firmek

There was nothing officially stated as far as I can recall. This is a far going assumption. The fact that it's possible to click a button doesn't mean that all of the functionality behind is there. Modeling the systems is way much more than just making the cockpit clickable.

Get the "DCS World 1.5 Early Access" from here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/ The download should not take too much time if another version is already installed as the installer is quite smart and will copy a lot of the files. Another point is that the 1.5 beta is really usually stable. IMO there is not a lot of reasons to stick to 1.5. Good Luck with the release Leatherneck !!!

Being more specific - the TIR camera should be centered with the device. For track clip mounted on the hat its generally aligned with center of the head. In case of track clip pro mounted on one side of the headphones, camera has to be offset a bit to one side so that it's exactly in front of the LED's. Then, there is nothing specific required for setting up TIR when moving to widescreen monitor. The first thing to check would be if camera/device are setup correctly as camera location most probably has been changed. Check if sensors are visible during full head movement - if not play with tilting the camera a bit down/up, right/left, moving it right/left, rising/lowering LED's on track clip pro. Don't start with playing with the axis as potentially you're risking ruining a good configuration which most probably is not the issue. Although changing camera placement may result in axis curves requiring some fine tuning as camera-device distance seam to affect the sensitivity.

Just to understand, what is currently confirmed release schedule of modules for the Q1. For certain during Q1 we could expect: - Viggen (quite obvious) - Normandy map Anything else? Possibly during Q1: - 2.5 merge Q2 is probably more uncertain though but are there any modules already officially announced for release during Q2? Further on probably are mostly speculations. Sorry for kind of a dupplicate thread. There is a great unofficial roadmap but I just wanted to check if I understood the major modules release plan correctly.

I don't remember specifically the missions but what I remember is that in Su-27 campaign a final score for number of missions relied on AI doing its job which can't be really guaranteed even if you did your perfectly and none of strikers has been shoot down. Frankly speaking I remember that after trying to complete some of the missions few times I've just gave up and edited the missions by adding few more planes to the attack group and designated specific targets for them to hit as usually they were set to search and destroy. In a reasonable way, just to increase chances that AI does it's job if the player does his.

As Grunf already noted MiG-21 bis radar should not be able to distinguish targets from a ground noise at low altitudes. Below 2000m there might be a slight chance but only with antenna tilted up and plane placed 300-500 below the target. Further down it should be generally not possible, especially below 1500-1000m. The fact of not being able to detect target is correct then, otherwise if it would be possible to see targets on the radar and lock them in consistent manner on such low altitude then it would be a bug.

Fully agree. It's not the topic of making a recon aircraft. Whichever recon platform it's it will just not bring any value without first creating a framework in the DCS engine that would support this kind of a missions. As for the Viggen itself, consider that we're talking about quite a unique jet already while a recon version of it would be even more extraordinary. It would be a risky project from the perspective of overall potential interest in such module. Please don't assume that if it's similar in real life there would be no substantial development required. Another point is that developing is just a part of the cost, more important is the total cost of ownership which would come later from maintenance of a separate module. It's relatively easy to get a puppy but then it'll need to be fed and taken care about.

As far annoying the feature is, there is a fix which involves editing server.lua and snapviews.lua (stored in user folder) as described Shagrat. You can also grab files from this thread - though still I would suggest to get some basic understanding of how those files work and how to edit them. If everything is done correctly the change is "green" from IC perspective, nor JGSME is required as the original files are not overwritten. It's not a perfect solution as it comes with a cost of not being able to zoom out, so in a way it's a workaround but IMO it's all worth it. At least personally I don't find zoom-out needed so much (if at all). The positive fact is that setting max allowed zoom out value to default FOV allows for more precise zoom-in control. It would be great to have this feature build in into game options but on the other hand if it's so annoying I guess it's worth spending those few minutes on editing the files. Personally I did the configuration long time ago and forgot about the annoying zoom out effect when entering the cokpit. Otherwise I would assume that if editing the files seams too much probably the zoom out it not such a big problem.

Well, I don't know but Swedish always sounded really difficult. I mean, with every other foreign language at least I had an impression where the pauses between words and sentences were. Every time I'm in Sweden it’s almost like listening to one continues flow of sounds without any spaces whatsoever :). IMO, english cockpit is a must, especially that the systems seams quite complex and specific.

I'll check later on during the evening. It should work. I would notice if it doesn't as I'm flying M-2000C rather often.

Actually many many more. It wasn't anything special for MiG-21 to land on the road sections: Then for instance, MiG-29 was specially designed to operate from dirty airstrips, including roads. The engine intakes could be closed thus preventing the engine from sucking in and being demanded by dirt and stones. In such configuration air to the engine was delivered through gills on top of the wings. Another example could be the Gripen which was designed with an easy ground operation in road environment in mind. If I recall correctly the ground crew for inspecting, refueling and rearming the plane in field conditions could be as much as 5 people. There are on the other hand planes for which dirty airstrips are an issue. For instance F-16 due to having the engine intake being close to the ground requires an extremely clean runways even during normal operation. If one day DCS will include a map for cold war scenario special road sections for landing planes will be a must. I wasn't able to find any reference for road landing strips in Georgia though. I guess such special road strips allowing planes to land and be serviced were more common in countries with not many highways and those obviously that were the frontal ones for which it was expected that the runways would be a primary targets during first days of potential conflict.

Check this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=180707

For sure such road strip is designed in a way to allow planes landing and ground operation but it's not that special in terms of being wide or long. This one is just a part of a standard and actually a local road - nothing even close to a one side of a highway: https://www.google.pl/maps/@54.045579,14.906038,1491m/data=!3m1!1e3 Another one: If I recall correclty this part of the road was at best considered an express section for cars - but probably no longer according to dotay's standards.

Another aspect that shouldn't be neglected however is the audio hardware. It's natural to expect a high quality graphics only from a build with strong CPU and GPU. The same applies to the audio. It should be hard to expect a good sound quality without a decent hardware. Unfortunately today, getting a dedicated sound card or an amplifier is something rather uncommon. Not even mentioning a good headphones, which probably isn't "exactly" a case with VR sets as also IMO excludes the earbuds and the plastic PC speakers. Unfortunately those things don't come cheap. Starting price for a decent audio card + head phones is 400-500$. The good thing about making such investment is that it's all worth the money. Afterwards, there is no turning back as it really becomes obvious how bad the on-board sound card and cheap headphones are. It's not the ammount of flat bass that shakes the windows which gives the thrills but a wide frequency spectrum with depth and nautural reproduction that multiply the visual experience comming from the screen. The disadvantage is that it starts to be much more noticeable how DCS is not equal in sound department between the modules as also external and internal sound implementation.

With A-10C and Viggen being completed as also other strikers planned A-7, A-6 (and probably some others) there is really a big need for an eastern bloc attack aircraft. Su-17/22 M3/M4 would really fit the role well. It doesn't matter who makes it (though LN for sure has the experience), the sooner then better. What do you mean by that? - I'm not asking about translation of "k" word... :music_whistling:

IMO, another bloatware - as most of the apps on W10, especially those installed by default. The worst is that there is no decision point whether user wants them installed. Neither there is no easy way to uninstall it (must use PowerShell). This one looks like a way for the PC users to use the xbox stuff (like game bar) that personally I couldn’t care less about. Better to tune GPU driver settings and use some other software for recording (including NVIDIA one).

If it's mostly an gaming PC get an i5 and 1070. You'll benefit much more from better GPU with more RAM. Though, 4K may be too much for this config. Did you consider a wide screen - 3440x1440?

Great that it works. Happy flying and hunting! Though I'll probably be on the receiving side as from the warbirds I fly mostly the Spit :)

I've added both 109 and 190, though I haven't been able to test 190 as I don't have it. 109 I've got during recent sales and didn't fly it yet but thanks to you, now I had an incentive to prepare the view configuration :) Anyway, I've attached a configuration for 90 and 95 deg FOV - just in case you would like to try it out. All of the planes should have the same default FOV setting. For both 90 and 95 configs there are two variants - with the zoom in the middle and no zoom out. The other version also removes the annoying zoom out effect as also the whole slider length is used for zoom-in which makes it a tad more precise. Just place the files in "C:\Users\@user\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View" folder. Let me know in case of any issues or if you would like to have some values fine-tuned. If 190 is working I'll update the files in previously linked thread. FOV90 - SnapViews.lua FOV90-nozoomout - Server.lua FOV90-zoomcenter - Server.lua FOV95 - SnapViews.lua FOV95-nozoomout - Server.lua FOV95-zoomcenter - Server.lua

Great idea. The FOV topic is a bit more complex though and should be taken from a wider perspective of overall view configuration. I would propose to consider following requirements. 1. Provide possibility to configure in game options a gloval view configuration, applying the same view values across all of the modules. 2. Provide possibility to set in game options a module specific view values that would override the global settings. Module specific view values should be obviously optional and if not enabled, the global one should be used. IMO this is rather a low priority but I do understand that there are people that use a module specific FOV settings. 2. The view values configuration should include a). default FOV b). minimum FOV c). maximum FOV d). shoulder size e). eye point - neck size, distance of eyes from neck rotation axis All mentioned above can be to some extend done today but only by editing the lua file. The good side is that the configuration can be created in a way that doesn't affect the in-game files (is green for IC). Just use the server.lua as also snapviews.lua files stored in the user folder.

I fully agree with your point, there may be however other things which could be happening. 1. There is simply a bug in the implementation which causes the wings to fail in situations and/or under stress values that ED didn't plan them to fail. 2. Everything works correctly as ED intended while some assumptions/values might need fine-tuning 3. Everything works as intended and reassembles the historical references as close as possible while we just need to learn handling the Spitfire during structural stress conditions. Frankly speaking, it'll be probably difficult to arrive into constructive and precise conclusions without input from ED.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I can see a line between an equipment and people that used it. There are however some things that became more than just a historical equipment, that are a symbol. In some cases a really negative one. For this reason some modules I would find controversial. As for the B-29 - don't ask me, ask someone from Japan what they would think about having it in DCS and if they would be eager to buy and fly it. Maybe then you'll get my point. Anyway, apologies for deviating from the main topic of this thread. Everyone has his own conscience and there is no point in discussing it.

YoYo I really respect you but read a bit more about Ju-87. One of many examples was Warsaw uprising in 1944 where Stukas were used to level the city to the ground, attacking both the resistance fighters as also civilians, including those trying to flee from the city. Even clearly marked hostpitals have been leveled to the ground by Stukas. That's one of many horor examples how the Ju-87 has been applied during invation and later occpuation of Poland. And then the siren which it had only for one single obvious purpose.

You'll need to find a server that has the spitfire. Look for one of those with WW2 in the description.

Sorry for a side comment, but I can't imaging how anyone would like to fly the Stuka. At least no way I'm going to spend even a single penny on it and strongly reconsider buying anything from a dev that makes it. It's pretty much a symbol of Nazi horror war machine, including bombing cities and civilians from the very first days of WW2.