firmek

Popup points require some fine-tunning: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=180042&page=2

Zhukov, looking more from the perspective of the content, like missions (training campaigns even maybe?) not only the airplane itself, from those modules that you own, which one you would recommend as first? I'm kind of eager to get one of those finally but the selling point would be possibility to increase the knowladge as such about aviation, procedures, different systems and being able to practice them.

It's such a wrong and underestimated statement that I don't even know where to begin with explaining why. Well, we might as well say that code is just a set of letters that computers can understand. In reality the experience of people which are designing it, writing it, artists, testers, people knowing how to gather and analyze the requirements as also to run the project are the key. In the topic of trainers - after all, we're on a consumer market. There are people that will buy them as well there are people that wont buy some of the combat aircrafts (for me F-4 would be a low priority buy). Already mentioned many times aspect is that trainers are considered by the module developers as a good investment into priceless experience for the future. Another point is limiting the risk - start simple with a bigger chance of delivering or jump with no or little experience on a complex module, investing a lot and accept a high risk of failure (there is no easy and one, only correct answer to hits question as it depends on organization ability to consume the risk). On top of that, what a lot of people forget to consider is the total cost of ownership. Developing something can actually sometimes be a smaller part of the cost in the long time perspective. After the release the solution has to be maintained. Starting without experience may get you a working solution but you can be almost certain about high maintenance cost further on and increased numbers of detractors that will not only not buy your next product but will efectivelly make a negative PR arround it.

Generally using SnapViews as unfortunately the in game options don't provide control over FOV. Considering snap views there are actually a number of ways how they can be modified: 1. in cockpit: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views (has to be repeated for every plane separately, the setting will be "more or less", close to impossible to set exactly the same FOV for every single module) 2. editing the SnapViews.lua file using notepad. Allows quikly to specific FOV value as also modify it for each of all modules (for instance setting the same default FOV). 3. more advanced configuration with server.lua. Among many view parameters controls the max/min FOV - but not the default one. Example: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96116&page=22

The short answer: a.) FOV depends directly on the aspect ratio - not the resolution. b.) In 3D, the projected image size is directly connected with FOV. The higher FOV the wider the picutre. Resolution yields the picture granularity (quality). c.) Both 3440x1440 and 2560x1080 have the same aspect ratio - 21:9 which means that you should run them with the same FOV setting. The default for 21:9 is ~107deg but obviously it's a matter of personal preferences. Bottom line: the difference will be preliminary the the image quality - not the size. Personally I can say that moving from 24'' FullHD TN panel to 34'' 3440x1440 IPS was a total blast, the picture clarity is just amazing while ultra-wide is perfect match for simulators (and not only). I would strongly suggest 3440x1440, especially if you're going for a bigger pannel. 2560x1080 IMO is a too small resolution for 34''. EDIT: OP 04-22-2016 :doh::doh::doh:

Fully agree with above :thumbup: Obviously apart of dreaded "beta" label (oh no, that's an experimental software with a high risk of blowing up the PC ) , the only difference between "beta" and "stable" (perfect version with 0 bugs 100% guaranteed :megalol:) instance is that "beta" gets both updates - early access + those confirmed by 1-2 weeks of community testing. In other words, it’s the same but just with a possibility to accept an early access updates. If you don't want it, just ignore the early access update and it'll be exactly the same as the main branch. There is just literally ZERO reasons to run the "stable" branch in DCS. Run beta and decide if you want to accept the early update or wait for a stable one (which also are not mandatory to accept). Personally, what I find most puzzling is that even putting asside that 1.5 versions are close to each other if sometimes not even the same is that 1.5 "beta" is such a big issue while at the same time majority of the modules are an early access, beta or even alpha (see Nevada). DCS is a constantly evolving environment, not an AAA title released with a major version every 1-2 years and doors closed for the development time in between.

When it comes for the level bombing after a short practice (and reading the manual chapter for 100 times) I think there are a number of things that make a difference. 1. Being in a shallow dive helps a lot. Get to 300-400 m AGL at 7km to the target, start a shallow dive to arrive at 200m over the target area. 2. Trigger UNSAFE - marks the target! May be obvious for many of people out there. It's even described in manual but took me a number of failed passes to realize it. In other words - go UNSAFE only when target reticle is placed on the target. 3. This one I'm not certain but going trigger UNSAFE should be also done when the radar is ranging - fin is displayed in HUD. This is why a shallow dive helps a lot. When flying perfectly leveled at 200 m most of the time's the radar was not ranging at all. 4. The release indication will not disappear below HUD if approached in shallow dive. 5. Use the low drag bombs. While the manual says that level bombing is meant to be done with LD bombs I had some success also with HD variant.

Great, appreciated :thumbup:

I can also confirm that it works. Entering a complete number - with the trailing "0" at the end does the trick.

It might be that I'm doing something wrong as I'm still trying to get my head around how the things work in Viggen. After entering 211 in TAKT mode the aiming sight on the HUD doesn't show up. When switching to unsafe in NAV mode or setting ANF mode HUD becomes blank. In 210 mode HUD works fine.

Quick question - are the pop-up points working? I've setup a few targets on the closed airstrip north of Kobuleti city. Approaching it from Batumi. I did all of the steps - TAKT, IN, entered 11007 (110 deg, 7km), B2, OUT. After reaching B1 waypoint the nav automatically switches to U2 but still guides (HUD) directly to the M2. Or maybe I'm looking on a wrong place on the HUD?

There is nothing confirmed nor there was any official statement that Harrier is planned for Q1. Frankly, I wouldn't expect it during Q1 - it's "only" 2 months left. Actually I wouldn't be supprised if we'll see the F/A-18 first - based overall impression about the progress and due to the ground radar implementation. Still, all those are just guesstimates. If we're guessing though, it'll be probably end of Q2 or Q3 in best case scenario - IMO.

Question though, apart of looking cool and for aerobatics purposes are there any reasons from tactical perspective to fly so close to each other? https://youtu.be/F0pSQ6_MZMU?t=1426

+1. I had a similar experience. First reaction when I've entered the cockpit was - wow it's beautiful and then a panic mode just a seconds afterwards - hell I'm never going to get my head around it without English labels, it might as well be marked with Egyptian pictograms. After going through the manual few times and spending some time flying Viggen it's actually not that bad and easy to get around without English version of the cockpit. I’ll probably keep the Swedish one :thumbup:

You're probably correct - the manual (p.237) after engine start checklist has a step: Autopilot emergency disconnect, SPAK ON. Would be great to know though if there is a button for it or it'll come in the future.

Is there a binding for the "Autopilot disconnect" switch located on the control stick. Maybe it's something obvious but I just can't find it on the list, nor the specific reference in the manual how it actual does work - sets the SPAK AP mode or disables the AP totally.

I would like to think that I had some inspiration for this :D https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2930530&postcount=90

How to generate pictures like in post #2?

Realistic Korean War scenario would be borderline impossible at the moment. Actually not only due to the lack of map but mostly due to unavailability of units (even AI only) from this period of time.

:doh: On the topic, which would be a better workaround, set a curve or decrease the sensitivity (saturation) of the rudder to make it closer reassemble the real thing? Also during the flight I'm starting to suspect that the rudder wants to kill me :lol: Actually, should the rudder be used during the flight or the AP manages it? Sorry for maybe a basic question, I've just finished to go through the manual for the first time. It's a really complex beast :)

I have to say great job on the cockpit sound Leatherneck :thumbup: With every step from starting cold on the ground and playing with the switches by powering up the systems and starting the engine it just gets better and better. Ambient of things shaking in the cockpit when flying make the Viggen sound just real and alive. The immersion level build by sounds in Viggen is just extraordinary.

Thanks for the heads-up. It's really appreciated :thumbup: It is an early access release so issues and missing features are normal and to be expected. Especially that Viggen seems to be a really complex module. Knowing which things are not working will save us a fus to have figure it out our selvs.

+1. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and exaggeration relegated to 1.5 beta. Maybe it comes from just the naming "beta" and some find it as a mind barrier. As many times stated when it comes to DCS the "1.5" and "1.5 early access" are really close to each other if not even sometimes the same. The situation is far from a cutting edge, researched technology where innovative high risk features are tested. Just a normal release cycle of incrementally updated software. There is borderline close to none reasons to insist on 1.5 "stable" labeled release, nor there is a 100% guarantee that 1.5 is free of bugs. What is difficult to understand is if running core DCS in "stable" labeled version is such a point of life and death why is it not a problem to run an early access module which sometimes is even in state of alpha. Following this logic, wait ~1 year from now until "early access" (beta) label is taken out from the module in DCS shop. All others for which it's obvious that beta comes before full release meantime will enjoy a new great Viggen and help the developper to improve it.

Kind of turned to look that way but nope. Fully support and wanted to add on top of your original comment.

Getting 1.5 beta with 1.5 installed is also extremely easy - install another version (more HDD space required) or just update 1.5 to 1.5 beta (saves HDD space). Both will take just few minutes as DCS has a great updater functionality which will copy most of the files instead of downloading them. Another point is that Viggen itself is an early access - aka beta module. Could be expected that it would be released with 1.5 beta. Still if running "stable" 1.5 is such a critical point where is the logic as Viggen itself is is going to be beta for a long time? Not even mentioning that 1.5 beta is stable and not much different from 1.5. Never mind though, seems that the arguments are not really helping. A nuance that can be easily just ignored or solved in few minutes has grown to a show stopper. A splendid example of making a mountain out of a molehill.