firmek

As for the radio knobs, don't use the dragging method to set them. What helps is operating knobs really slowly with the mouse scroll wheel. I guess viggen radios require some more polishing. The question is if the front panel allows to set frequencies from both VHF and UHF ranges.

May be a stupid question, not sure if it's even relevant to a flight model or might be na unit conversion issue but isn't the 97 knots wind a too extreme one? 63 knots is a 12 in Beaufort scale which basically is a hurricane wind.

It's not exactly shutting down the server but getting back to the original concept. IMO having the server online all the time just dilutes the original concept. It also has an negative impact on balancing as without ultimate goal of making a progress towards capturing all the bases and winning the round more people just hop in for a casual round of game with preference for joining a team with higher numbers. I guess we can agree that we disagree :). I do understand your point. I also don't see a pleasure to play on overwhelmed side without any perspective to achieve anything nor enjoy the boring session with cheap kills when being on the team with 10 time’s number advantage. I'm also sure that there are a lot of people like that. The reality however is more brutal. The fact that red side desperately lacks numbers is known from quite a while. Using your logic the numbers should balance themselves already just by more players selecting different side for next round. Sorry if it sounds harsh but not only so recent history show that stacking numbers on one side is a fact.

Wasn't that the plane from Air America movie? If yes then coun't me in. I wouldn't mind the C-130 also or something like An-26.

Good point. There are however a number of other things to consider. 1. Based on the charts submitted after each round usually during the rounds player numbers were balanced. There were obviously differences during different time of a day but overall, 24 hour statistics were close. On the other hand the testing sessions seem to be usually uneven. Question is what has actually happened and changed recently that there is such a big disproportion at the moment. IMHO the answer that addresses the root cause not the symptoms is that the server is online all the time. My suggestion would be to either run the round 10 as fast as possible and close the server or close it now and get it back online to run a short testing and the official round. 2. Regarding closed teams, I might be totally wrong here but I always assumed that it actually helps to maintain the numbers on both sides. Players have to pick a side and stay on it for "good and bad". I see the risk that if teams are being open, even more people will join the winning team or the one with higher numbers. There can be even a domino effect – the round gets close to the end with one team winning which would make even more people to switch from losing side, biasing the overall round results. IMHO, disabling team lock has a high risk of making the current situation even worse. Finally the other aspect is that if the teams are opened and players are chaning all the time it'll be hard to say that a specific team won the round. 3. Players limit - even considering comments from the first point, we should abandon all hope that the numbers will balance themselves. There needs to be a balancing system on a public servers. A simple way of doing it could be by not allowing to spawn if the team has a certain number advantage (for instance 30%). Another one - balance the number of lives. For instance if a team has a 50% advantage in numbers, their players loose a doulbe ammount of lives when killed (I would be even more aggressive and say 3x or 4x). The best thing about this solution is that it actually gives an incentive to both sides. Tempers the team with number advantage, makes players less bold and more carefull, while for the defending team creates a reason for making a stand. IMHO even with the population balancing system being introduced the team separation should be maintained.

Probably you could try to use the slider but my guess is that it is going to require building up some acrobatic skills with your hands and even if you'll manage to do it, it'll take away a lot of the fun factor before you'll get there. The point is that in heli you'll need to control cyclic (stick), collective (throttle) and yaw (rudder) constantly applying adjustments to all controls at the same time as changing one usually also requires simultaneous reaction with the others. Probably the heading AP channel in Mi-8 may help. I don't have however much of a positive experience with it as due to differences in computer and real Mi-8 rudder pedal design I never turn it on. My suggestion would be - get the Mi-8. It is a fantastic module but wait till you'll get the rudder pedals so that you can fully enjoy it.

Looks like that 6DOF limits are off. Guys, just by coincidence, are you using any view mod - for instance the server.lua file?

Looks great. I have literally zero experience with cockpit builds and have lingered to this thread just from pure curiosity. Nevertheless I thought I share a few suggestions to consider (even if they may end up to be totally stupid ones :) ): 1. Add place for keyboard and mouse 2. Add place for kneeboard or just keeping a notepad and a pen 3. Headphones hanger (if you're using headphones) - maybe on the side of the headrest 4. Adjustable monitor mount - at least for a single monitor with height adjustment or mounts for multiple monitors - possibly for the future. 5. Ejection handles - for fun, to amuse and/or troll friends (also consider painting a red smudge on the ceiling) :lol:

Great mod. For sure will come handy, especially that it's easy to install without affecting the core DCS. Should be included in stock release. Thanks Eight Ball :thumbup:

Guys, please explain how capturing intel works in BF. I generally get the concept, a recon capable aircraft (Gazelle, trainsers, others?) have to fly towards a target and collect the intel. Now how is it done exactly - I assume there is a certain range within the plane has to be from the target. How big is it?. Also, is there a specific time that the aircraft has to be in the zone?. After the intel is captured, is it required to come back and land to call in the bombers? Will the bombers abort their run if the target has been captured in meantime? Sorry if it was already described in forums but I didn't had luck finding anwsers using search. Also the link to SOP document on buddyspike page is dead. I had a break from BF for some time but now as I've got a trainer recently I thought it might be interesting to give it a shot in BF.

I have to admit that I'm really positively supprised by L-39. Thank you All that took their time to provie feedback about it in this thread :thumbup:. L-39 is a small, nimble plane that is just a pure joy to fly and really easy to operate. First module that I've managed to figure out just with a few quick glances to the manual. This is mostly however a complement to the great, intuitive cockpit design as also the fact that I've already invested a lot of time into studying MiG-15, MiG-21 (and even Mi-8 ) systems. Obviously, L-39 is not a bomb or a missile truck. For pilots more interested in blowing up as much stuff as possible in one sortie the L-39 is probably not the best plane to be in. For all others that are more into aviation, appreciate possibility to practice VFR, IFR, improve accuracy of dumb weapons employment or just have a relaxing flight it's a great module. I should have also mention that it has the IFR hood – which totally blew me away and showed in a hard way that there is always a room for improving your skills. I guess L-39 can be looked from two perspectives. First one - just forget for a moment that it's a two seater. Fly in on your own, take it for relaxing flight or use for practicing. I could imagine that getting the L-39 before MiG-15 and especially 21bis will allow to experience a great progression path, which just isn't possible by getting a single module (unfortunatelly I did that the other way arround). On top of that the L-39 comes with a whole word of possibilities being able to fly with a friend. I guess it really took me getting a trainer to understand that but now, if a friend of mine would like to get into simulators and be actually interested also in aviation more than just only in a gaming aspect of DCS I would really recommend him getting the L-39 first to fly with him together in the same plane. As for area where the module could be improved IMO there are two things. First one is the lack of campaign. Since historically the L-39 was developped as an high performance trainer for estern block countries it has a great potential for a campaign that would show real training procedures of an east block pilot. Just imagine how great it would be to participate in a story of a fresh student that has just joined an east block military flight academy and then undergo a real training program (obviously adjusted to DCS reality and possibilities). Such campaign for L-39 would also leave a room for other trainers like Hawk to show a western training process – keeping an incentive to invest time into another trainer. This leads to a second point which is the price. I've managed to get L-39 on sales for 30$ which I think was just about right. Normal price level at 60$ seems high and would be more adequate if the module would be shipped with mentioned campaign.

As I wrote, no need to limit the FOV as much as 110, those values were only examples. You can get it lower (would have to check how low). The problem is potentially only with high default FOV - as it gets close to max value (which again has to be confirmed). With FullHD you can easily keep min/default/max at 20/90/160 for middle detent on slider. Note that by default in DCS every single module uses a different default and max/min FOV (if they use same it's a coincidence). Because of that the curve for middle detent from one module will most probably not work in others. Even if you find the curve value, the setting is "more or less" - chances of hitting exactly the precise value (140.0000 like in example) are close to 0. Another thing is that this way it's not possible to change the max/min FOV at all (ok, saturation can further limit them but not increase!). It's not only a matter of personal preference, axis are just a limited workaround that will not set the default FOV value accurately nor allow to control fully all of the FOV settings. The best solution would be a dedicated options in UI for setting the FOV. All underlying functionality is there and it's working in the background. This depends on ED however. On the other hand however, once you do the setup of the files, changing the values takes a seconds - with all of the benefits of full control over your settings.

Setting a default FOV in a way that it middle slider position (Warthog has a detent there) is quite easy. You'll need the "server.lua" file placed in user folder. Now edit the file and: 1. find gCameraViewAngleLimits 2. set the min/max values in a way that your required default FOV is exactly in between of them. For example if you want a default FOV 140, set max to 170 then min 110 (default - (max-default)). The line should be: local gCameraViewAngleLimits = {110.000000, 170.000000} Min FOV = max zoom-in. 110 will not allow to zoom-in a lot so you may need to increase the max value to be able to zoom-in more and keep the default FOV at center. However, I think there is also some hard limit for max FOV value. 3. find "SnapViews.lua" file in user folder. Edit the file and find "SnapViews["MiG-21Bis"] = {" section. In that section, locate settings at index [13]: [13] = {--default view viewAngle = 107.000000,--FOV ... Change the "viewAngle" value to required default FOV. Using exampe: viewAngle = 140.00000,---FOV At the end, just a suggestion. Consider giving up the zoom-out effect. Since I've got a wide screen I don't find it needed anymore. The advantages are that: it's possible to keep high zoom-in (no upper bound on zoom-out), no zoom-out effect when entering the pit (!), more precise zooming in control with the slider (full slider length). Example settings without zoom-out: Server.lua: local gCameraViewAngleLimits = {20.000000, 140.000000} SnapViews.lua: viewAngle = 140.00000,---FOV Finally, using curves/saturation for setting zoom is a really bad idea. It'll work, more or less but: never will allow to set accurate FOV, requires a lot of trial/error and even if finally set all this fuss has to be repeated for another airplane.

Don't have a VR set so I haven't had a way to test it. Give it a try to see if it works. Just backup the original files.

Updated version included. Added Viggen, Bf 109, Fw 190 and L-39 (both variants). SnapViews.lua - obviously optional. Version with all views configured as default in DCS but with modified, same FOV = 107 set for all views, including default as also quick views (107 works nice for wide-screen monitors). Easy to change the FOV - just run replace "viewAngle = 107.000000," selecting your own value. Complete list of suported modules: A-10A A-10C F-15C Hawk Ka-50 MiG-29A MiG-29G MiG-29S P-51D TF-51D Su-25 Su-25T Su-27 Su-33 Mi-8MT UH-1H C-101EB M-2000C MiG-21Bis MiG-15bis F-86F Sabre SpitfireLFMkIX Bf-109K-4 FW-190D9 AJS37 L-39C L-39ZA Server.lua SnapViews.lua

1. Check if there is a "SnapViews.lua" file in "C:\Users\@your_user_name\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View" folder. 2. If not, save any view using snap views saving - http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views. Simplest case - jump into any plane. Pause TrackIR. Hit Num5, next RAlt+Num0, exit game. Now the file should be created. 3. Edit the file a.) find the section for plane you want to set the FOV for - "SnapViews["module_name"] b.) Modify viewAngle value at index 13 to change the default FOV [13] = {--default view viewAngle = 107.000000,--FOV hAngle = 0.096307, vAngle = -14.985352, x_trans = 0.267599, y_trans = -0.027049, z_trans = -0.001030, rollAngle = -0.005687, }, c.1.) Optional - change other viewAngle settings. Its a personal preference but I've set the same FOV for all of my modules.

Sorry if it was already asked. Is there an easy way (no scripts) to use follow on groups from opposing fractions. I was trying to setup a simple air policing mission with AI but follow action allows only to pick groups from the same side.

In FullHD the GTX 1070 is a daemon, not much can stop it. After changing to ultra wide 3440x1440 monitor the higher resolution became sometimes challenging for the GPU. Especially close to the ground. I have most of the settings on high, with 4x antialiasing and visibility range set to high. 4K will most probably require going down a bit with the settings to have a good, consistent FPS.

You guys may feel guilty. You've made me to buy next module :pilotfly:Downloading L-39 at the moment :music_whistling:

My suggestion would be to stick to one of the planes for a while. Since you've already clocked some hours with P-51 and as also it's an esier to handle, keep flying it and get some experience. Then when you'll get really bored with P-51 switch to the Spit.

+1. Looking purely from the module perspective - MiG-19 is extremely welcome, especially that at the moment there is a big disproportion between western and eastern full fidelity modules. Apart of that MiG-19 is a great plane, first supersonic mass produced Soviet aircraft. It should also fit nicely between MiG-15 and MiG-21. :thumbup: On the other hand, when looking from the overall perspective there is a big problem. Due to close to none content for 50's there is a close to certain risk that apart of flying the plane itself, there will be not much to do with it. Like with MiG-15 or Sabre being a great modules on their own, there is close to nothing available for them in terms of MP servers or SP missions (apart of really great Museum Relic DLC campaign). I'm not even talking about the map. Openning a mission editor and trying to setup a mission for MiG-15 will make you hitting a wall. There are no units in core DCS to create a mission that would pretend to be even close to 50's. For example, the Tu-95 bomber has only a low-poly model and besides of that can’t even drop bombs. The list can go quite long, starting with AI fighters, attack planes, bombers, air defense systems - S-25, S-75, ground units. etc, etc… IMO the success of MiG-19 will rely mostly on ability to persuade ED into providing more AI units in core DCS so that 3'rd party and community can start creating content for it.

The difference between beta and stable is that for stable the notifications about "beta" updates is disabled. In other words, with beta you can decide if to accept the "beta" update or not. If you skip "beta" update (just say no when DCS asks you whether to update) your version will be the same as stable. If you want to get something earlier just accept the beta patch. Accepting an update is a user decision - not an automatically enforced action.

The video is great by itself but what killed me is the first coment on the list. Obvious SPOILER ALLERT - watch the clip first! Just in case the comment gets moved down the list: EDIT: must have done something wrong with including the clip

+1. I think there is a simple reason for unbalanced numbers which is the server being online all the time. Having server available all the time removed the main periodical nature of the event with goal of capturing and holding bases. I remember one of the best BF moments for me was flying like a crazy in Mi-8, helping to set up defenses around Tbilisi which was the last Blue foothold, defending against hordes of Red. During that time it actually mattered as the effort would give us a chance to fight the other day and maybe strike back before end of the round. Nowadays people hop-in mostly for a relaxing, fun session. In result the overall quality of play is affected in negative way - more air-quake, less objective gameplay and finally no incentive for joining the outnumbered side. I migt even find a screenshot that I've made of Blue with proportions around 20x5, apart of one guy in A-10 all others “cap” in F-15 and a few Mirages :doh:. There have been already a number of measures taken to balance the numbers - weapons, same planes on both sides (:cry:). Maybe apart of implementing automated balancing system I don't think that introducing more changes would help. Restore the periodical sessions, give the goal back. The numbers will balance them self and BF will again become this exceptional event that everyone is waiting for. Otherwise I see the risk of the original concept being watered and the server becoming just one of many like many other all vs. all servers in the crowd. Finally, don’t take it as a criticism. I really wish the BF all the best and appreiciate all the great, hard work that Buddy Spike team is doing :thumbup:

Probably the model could use some refresh. Could be also that there is a chance to keep the current one as one of the LOD stages. To be fair however, the 109 model still looks nice considering that (I think) it has 3 years. Also some of the screenshots are made really close which will always reveal the mesh topography. Especially in case of the round objects. Bf 109 has less polygons then Spit, simply because the model was done according to capabilities of main-stream hardware available during that time. If Spit would be released the same time as 109 they would have more or less the same amount of polygons (Spit maybe more as it's a bit curvier). Bottom line, Spit didn't got more "love" - its better model is just an effect of normal evolution of software, hardware and experience gained by the development team. With more an more modules released in DCS keeping constand updates will become a major effort. How many software companies provide continues, life-time updates? Most just make a release and move forward to work on a new version or on some other project. Maybe it would be a good idea to arrange a periodical refresh updates and make them available as a DLC with a small price (Don't know from the cost perspective, I guess market price comparing to the other DLC's could be somewhere arround 10$).