firmek

Don't count on it. The only one that could be considered is the F-18 but it's still almost two months left before the deadline (May 31'st). If ED decided to publish the release version we can only assume that the problems left are not considered a show stoppers or/and that they'll take substantial time to fix.

A simple solution would be the best. No need for a towing simulator. Just a simple F8 ground crew option with push back commands like: push back 1m, 2m, 5m, 10m, ..., "untill stop" and "stop" would work.

After Sunday stream the chances for F-16 are much higher. While similar to F-18 the F-16 is serving in many air forces around the world which is a good reason to believe that it is the module which has the chance to beat the F-18 in terms of sales. As for Russian aircraft the only indication at the moment is the "hint" related to MiG-23 where someone from ED wrote that they are not going to give it to any other developer. While we're speculating anyway let's at least try to keep the discussion to the leaked hints rather than creating yet another wish thread ;)

Ehmmm.... that would be the Tornado :D Being fully serious, I would hope for... no module. Instead, more AI units, potentially a dynamic campaign engine. Give more breathing air for already existing aircrafts. Evolve DCS from modules to air combat environment simulator.

+1. From pure technical design perspective i7 is obviously better than i5. But unless the budget is unlimited - which it's safe to assume in most of the cases it's isn't, the $/FPS gain between i5 and i7 is borderline inefective. In other words we spend a lot just to get a few more frames pers second. From the overall system perspective it's better to invest in a better GPU and SSD drive as those bring better improvement per money spent.

If I understand your question correctly - no hard feelings, it’s a bit cryptic :) - it’s the zoomed out and un-zoomed one. Snap views define the default FOV, the one that you get when hitting restore default view shortcut (can't recall but I think it's Num Enter?). Max FOV (how for it zooms out) is stored in the view.lua or in the server.lua in user folder. The trick with max FOV is that it can be set to the same value as default FOV for two benefits - no zoom out at start, if slider is assigned to the zoom it's all travel space is dedicated to zoom in, making it more precise.

Skate, your answer is related to the snap views which allow to set the head position in cockpit and a default FOV. Is the view configuration, including max and min FOV defined in server.lua, stored in user folder still working? I didn't observe a problem but I didn't had time to check with all of the modules.

I'm quite puzzled. I tried Harrier, Mirage, Viggen, F-5, Mi-8 and the settings from Server.lua stored in user folder did work. I'm running the latest 2.5 open beta. Maybe I could get the point when checking the original view files?

I would assume companies have flexibility to define their own WBS and do a things in different order.

What do you mean? That since the latest version the view config stored in user folder works only with Harrier?

Get i5 model with a highest clock rate. Add the monday saved from i7 to SSD or better GPU.

I know it's not why you're refering to this point but there is a possibility to progress to another (next or any) mission from the campaign by editing the user log lua file. So, if you're stuck with a campaign mission for whatever the reason, there is a workaround.

It's not that long since the Harrier initial release. By now the community should have figgured out that substantical module progress since EA should be counted in years rather than weeks or months. Nothing particlarry wrong, at least untill now. There are a two problems however: 1. The lack of communication doesn't help at all. It actually creates a concern as the devs turned from very open to silent. Having to brag for an whats included/planned updates list is a bs. 2. The module was IMO rushed into release way too early, with a hude list of big functionalities missing. In other words what many people expected to get: What we got for the moment: It can be always said that it's better to enjoy what we have rather than waiting for the updates but consider that the situation in DCS has changed. There are many other modules that can be enjoyed in the mean time. I got mist of modules on EA but as I said, Harrier seems to be one of just a few rushed into release way too early. Which can be also a leasson learned - make sure to check how much feature complete the module will be on the release. To be fair however, this hasn't been clearly communicated in case of Harrier prior the release.

To those that are asking for this feature, how you even know that the guy that you just lost a dogfight with did had the trees off and this setting did actually helped him? That's the only option that would make any sense. Min setting would at least not affect those that want to fly with a high graphics settings. Maybe even the option is not needed - just to make the things simpler for everyone and include a default, minimum limit in DCS.

Thanks for posting this. We have a date. Though we're still in winter.... . 2.5 months in front of us. The experience also shows that if ED communicates a date, they'll release at last possible moment. Assuming Wed/Fri release cycle - 25.05 or 30.05.

Dont assume this. Assume the default view will be.... the default view :) Ok, i.e.: - default FOV: 90 - max FOV: 160 (aka zoom out) - min FOV: 40 (aka zoom in) The mid point is about 100, which is not a default FOV. But, anyone can fix it already by setting max/min so that mid = default. Also to get rid the zoom out - set the max = default. It works already.

That's fully correct. A short exposure time during a sunny day will reduce depth of reflective objects. Contrary, a long exposure will increase it. Similar variable is the angle from which the photo is taken from, the smaller the angle the more reflective the surface will seem. It’s quite ironic as in a sunny days a shiny surfaces may not show on a photo so much depth due to a short exposure time. In other words, just take a camera, set a long exposure time and make the photo as much parallel to the surface and the result can be a mirror like surface, much more reflective than it may seem in reality: The wings seem more reflective as they are pictured from a low angle while the main airframe is shoot almost perpendiculary.

This is not really correct. Yes, Quadro are targetted towards different market but they work perfectly fine with the games. Just the dolar per FPS is not that impressive. The OP problem is that his card is K4000 - kepler based, like GeForce 600 series. Seems to be comparable with GeForce 650-660. Its just an old card. The only one issue with Quadro cards, especially mobile version installed in the laptops is that quite often they come with a non NVidia drivers. Just make sure to use a latest NVidia drivers and Quadro should work fine with games.

I'm almost certain it's a problem with your view settings, most probably incorrect FOV for a wide screen monitor. Changing FOV is a must if changing a monitors with a different aspect ratio.

The AOC monitor is 3440 x 1440, which is the most popular resolution for ultra wide, 34'' monitors. It works perfectly weel so I don't see a big problem with 35''. I think you're exaggerating "a bit". Considering pixel density (pixel/inch): 40'' 4096x3112: ~110 PPI 35'' 3440x1440: ~106 PPI 34'' 3440x1440: ~110 PPI 27'' 1920x1080: ~82 PPI 24'' 1920x1080: ~92 PPI 34'' 3440x1440 is the same as 40'' 4K and better than the most popular 24 and 27 Full HD displays.

Believe me, it's worth it :) Just clean up the garage a bit :) Being more serious. Though I don't know much about AMVA panels, tech spec wise the linked AOC monitor looks interesting. TFT central is a great place to look for a creditable, in-depth reviews: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/aoc_agon_ag352ucg.htm You may also check out the Acer X34 predator. Should be the same as linked Asus monitor. Edit: ASUS Designo 34 looks nice. Especially the IPS panel. No G-sync though - not an easy choice considering much lower price. One point however that many pople forget which is also important - the stand. Asus Design has an non-adjustable stand which on top of that looks quite short. If you prefer to have the monitor higher, on the level with your sight rather than watching down this monitor will not be a great option. Unless you want to stack books under the stand.

For sure 34'' over 27''. I did change a 24'' to 34'' monitor and that was a day-night difference in DCS. The extra peripheral vision that 34'' monitor gives is extreamly usefull in DCS as also in other titles (like FPS). Another thing is that the wide screen just feels more natural as humans see more horizontally than vertically. If 34'' monitor than at least 3440x1440. Don't go lower with the resolution. As for other options. G-Sync is IMO a must - at least once you try it out there is no way back (forget the crappy V-Sync, this abomination of technology should have never existed). 100 Hz.. hard to say. Probably not critical with DCS but if you go for a 34'' monitor with G-Sync its safe to assume the panel will be 100hz anyway. If possible get IPS over TN. As an example: https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG348Q/

I wonder how long the community will bash on that point :doh:. It had been clearly stated by the devs that the Kh-66 should be considered as an extra. Was it added by intention or eventually turned out a misunderstanding of “bis” variant capability doesn't really matter. It's also not that far from reality as it had been used with MiG-21, just with a different variants. Really, get over it. The purists - just don't load the Kh-66. Mission designers can remove the missile if striving for ultimate realistic setup. The missile is a novelty anyway, it doesn't make the bis an unstoppable beast. It's not like we've got an AIM-120C for F-5E.

Soviet abandoned the concpept quite quickly - for a simple reason, it was turning the plane to a really expensive, one time use human piloted missile. After all, the plane had to land after being launched from the rail - so it needed an airfield anyway. Second point was an already ongoing development of misile based air defences (S-25, S-75).

Check another mission. Most probably its the known issue with view settings stored in the mission file, in which case the in-mission view settings are applied on top of user ones. I've seen this issue quite often with the training missions. If you have a direct access to the mission file you can solve the problem by applying procedure as described in Troubleshooting Missings: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views EDIT: Check if you have a option to use the same view settings in all missions (sorry can't remember how it's called exactly) marked as yes. In such case disable it as this option makes your view settings stored into the mission. In result if you're adjusting them you can get the old settings that were saved at the time when the mission was created.