firmek

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

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: