firmek

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$).

Plus he released a great new version (GTM 10) just recently.

You might be wright. I've seen a few times in M2000C that radar maintained lock on a target that flew behind the mountain. Maybe not for 30 seconds but still for a noticeable duration. I guess it might be a general, core DCS issue.

@Spades, you can find some more information, including photos and vidoes here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171212 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=158228 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168862 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=169951

I don't recall charts. According to the manual, ADI based take off procedure states 250 and 280 km/h IAS: - At 280 km/H to a 10° climb attitude when using maximum power without afterburner - At 250 km/H to a 13° climb attitude when using afterburner Just roughly, based on the observations, when using HUD method the take off speed is ~270 km/h - but I guess it depends on the TO weight.

Though I wouldn't expect official release date this week, the hype train on Friday will be hudge :) Map looks just great, didn't expect such level of details. Soo many great stuff comming to DCS recently :thumbup: I still have my time fully dedicated to Viggen while it looks like Normandy is close.

@Xray20, Viggen kneeboard is still WIP. You'll need to hold on for a while till it starts to be fully functional. At the moment adding pages to custom kneeboard in users folder doesn't work.

Ad 1. It already works this way. By default RShift+K (IIRC) Ad 2. Would be nice to have Ad 3. There is already a functionality to bookmark and quick access specific pages. I don't recall the combination right now, I've modified my settings to use LAlt+(1...9). Looks like a core feature but it's not supported by all of the modules. Ad 4. Would be nice to have. Kneeboard builder (mod) can do that. Ad 5. Wouldn't hurt but frankly speaking if the page can't be read without zooming-in, it's probably not formatted in a correct way. EDIT: Snipped by Shagrat :)

Setting up controls is really something subjective but personally I always suggest to get used to 1-1 inputs (no curves). Maybe except of rudder with max 15% curvature setting. Controls in helicopter may seem too sensitive at the beggining but just practice and trim a lot. The reason why I'm not a biggest fan of curves is that they dynamically change the resolution. At the beginning they create a feeling of operating a longer stick while in further deflections a shorter one. Something that could be illustrated as like the stick would be designed to get shorter, hide into the floor depending on how much it is deflected. Sounds really stupid but this is how the curves are working. Just as an example, the physical stick is 10 cm, set the curves, now in neutral position the stick feals like it would be 20 cm long - great, but as soon as it starts to be deflected it hides under the floor and end up to be only 2 cm long at the full deflection. As for the decreased saturation - quite obvious, they cut a part of movement - with stick its like having something blocking it from achieving a full deflection. The best solution would be probably the stick extension - but that's hardware, not software. On the other hand, the helicopter collective is quite special as the trimmer if used often allows to mitigate to some extend the negative effects of curves and saturation. So, for instance with 50% of saturation, thanks to triming it's still possible to achieve 100% of virtual cyclic deflection. Same applies to curves, when trimming a lot most of the time the stick will work in the increased resolution zone. Just a suggestion but don't set the deadzones as long as are no problems with hardware. Deadzones should be used to eliminate false inputs when the device (stick, pedals, throttle) is in neutral position. There is a problem with the computer pedals. As far as I understand the real pedals in Mi-8 stay where they are trimmed while the computer ones have the centering spring making them come back to the center. Another thing is that the real pedals have the microswitch that would disengage heading AP channel when pilot is placing his foots on the pedals. In other words, it's a hardware issue. The computer pedals would have to be constructed in a different way to work like the real ones. The closest that you could get is probably by removing the centering spring. Unfortunatelly, due to this issue I'm not using the heading AP at all. Control helper are there to make things easier but also to address the fact that some devices work in a different way. Easier also doesn't always have to be considered as cheating. Seating in front of the screen we don't get any force feedback from the as.. - chair.

There must be some better way but what worked for me is to keep the slew up button until the cross comes back on the screen.

Yes, the videos are dated and may not look attractive anylonger. On the other hand, those are a training videos. Assuming that that their viewer is coming for information and content, the format - be it 480p or 1080p doesn't make any difference.

Have you considered the A10-C? Obviously if you're more up for CAP then M2000-C will be a better choice. Regarding it's state, IMO: Positives: - overall close to be complete, no show-stoppers - easy to learn and fun to fly, fly-by-wire - quite versatile, mostly a fighter but can do some ground pounding missions - great SP campaign (if it would be a bit longer it could even be a DLC). To improve: - Manual is outdated, some information is missing some can be even misleading. For someone new to the module I could imagine it being an issue. The information is on the forums but as things evolved and went through the changes you'll need first to find it and then figure out which one is the latest which may not be so trivial. A good training missions have been added quite recently which will help but the normal way is manual first for detailed information, then training missions to practice. Training missions are supplimentary to the manual, not vice versa. - Internal sound - Precision of ground attack modes - BLG-66 Beluga is just a 3D model, technically it's an rather ineffective Rockeye - Nav alignment doesn't work in a correct way - Some PCA modes need to be completed