firmek

+1. Let's not mix aeronautics R&D process with a software development life-cycle. In software development a projects that woud reach a perfect solution with first release candidate version just doesn't exist (unless it's a "hello word" application). The more complex and with more unknowns, the more testing, feedback and fixing iterations will be required.

I have quite a few modules already. Never had any issues with the purchase. Don't see anything complicated with it. Just stay with either standalone or steam. The fact that DCS has a standalone version is one of the best things about it.

+1. You've put in a nice, political way ;)

I don't think it's possible to do it this way, most probably it'll crash. I can check it later if I get some free time but I wouldn't hope for it. On the other hand, assuming that there is no snapviews.lua file in user folder, every time you generate a snapviews the process actually takes the most up to date values from the respective DCS folders. Afterwards you can go through it just change the values at index 13. Takes a moment but it's not a total disaster. The values stored in snapviews and view/server.lua should be controlled by in-game options. Unfortunatelly such functionality doesn't exist jet but working with snapviews.lua and server.lua stored in user folder is usually a single time effort. Afterwards it's just a short updates from time to time.

Much better would be to have a different kinds of nav aids available as an mission editor resourses. This would allow to drag and drop them on the map in any location or edit as an airport nav aid. Generally in a similar way as it's possible today with units, static structures and warehouses. From this it's an easy shoot. Just setup nav aids on the map and save as a template (for instance Normandy WW2 nav aids, Normandy 70's nav aids, etc.). Having the nav aid as an mission editor resource would allow also to access it via script. Just imagine a scenario that the RSBN statin in Beslan gets replaced with TACAN if the airbase gets captured by blue in blue flag.

You can take an user made version of server.lua with more modules added by copying their settings from respective views.lua from here. The default FOV is stored in the snap views file.

Basically the server.lua is a user customization which as far as I can tell by default is not created with clean installation. All planes start with view settings as done in the internal, DCS files, most in "DCS World\Mods\aircraft\module". If you place the server.lua in the user folder the game, provided that it contains a valid configuration for the aircraft the game will read it from there, overriding setup from the DCS folders. In other words, unless you've done something wrong it should work. Usually if it doesn't, especially for multiple aircrafts it can be a syntax error. The advantage of server.lua is: + green for IC, you're not modifying original, in-game files + it's gives an easy way to apply the same config values for all planes (personally I hate to have a different min/max zoom or head movement between planes) + doesn't get overwritten by updates Negatives - doesn't get overwritten by updates :). That was an possitive but the downside is that if there is an update/fix for an module it'll not work. You have to check manually from time to time. On the other hand the view configurations are mostly not changed from the release date.

Depends what is your preference. I would still prefer 34'' 3440 x 1440 over 4k as it's possible to get an IPS panel with 100 or 144 hz and G-Sync. Others may not pay so much attention to panel technology, refresh rate or adaptive sync. The resolution should not be the only decision factor when looking for a good and rather expensive monitor.

Another option. Unless the moniotors that you have are great, instead of 2 displays get a single one bigger, ultra wide with a higher resolution.

I'm lost why the fact whether the DCS is a combat not a GA simulator is discussed as a decisive factor for a realistic weather. Be it a 737 or a fighter both fly in an air and should be affected by it. DCS has a state of the art flight models, the best out there. At the same time flying in atmospheric environment simulated in rather a simplified way reduces the overall experience. IMO putting a lot of attention into flight models and taking shortcuts in simulating the environment forces affecting the airships kind of contradicts each other.

This +1. After all the time since the update, having all steps how to run the activation clearly documented in pdf file and on top of that "for dummies" like instructions repeated many times in this (and "April") thread people still fail to run a simple procedure. Amazing is the fact how those folks fly a module described by an almost 200 pages manual... :lol:

I don't even know where to begin with commenting this statement. 2 hours to make a dedicated server... I think people should grow some respect to the work that others are doing.

As above, aside of turning your head you'll also need to lean to a side. You could make your "shoulders" wider, which will offset head to a side more as it's being turned but at some point it starts to feel unnatural. To do it just change-increase the line: local gShoulderSize = 0.15 -- 0.25 Shift head left/right when view angle is more than 90 degreesSomething like 0.25 should help, though you can go higher. Note that if you're using this file "as is" this setting will affect all of your aircrafts.

I think it's more essential problem than just the fact that the map is a paid module, even including the necessity to purchase a server copy. Nevada is a really specific area - meant for red flag like scenarios, trainings, equipment and weapon testing. Might be a personal thing but It's hard for me to get an immersion feeling when flying on it with any other purpose and even then it feels off seeing an eastern bloc units, especially a vintage ones and actually shooting them with live ammo. Anyway, it comes to the mind-set but I just can't get rid of a question "how to hell did the Russians get to the Nevada" out of my mind every time I join the map. Aside of that NTTR is set in a modern times which in result kind of makes it to feel right when flying an F-15 or A-10C (and maybe Mirage). It's always better to have something rather than nothing and while being aware about the history of the NTTR map I tend to have an opinion that the whole idea about it is a bit missed. I'm quite sure that despite of having to purchase a server copy maps like Normandy or another potential ones like the Vietnam or a Fulda Gap would get more interest, more MP servers and higher player numbers.

Another point is that the sight reticle is a bit off: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2999037&postcount=4 Generally, the outer circle is too wide while the space between horizontal lines (distance adjust) too narrow.

Go through the startup checklist in manual. It's clear and easy. A lot of yt videos have a personal flavor - to be nice (or are wrong if I have to be straight :D)

+1. It's kind of difficult to understand unless you get a trainer. I had the same approach as others - why to get a trainer if there is no penalty for crashing in a PC a game. After getting L-39 I really regret that I didn't got it before MiG-21 as it would be a great progression experience. Use the fact that you have someone to fly with in the same cockpit. It'll be much more fun and at the same time easier to learn then flying separatelly. If the person starts from ground zero the trainer will allow to focus on basic procudres, aerodynamics and flying the thing, making sure to learn the good habits. Learning navigation, VFR, IFR, approach patterns, reading the plate and approch charts, ATC comms, how the aircraft reacts to different configurations, etc, etc... is actually more difficult in a plane full of different systems as there is just too much distractaction and you'll end up focusing on learning how to manage the systems and rather than flying.

Or the plans were put on hold due to running into some problems, like for instance not being able to obtain a licence or a "no" from Russian authorities. Anyway, I'm quite sure ED recognizes the lack of Russian aircrafts. If DCS wants to evolve into an combat and theater simulation over "only" a great flight and cocpit modeling there just has to be more of the Russian modules. Anything from MiG-17, MiG-23, MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-7, Su-11, Su-15, Su-17/22, Su-24, Su-25 would be really welcome.

Guys sorry but I don't have F-5 and Gazelle. I could add them if someone owning the modules would provide me with the needed information. I'm not at home so I can't check where exactly to look for it. Next, someone would have to help to test it and there will be an maintenance issue as I'll not be able to periodically check if anything didn't change in the original files.

Don't think too much about it. Just get the plane that for whatever reason you like the most in reality. All warbirds are great while Spit specificly due to being the latest one looks the best. You haven't listed P-51 but I suggest to consider it if you would like a bird that has more air-to-ground capabilities and you're also interested in doing some ground pounding.

Maybe get some campaigns instead of a plane module

+1. Probably aside of F/A-18 and maybe Harrier I'm just not buying any more of aircrafts uless it's a MiG, Sukhoi or a Mi family helicopter.

I've said that many times. Unless you have an unlimited budget, if it's the gaming PC get the i5. Even assuming that there are titles that use the HT, the profrmance will get a much higher boost from investing the difference between i5 and i7 into other components like better GPU, more RAM or an SSD. Getting i7 is spending a lot for gaining little or even in some cases loosing a bit of the performance.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:. I could only add that: 1. Why to create a big wasteland? It's hard to do anything useful with a terrain that is just a height map. 2. As far as I can tell a detailed, or rather the best DEM available at the moment is 1 degree one. Last time I've checked it's hundreds of gigabytes of raw data. 3. Putting aside the size and accuracy of DEM, porting it to a working game engine is not as an trivial task as it may seam. 4. I'm not even sure if current maps are a section of geoid or are just flat. EDIT: I didn't check "you're crazy" as it is possible and realistic. A lot of the data is out there. On the other hand it's either do it wright which would require unbelievable amount of work, or take an easy approach which would still consume a lot of man-hours and result in creating a content which due to low quality would have close to none value added.

Don't get the point about dividing people. Why not to upload to youtube and fb at the same time? And to answer the question, no, there are people that don't want to join crapbook no mater what. Anyway, big minus for PR ED!!! You've just made those that don't have a fb account to feel as a worst part of community.