for every will be in the crowd wanting adjustable convergence. I think now more than ever we have a lot of evidence that it was not only a select few pilots who changed their settings, and that there was a good reason behind it. Crumpp you specifically mentioned multiple times that we are all wanting a "gamey" slider, even though I have made it clear that I am looking for presets to choose from, and I think many other support that particular stance. You yourself even pointed out that there were two common presets in the P-47. Yet you've also made the argument that you don't think this is a big issue due to the fact that you can already alter the .lua files. I do not see the difference of being able to alter the .lua files in any way that I wish, and a "gamey" slider. If I can put in any convergence settings I want, what is the difference? Secondly, the issue with the .lua files is that I am not very good with alter code, or files, or what-have-you, and would like to be able to make those corrections in an easier fashion then have to spend three hours or better trying to get the file just the way I want it without breaking the game. Also, the .lua files do not work for multiplayer which is something I very much wish to spend a lot of time playing. We have had some excellent examples of manuals, and actual documentation from the allied side, and I'd be curious if we could find anything from the German perspective on boresighting. Granted, the majority of the weapons on the German aircraft are very near the centerline, and can have a much further convergence range without much of a noticeable difference, however, the Bf-109 K-4 could have wing mounted cannons, and that is something I heard was coming eventually. I'd like to know if the is anything out there talking about that. Hopefully, someone can do some translating, finger crossed. Finally, I'd like to say that I have purchased the P-51D in this steam sale, and plan on grabbing the other two props tomorrow. I have taken the Mustang through the training missions which were straight forward enough for me, being as experienced as I am, if not without the occasional wing stall haha! Then I quickly hoped into the instant action against another P-51D, and prevailed! It took about 10 minutes of careful maneuvering to get him to over-shoot, and then it was just trying to catch back up to him from there. After that I dabbled in the mission editor, and took on a Dora. I again was able to pull out the win, finding myself climbing towards a stall, and pressing the trigger at the last second before stalling, sending a hail of bullets into his engine block! I no doubt have been having a blast. I have tried my luck against the K-4 with pretty disastrous results if I'm honest. That one is going to be a bit more tricky. All said however, I find myself engaging at twice, if not more, the distance I would normally feel comfortable, and this is partly due to getting the feel for DCS, and partly due to the longer convergence. I can honestly say it feels like I'm doing everything wrong. What I would normally do just isn't as effective with the longer convergence settings. I'm having a blast, but that won't change my stance.

Page 12 under number nine it states that a target should be placed in front of the plane at the desired range for convergence (usually 750-1000ft). Argument aside, it is a very interesting read, and regardless of whether adjustable convergence is added I still plan on getting all the props. I would say there are bigger fish to fry in DCS, but I still think that convergence presets are something that should be added in the future.

Just because we cannot find instructions for "custom" convergence does not mean that they do not exist, or that it was not done. It clear that the mounts for the guns could be adjusted, and I find it hard to believe no one altered their gun settings. Things you do as an operator in a situation where you depend on your equipment to keep you alive may not be "by the book". The " weapon specialists " are not the ones in the plane seeing the results each individual pilot is producing. We know pilots changed out certain ammo types in their belts. Some pilots didn't like to use tracers ect. I promise you won't find any paperwork telling pilots to make decisions like that.

These are my exact feelings. I hope that very soon we could see some screens of the Normandy map!!!

I agree wholeheartedly. There is nothing close to DCS when it comes to accurately modeled aircraft, but I think the aforementioned issues are the exact ones keeping people away, but that's only half the problem. The biggest issue I see, and that I think other sim pilots see, is that there does not seem to be a clear line of communication with the devs on these issues. Obviously, the damage model is lacking in certain areas. Obviously the spotting is a issue (which will hopefully be solved with 1.5). Yet I have not heard much from the devs on these issues. I'm not demanding that the WWII aircraft be at the forefront of the priority for them, DCS is after all primarily a modern aircraft sim, but when many of the issues the WWII player base has are not being addressed, it can turn people away. Not permanently perhaps, but for the time being. people want to buy the whole product at once, not to pay and then have to wait for it to finished being developed. Obviously there is plenty of content to warrant the price-tag already, which is why many of you have bought these modules even if you fly more of the modern stuff. I just think many people are holding out until they can get into something that's more fully developed. I believe the process of gaining a wider player base would be sped up if there was more communication from the top showing that the WWII player base is a priority, and that our thoughts and suggestions are being heard. This would make the whole community appear much more inviting. In a way, to me at least, it feels like us prop heads are getting the cold shoulder at the moment.