firmek

That wasn't the best thing to do as the 2.5 would copy files from 1.5, significantly reducing the download time.

IMO from a priority list when considering an upgrade, GPU -> RAM -> SSD -> CPU. Based on today's specfications I would go for 1070 and 16GB at minimum when buying a new equipment. As for CPU i5 with highest clock rating and put the savings from i7 to any other component. Obviously may depend on a specific case as a really old CPU can be too much of a bottleneck for GPU.

Probably I'll get a lot of flames going on me because of being fully open but the SRS is not mandatory. Consider there are people that for whatever reason can't or don't want to use it. I don't think they should be eliminated. For anyone that actually wants to have a good overview there are already tools to find out what is going on, which location needs support, where the fight is going. PAC intel, the gadget website and the spawn list are a great source of information. Don't draw a conclusion and equality mark that if someone is not on SRS he is not playing for the objectives and vice versa that those that are on SRS are not having an airquake in a middle of mountains where no targets are. Frankly speaking, before the SRS times I had seen a lot of coorination between the lone-wolfs just on the chat. Nowdays it seems really seldome which probably is contributes to more uncoordinated game. It doesn't really requires a lot for a transport heli pilot to figure out which location is potentially going to be closed soon, report on chat that he is going to fly troops there and from time to time check the status with others if the location is safe to land.

+1 :thumbup: though without even going to which part would be prefared but at least a priority list from RAZBAM showing order in which missing features are going to be delivered would be much appreciated.

I hope that I'll not have to provide my phone number. That would be a step too far. Don't mind a double verification through an email though.

But this only proves that the CA and AI modes don't work the same. It doesn't tell which one is actually correct.

You're reading it incorrectly. I didn't write that it increases automatically. You have an opportunity to increase it since you have more horizontal space to display the image on. It's obvious that you have to change the setting by yourself as otherwise the resulting image would seem as extreamly zoomed in. Or being more specific the same, horizontal size image from a single monitor now would be displayed on 3 monitors. Trying to keep the proportionm, DCS would now display only ~1/3 of the image vertically comparing to what you had seen on a single monitor. And this is only because of the aspect ratio changed, not the resolution. - change the aspect ratio, for instance by moving from FullHD to ultra wide monitor and you have to adjust the FOV. - keep the same aspect ratio - in example changing FullHD monitor to 4k or 8k you'll see the same image with the same, correct proportionts.

Since you're comming out offending others I'll only say that you should educate yourself about how the 3D programs work. Read about the view view frustum and projection matrix and maybe you'll understand a bit more.

The FOV is not so to say dependent on the resolution but the aspect ratio. In other words, if it's a single FullHD or 4K monitor you'll have the same FOV. Since you have 3 monitors it's quite easy to imagine how the FOV works - you add more monitors to the side so your horizontal FOV increases. Also the aspect ratio changes as with 3 monitors the overall image is much wider than toller. I could imagine that with a big 4k TV while sitting close you could zoom out a the view (increase the FOV) but most probably achieving a result comparable to 2 rather than 3 FullHD monitors horizontally. Here is a FOV calculator that will also give a suggested (not mandatory) FOV for a monitor setup: http://www.wsgf.org/fovcalc.php

Just the ground radar with multiple modes itself. Once finished it's going to be the most complex aircraft simulated in DCS. I think it could be expected that the price will be higher than for the currently available modules.

If it's a callendar spring - by end of Spring would mean before 21 of June :D Quite long as for the pre-order. Let's wait :)

Most probably the newsletter email but it's not coming to everyone at the same time I guess. Can any one please paste the newsletter?

Great kneeboard, highly recomend it :thumbup: Contains bombing tables for HD Mk-82. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2024620/

Guys I think some of you are a bit harsh to the author. He is not asking to get anything for free. Just looking for a way to attract more people to NTTR. Saying that the map is dead is not fair but the number of players at least in MP are not impressive.

Fully support the idea. Such objects may seem like a secondary priority but would really add much to the realizm and spotting capabilities of unit groups like SAM sites or marshaling area's. I don't see howewer this proposal too realistic in a short time as efective use of such objects would require a different kind of editor - not necesarlly 3D one but a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) like.

+1. The map itself will not bring much if it can't be populated. Flayable modules are also not the most important. The starting point are the AI units, ground forces, air defences, air units. Only when having them mission designers will be able to create immersive scenarios respective to the timeline, even without a map in place.

Straight to the point - When? :)

You mean a towing line :D ? Joking apart, this was only an experimental unit: http://ourairports.biz/?p=960

Thanks for the link. Using both G-Sync and V-Sync on is a bit different topic than just the G-Sync and V-Sync considered separatelly. Only with the G-Sync on there is a hudge difference when it comes to screen tearing reduction. Also, the V-Sync on its own does add significant input lag. The video is just for reference. I wouldn't call it subjective as it should be rather obvious and most should be really able to notice a difference with V-sync (only) on. How much one can tolerate it is is another topic but for me the V-Sync on makes the mouse feel like connected with the monitor through a rubber band. You can also see that in practice the G-Sync/FreeSync with V-Sync on can give different results, sometimes also increasing the input lag (results at about 11:30 minutes):

I have absolutely an opposite impression. The high refresh rate is where you benefit most from the adaptive sync technology like G-Sync. Especially if the FPS go above the monitor max refresh rate. No issue with TIR also, actually the higher refresh rate the smoother and responsive the experience is. 50-60 FPS and more is where TIR starts to provie an imediate feedback. There are settings in Nvidia control panel that may affect stuttering - max pre-rendered frames. Lowering the value, for instance as far as 0 generally decreases the input lag (from a device like the mouse and TIR) but may introduce stuttering. Increasing does opposite. It's not a placebo effect, this setting actually can make a difference. I'm running at max pre-rendered frames set to 1 or 2 as 0 was creating too much stutter. On opposite end, setting the value to 3 created a noticeable delay for TIR - comparable to the difference with turning on the precision mode in TIR software. As for the Nvidia settings also try to set the threaded optimization to Off. Try to experiment with this setting as depending on this option may slightly inrease the performance and limit the micro-stuttering. Another setting worth playing with is the preload radius in DCS, increasing it may actually decrease stutter when you move your head arround. No harm feelings but getting a high refresh rate monitor with a G-Sync and a GPU that is capable to support it and then capping the FPS and turning on Vsync in favor of G-Sync sounds counterproductive. Vsync has so many drawbacks that it should be avoided at all cost. The most noticeable is the tremendous input lag. It's pretty much a no go for any fast paced game like an FPS but also for a TIR users creates an extremely noticeable delay between turning the head and the image displayed on the screen. I'm running a 100hz G-Sync monitor and wouldn’t like to go back from it. A screen tearing free experience is just amazing. No more of this:

+1. I'm also looking forward for Mi-24 but I don't see how it'll be a game changer. While a western attack helicopter would be a game changer and as far iconic the Mi-24 is with generally analog avionics, the KA-50 is much more capable platform. The answer to the Mi-24 replacing Mi-8 question is actually not so obvious if you look from DCS perspective - which is not always reflecting the real world. For the most part how the MP missions in DCS are currently setup, the lift capability and hull capacity of the helicopters quite often does not matter. Through the CTLD script, Huey and Mi-8 are able to take the same ammount cargo, squizing an SA-6 into internal cargo compartnment plus taking a group of soldiers next to it. In other words, much depends on the mission designers which currently have tools to design the missions either towards "balancing" or by taking an realistic approach.

Actually IMO 2.5 will be a great moment to start clean, vanilla install. Then maybe add some personalized configuration: Priority: 1. The view configuration, maintain same FOV across all aircrafts, disable the zoom-out effect at start, same min/max "zoom". (my personal, priority 1 must have) 2. Additional, (Hotas) 2 and 3 way switches bindings for TM Warthog 3. Kneeboards Optional: 1. Cockpits Not using too many this days as a.) vanila ones are quite great (and Mi-8 got great black, english cockpit from Devrim :thumbup:) b.) the manuals mostly use the native language cockpit naming 2. Liveries Also not using too many as for the most time I prefer the missions with disabled external view. After 2.5 I would stay away from: 1. 1.5.x ground texture mods - obviously not applicable anymore 2. Sound mods - due to new, improved sound engine.

Theoretically yes but consider that the MiG-29 had replaced 21 and 23 which had been fulfilling the interceptor roles. Also neither East Germany or Poland had the Su-15 but applied MiG-29 as an interceptor platform.

Hornet, Mi-24 and F-4. Also I'm holding on with playing few DLC campaigns till the new Caucasus comes out. However, mostly looking forward to an announcement about Tornado being made :D - as this aircraft is my all time favorite.

+1. Many things can happen, examples that came immediatelly to my mind: Gimli Glider - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider - run out of fuel due to unit conversion mistake during fuel ammount calculation. Flight 254 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_254 - many mistakes, a navigation error, pilots making a confirmation bias mistake and on top of that being busy listening to the futball match audition. Finally the Harrier Alraigo incident - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo_incident