firmek

The logic should be connected to the own unit visibility setting on F-10 map. No need to make it a separate setting. Another interesting thing would be how many people are actually using this option. I would say most pople forgot that the option is even there and go to F-10 map to check their position.

+1. Probably the performance gain in this case is barely noticeable but still it's a correct approach to use a truncated 3D model. Something that should be understood is that the in the cockpit view does not use the same model as seen in the external - F2/F3 views. It uses another model with a really simplified representation of the airframe, for the most part having a mesh only for surfaces which can be seen when strapped in the cockpit. I didn’t check the models but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of us are landing without the wheels :lol: The bottom line, the model should stay as it is while the root problem is the ability to stick the head out of the cockpit in unnatural way.

:thumbup: I'm not sure if RB-47 should be a top on priority list for AI modules but I couldn't agree more with your comment. It's hard to over stress it - DCS critically needs ground, air and finally naval AI units from 50's and 60's. There is almost no content for MiG-15 and Sabre. Those from mission creators that didn't gave up and are doing everything possible to create some interesting play-ground for those planes are forced to solutions as using C-130 to portray the B-29... I really hope the situation improves and some of AI units are already worked on in parallel to MiG-19. Otherwise we get yet another module with no proper environment to fly it in. Actually, the ultimate goal should be for DCS to create an immersive air warfare environment simulation - aside of just providing great air frames representation (modules).

Rule no 1: ... ... ... ... Use search: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=179176 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=187229 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=182094

You do realize that you linked a thread with ASP issue... as a responce to the question how does not having individual sound files makes it broken....

Take it easy :thumbup: The brightness, contrast controls will not make it up for a proper night vision device. Nor it will make the day light sensors work in LLTV-IR spectrum. Note that real CCD device work in a different way than a computer graphics - where increasing the brighness, well just makes the things visible instead of starting to show a screen with more noise. While Ka-50 is a great chopper, Russia struggled for quite long time with developping a night attack capabilities for their combat choppers. One of the main reason was lack of proper electronics. If I'm correct they started to operate night attack capable Ka-50N at and of 90's and later on Mi-28 after 2000.

http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views or just search on youtube for DCS snap views.

:thumbup:. The Ka-50 we have in DCS does not have night attack capabilities :) The brighness/contrast trick with Shkval is basically a cheat :)

It's hard to blame anyone that the module had been developped over the time by three different teams. Quite contrary, it's usually an indication that in result, in the background the software is so to say, difficult to maintain. Which basically means fixes and updates take a lot of effort. Remember that those are also bearly a companies. The reality seems more a group of people doing module development as a second job. I wonder how many people that complain so much do actually have any software development experience. Maybe then they would understand how "easy" piece of a bread it is and that the things they assume should take a day in reality can take a week or a month to do. You're correct that there are inacuracies but from the way you describe the problems "no need of 100% realism to have fun" some could draw a conclusion that MiG-21 is an arcade module - which simply is not true. We need to remember that it's a simulator and while some strive for 100% adequate representation, not evertyghing is possible or doable with a rational amount of investment. There will always be things that are workarounds and which purists will criticise. Finally, there might have been a mistake during an early evaluation in understanding how the things work in reality. It's normal to have an issue with the "requirements". What I think people also forget and stopped to appreciate is that just a few years back a lock-on, flaming clifs was the most advanced and realistic combat simulator available to the public. I would say that MiG-21 is in a state more than good enough to be called a realistic simulation. Especially that those few things not right are mostly not noticable if you don't really go into the real manual (which by the way also quite often doesn't give an ultimate answer and leaves a room for interpretation). What I'm trying to say is that people should stop complaining so much. I see less and less people participating in a constructive in depth criticism - instead there are just more and more general, negative and quite often false statments.

Well said Everyone can find out by going into multi-player server browser that cold war, Mig-21 and F-5 server is constantly in top 5 if not 3 of most most populated servers (after 104th server, BF and free flight, aerobatics server). It is like this since a long time, even before Viggen and Harrier had been added. Surelly MiG-21 gained it's popularity thanks to being utterly broken and rotten with bugs module :doh: Some people are really exaggerating. There really should be a way on the forum to red flag statements like this : Such statements are clearly giving impression to stay away from the module. It's easy to write crap on the forum but think that this will drive some potentiall customer away from purchassing the module - directly affecting developpers revenues and maybe even the stability. Guess what: go to to bug, to do list for some other modules - assuming that they are even pulicly available to begin with. Maybe that'll be a bucket of cold water that will bring you back to the reality :doh: MiG-21 is a great module, absolutelly funcional and usable. It's also one of the most fun to fly . Yes, there are some bugs but none are show-stoppers. Also comparing to other DCS modules there is nothing that would make MiG-21 particullary outsanding from the average in a negative way. Countrary, considering average state of modules in DCS MiG-21 is one of the more complete ones. I think a lot of people are giving M3 a hard time right now due to the announcement of the CE. But that's purelly not fair :furious:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a15858887/flat-earth-rocket-man-will-take-to-the-sky-in-two-weeks/

You will not have enough space on that drive. I was in the same situation - a 128 GB SDD with Windows only and the DCS would not fit on it. I got a 500 GB SDD for DCS. It was really worth it. DCS loads a lot of data, making upgrade from HDD to SDD a night to day difference. However, frankly speaking, if it's going to be a gaming PC if you still have a possibility I would change the i7 8700 to i5 and get a better GPU - 1070 at least and 1080 if possible.

Look great though I really hope RAZBAM makes a proper bindings for all that 2 and 3 position switches ;)

Just tone the scratches and tint a bit down as the glass is quite worn-out compared to other modules. Makes already difficult spotting even more difficult. "Realistic" is quite subjective in this case. We should consider the overall experience and shortcomings of computer generated graphics. +1. More fresh cockpit would be really nice to have. Just to have an option to choose from. :thumbup: They literally wrote "we are not going to give MiG-23 or MiG-27 to anyone". From this statement forum added apples to oranges using rationalle they are both round and arrived to the point "MiG-23 is under active development by ED - Confirmed!!!" :doh: Well, it’s safe to assume ED wants to keep it for them self but they may as well start to work on the project in 10 years from now. It's really funny how the forum can exaggerate a simple statement based on a wishful thinking.

Created a dedicated thread for MiG-15: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=203088

I thought that I share the list. Question and Answers Q: Does it work? A: Sort of. Most of the switches lack separate up and down actions definition by Belsimtek. In other words, they work but as toggles - player needs to make sure at mission start that in game and real switch are in the same position. That's why most of the bindings have both up and dn action set to the same value equal 1. Request to Belsimtek to define and maintain proper up/dn actions for all of the in-cockpit switches of this great plane! Q: How to install? A: Copy paste into next line after "keyCommands = {" in DCSInstall\Mods\aircraft\MiG-15bis\Input\MiG-15bis\joystick\Throttle - HOTAS Warthog.lua file. Q: Is there a JSGME version available A: No as using JSGME can result in overwriting the updates. It shouldn't be a big issue with MiG-15 though as module is generally not updated. Feel free to create one, I just believe that JSGME is a bad idea with the DCS controllers definition files. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- START Custom Key Commands -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {down = RSI_6K_commands.Mig15_Command_RSI6K_ReceiveARC_EXT, up = RSI_6K_commands.Mig15_Command_RSI6K_ReceiveARC_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.RSI_6K, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('RSI-6K Radio, RSI-6K Receive/ARC Switch'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = signalflare_commands.Mig15_Command_SignalFlare_switch_EXT, up = signalflare_commands.Mig15_Command_SignalFlare_switch_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.SIGNAL_FLARE_DISPENSER, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Left Cockpit Side, Signal Flare Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = iCommandPlaneAirBrakeOn, up = iCommandPlaneAirBrakeOff, value_down = 1, value_up = 0, name = _('Systems, Airbrake Switch Open/Close'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- ok {down = ARC_5_commands.CMD_ARC_5_NearOrFar_EXT, up = ARC_5_commands.CMD_ARC_5_NearOrFar_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ARC_5, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('AARC-5 Radio Compass, ARC-5 NDB Switch Near/Far'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = ARC_5_commands.CMD_ARC_5_Near1_EXT, up = ARC_5_commands.CMD_ARC_5_Near1_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ARC_5, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('AARC-5 Radio Compass, ARC-5 NDB 1 Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = ARC_5_commands.CMD_ARC_5_Near2_EXT, up = ARC_5_commands.CMD_ARC_5_Near2_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ARC_5, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('AARC-5 Radio Compass, RC-5 NDB 2 Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = ARC_5_commands.CMD_ARC_5_Near3_EXT, up = ARC_5_commands.CMD_ARC_5_Near3_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ARC_5, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('AARC-5 Radio Compass, ARC-5 NDB 3 Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_BoosterPump_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_BoosterPump_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Left Panel, Booster Pump Switch'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = engine_commands.Mig15_Command_IsolatingValve_EXT, up = engine_commands.Mig15_Command_IsolatingValve_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ENGINE_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Left Panel, Isolating Valve Switch'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_Ignition_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_Ignition_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Left Panel, Ignition Switch'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_LightsAndInstruments_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_LightsAndInstruments_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Left Panel, Instruments and Lights Switch'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_TransferPump_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_TransferPump_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Left Panel, Transfer Pump Switch'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_AirEngineStartSw_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_AirEngineStartSw_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Left Panel, Air Start Switch'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = navlights_commands.Mig15_Command_NoseLight_EXT, up = navlights_commands.Mig15_Command_NoseLight_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVLIGHT_SYSTEM, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Left Panel, External Lights Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = navlights_commands.Mig15_Command_PositionLights_EXT, up = navlights_commands.Mig15_Command_PositionLights_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVLIGHT_SYSTEM, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Instrument Panel, Nose Light Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = iCommandPlaneGearUp, up = gear_commands.Mig15_Command_LandingGearHandle, cockpit_device_id = devices.GEAR_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 0.5, name = _('Systems, Landing Gear Handle Up/Neutral'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- ok {down = iCommandPlaneGearDown, up = gear_commands.Mig15_Command_LandingGearHandle, cockpit_device_id = devices.GEAR_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 0.5, name = _('Systems, Landing Gear Handle Dn/Neutral'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- ok {down = gear_commands.Mig15_Command_LandingGearHandleCover_EXT, up = gear_commands.Mig15_Command_LandingGearHandleCover_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.GEAR_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Systems, Landing Gear Handle Lock On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = fuel_commands.Mig15_Command_DropTanksSignal_EXT, up = fuel_commands.Mig15_Command_DropTanksSignal_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.FUELSYS_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Central Panel, Drop Tank Signal Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = device_commands.Button_12, up = device_commands.Button_12, cockpit_device_id = devices.WEAPON_SYSTEM, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Central Panel, Tactical Release Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_BatterySw_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_BatterySw_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, Accumulator Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_GeneratorSw_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_GeneratorSw_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, Generator Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_NoseLight_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_NoseLight_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, Nose Light Master Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_Trimmer_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_Trimmer_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, Trim Master Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_AGK_DGMK_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_AGK_DGMK_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, AGK-47B Artificial Horizon + DGMK-3 Switch On/Off'),category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_Radio_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_Radio_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, Radio Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_Bomb_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_Bomb_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, Bombs Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_EmergencyDrop_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_EmergencyDrop_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, Emergency Drop Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_ARC_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_ARC_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, ARC Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_RV2_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_RV2_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, RV-2 Radio Altimeter Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_NR23_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_NR23_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, NR-23 Cannon Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_N37D_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_N37D_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, N-37D Cannon Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_ASP3N_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_ASP3N_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, ASP-3N Gunsight Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start {down = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_PhotoGun_EXT, up = electric_commands.Mig15_Command_CB_PhotoGun_EXT, cockpit_device_id = devices.ELEC_INTERFACE, value_down = 1, value_up = 1, name = _('Right Switches Panel, S-13 Gun Camera Switch On/Off'), category = _('.2/3 Way Switches Abstraction')}, -- experimental, toggle only, align in-cockpit/real keys position at mission start -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- END Custom Key Commands -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edit: The folder is not "easy" (DCS game mode) version of the input files but the "sim" one.

Flaps is a 4 position switch - not much use of it, you'll have to stay with keys for moving the lever up and down. On top of that, for most of the switches MiG-15 doesn't have a separate on/off action - just toggle. Anyway, I'll share the .lua later on - though for the reason above the bindings don't work fully correct.

Depends on how you define "fun to fly". If you're looking for a plane just to fly, a seat of the pants one than M-2000C would be probably one of the last one on my list. It's mainly due to the fly-by-wire system. For many, L-39 would is a go-to plane for just flying arround. If you're looking for a modern, full fidelity fighter, practicing BFM and AFM then M-2000C does his job really well. Though frankly speaking there is no other options at the moment.

What the VR crowd is missing is that the technology is not that new and cutting edge: The VFX-1 VR set had a premiere in 1995... which means there had been a 20 years gap after which VR makes it's come back. Much more successfull this time but there are still a lot of applications like the office, engineering and even games where VR will not be a prefered way. Actually I would say that the simulators are kind of a niche that work with VR exceptionally well. FPS, RTS, RPG's, sport games like FIFA will stay on the monitors for a long time. Not mentioning the price that is not only connected with a VR set but with a top spec PC components required to support it. IMO the future will evolve more towards a big, flexible, light, high resolution and contrast range screens like OLED which have much wider application. VR will stay for good but rather in a specialized areas. Finally there is also a soft aspect related to the VR. I'll be fine having my new born son playing a console in a few years. But I can't imagine him with the VR sorry to say bucket on his head. That would be allowing him to isloate from the real world too much.

+1 :thumbup:. I used to play FPS a lot and didn't know a single person that would use or say anything positive about v-sync. DCS is the first community where I see a lot of people using it. Funny you mention the turn based games but personally I couldn't stand the mouse rubber-banding v-sync causes even in a game like Civ V. Though I guess different people are sensitive to different things. With V-sync On the TIR makes me feel almost seasick. While I can't stand the input lag I get the point that some hate the screen tearing. Anyway, adaptive sync like a G-Sync is a great thing - not only it's a better tech but the concept behind it actually makes sense - which is not a case with v-sync. I agree it's all worth the money and once you experiance a high refresh rate monitor with G-Sync there is no going back.

Unfortunatelly yes. The only way is manually merge the files. Programs like WinMerge can make it easier but the mentioned JSGME is not a solution at all. Quite opposite as you don't know if something hasn't been changed with the update you may end up overwriting an updated file with an old one. Just create a clearly commented out secion on top of the file and copy it with every update. The solution? Developers should stop screwing around and to their job of creating 2 and 3 way switches abstraction for every single switch in the cockpit. Seriously, I'm more than tired to have to do that on my own for every single module - quite often failing as only toggle action is available while separate on/off are not. It's not asking too much - such list is created and posted on the forums within hours after a module release. The bottom line is - devs are taking a shortcut thinking that community will manage it. It's not funny that the only single module in DCS which is working correctly out of the box with TM-Worthog is A-10C.

Actually, the number of prerendered frames is worth playing with regarless of v-sync being turned on or off. Increasing the value - lets say to 3 or 4 can really help with the micro-stuttering but with a drawback of a higher input lag (noticable with mouse coursor and in-game camera responce delay to real TIR/head movement). Decreasing - opposite, can introduce the micro stutter but reduces the input lag. Still, I'm not changing my mind about v-sync which is just conceptually a flown idea. It creates way much more problems than the screen tearing it tries to solve.

It's an old issue. I had seen it in 2.2, not sure about 1.5.8. Seems it had been propagated to 2.5. Basically the cockpit is rendered with the "missing texture" texture.

Disable the VSync. It's normal that the FPS fluctuates - you can't guarantee constant 60 FPS. It's not DCS problem, just VSync which IMO is a piece of cr@# and should be labeled with a clear marking "seriously damages your health" like a pack of cigarettes.

Errr.... noooope. The changelog aside being a single point of communication on what has been and what isn't included is at least an indication that there is some plan. No changelog - no clue what's functional (or supposed to be) in EA module and no plan or list of priorities in which order the features will be added. Frankly speaking, a clear bullet point list of missing/to be added features, a change log and at least a high level plan should be something obvious for every beta/EA software. The world starts to be a strange place if "customers" have to push for such things.