firmek

Actually its really easy, takes 20 seconds to do. Use SnapViews to set the default position of the head as also default view angles. http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views

After spending some time with Spit I've started to think that the artificial horizon couldn't be that bad. I mean it's an old tech but the way how it works makes it borderline useless. This video shows that it is actually that bad: There also doesn't seem to by any fast erect button. On a side note, the initial gyro rev-up looks insane. Nice to have but would be grate to see it modeled in DCS some day. I could bet that it would made quite a few people hypnotized or seasick :)

Mach .83 or even less could already be enough for the wings to be in transonic speed. On the topic, it seems quite easy to loose wings in Spit. I don't think that the modeling of the wings structural integrity might be the issue but rather the failure is caused by extreamly sensitive elevator. When pulling out from a high speed dive Spit requires to be really gentle with applying back pressure on the stick.

+1. Personally the only time I run the TARGET is to set the LED's status. Otherwise, all of the bindings can be done: 1. In-game. All of the basic stuff like axis, most of the stick configuration. Unfortunatelly the axis have to be checked and assigned when running a new module for the first time. Otherwise the default assginements are a mess, usually all devices are duplicated and assigned to all of the axis. For some reason DCS doesn't bring a default, clear setup for one of if not the the most popular hotas. No need to touch anything for A-10C - it's the only one module for which warthog works perfectly out of the box. 2. Using .lua key files. More advanced but in reality an easy way to create actions for 2-way or 3-way throttle switches. Negative side is that first time it may seem a bit difficult. Also modifications have to be restored after DCS update (though it's usually not more than copy - paste the file). Posities are that once done for the first time, it's easy to apply the same method for other aircrafts, gives a lot of flexibility, it's much faster than playing with TARGET, there is no need to run additional middle-ware. Another important aspect is that this way all of the settings are in one place - in-game, which makes it easier to maintain. The procedure is described in a number of threads - sorry, I don't have time to look them up now. Any specific module and specific keys that you would like to map from throttle?

Great review. Did you think about creating an english version for wider audience? PS: Utwierdziłem się tylko w przekonaniu, że może lepiej zachować gotówkę a przede wszystkim czas na inny moduł. Może nie chodzi o to, że z F-5 jest coś nie tak ale z drugiej strony z punktu widzenia systemów, uzbrojenia oraz co najważniejsze zawartości moduł nie przedstawia nic szczególnie pociągającego. Trochę szkoda bo może implementując średnio ciekawy samolot BS mógł pomyśleć o marchewce w postaci ciekawej kampani. IMO, głownie dla miłośników F-5.

The trick is that there is no trick :). Just create a new profile or copy an existing one, modify it and save - the icon looks like a floppy disk.

- when entering the runway, make sure to roll few meters straight - brake to stop, hold on the brake - push a bit of right rudder, stick ~1/3 to the right - rev up to ~4 boost, - release brakes, rev up to ~8 boost, rather slowly, withing ~2-3 sec - maintain alignment with the runway using rudder, try to avoid using the brakes - as you gain up speed slowly bring the stick from right to center Then again, the most important thing is to practice. Create a mission with Spit hot on runway to save some time. Good luck :thumbup: Edit: it's not how it's stated in the manual but personally for take off, I only trim the rudder a bit to the right - more or less so that the letter "R" from "rudder" is at 12.

Agresive flying, low and fast will always consume a lot of attention. Still, compared to Huey or Mi-8 the Ka-50 is much easier to control in pretty much every phase of the flight. For instance, you really need to take a lot of effort to bring Ka-50 into VRS while Mi-8 requires a lot of attention to the flight parameters in order not to bring it into VRS. Hovering, especially when transitioning from a level flight into a hover or keeping a steady hover is just a breeze. Even maintaining a leveled, straight flight or making coordinated turns is much easier. To picture it, the difference between flying Ka-50 and Huey is almost like between Mirage and P-51. Please don’t get me wrong, it's not a criticism. There are good reasons why most of the gunships have a pilot and a weapons officer. Ka-50 was designed with a goal to be operated by a single man, allowing him to focus on all other tasks rather than fighting with the thing to keep it from crushing into the ground. With Huey or Hip most of the time attention is consumed by controlling it. At least until spending so much time that flying it becomes almost a second nature. From the other perspective, if you have a good experience with UH-1 or Mi-8, after defeating first confusion made by how the autopilot channels and modes in Ka-50 work, learning to fly it will take just a few moments. I don't think it would work so easy the opposite way. That’s actually also an positive as it gives more time to study other great things about Ka-50 like the data link, ABRIS, weapon systems, tactics etc.

You can also use the snapviews.lua and server.lua with view configuration stored in DCS, Saved Games folder. The good side is that the view values can be set really precisely while as those files are not in the game folder there is no need to use any mods which updates are overwriting. The config can be even done in a way that there is no zoom out effect when entering the cockpit (this is a workaround rather than a fix though).

+1. A change would be refreshing.

The question is if you're interested in more combat missions for a change? If yes then go with Ka-50. Consider however that flying it IMO is a totally opposite experience to Huey or Mi-8. The fun comes from Ka-50 ability to employ weapons and applying tactics rather than from enjoying its flight characteristics. In other words, it's not soo much fun just to fly which mostly comes from the fact that a lot of the work is done by the autopilot. Mi-8 as far as great it is, it has the same role as Huey. It's a bit faster, more stable and can carry more armament then Huey but from the application perspective you'll fly similar type of transport missions. Personally I would recommend both but first the Ka-50 for a change. I have both transport helicopters but in reality, I've ended up flying only one of them when I'm in a mood for a transport missions.

I have to admit that I didn't even try to restart the engine . As soon I got hit I thought that it's a perfect time to start looking for some nice, flat piece of land to have a controlled crash :) That is just evil :) But seriously. Loved the campaign :thumbup:

Please have a look on the "silver winter" mission. It look like it is running with the view config included in the mission file.

I wouldn't be so sure about it. Some time ago it was stated that Normandy will be released before 2.5. Q1 for Normandy could also mean Q2 for 2.5. Then again, at the moment we're just guessing. Still can't wait to fly Spit over Normandy :thumbup: It's quite interesting as probably many people consider WW2 as not the main stream in DCS. Apart of the map, Normandy will bring a lot of AI units while with 4 WW2 airplanes and more in development, WW2 will probably have the most complete representation in DCS :). IMO, it would be great to see more era/theater focused development in the future. Map, AI units and then the modules. This way we could use planes simulated in extreme level of details in realistic scenarios.

Thank you All for replies. I guess I'll grab another 16 GB. Maybe it'll come handy for 2.5.

I was thinking it's maybe not only the rpm governor itself. Wouldn't be there a similar effect if the propeller gearbox get's hit?

@al531246 if you're so much into MiG-21 I encourage you to read about it's history. Its a great plane, especially looking from the time when it was build but it is has not been designed as a multi-role or even a fighter. The original request was a high altitude, all weather, day/night interceptor. The war doctrine during this time was assuming a ride of bombers carrying nuclear weapons, most probably attacking in big numbers during a night. Such raid would be detected by long range ground radars which crew would direct the interceptors. Another assumption during this time was that guns were not needed as the standard dog-fight was seen as a relic of history. For those reasons MiG-21 was designed as fast, quick to start, short range interceptor, with a really short range radar set to scan up (more just lock targets which are expected in given area), no on-board guns and equipment allowing to navigate and land during night and poor visibility conditions. Well, most of the assumptions shortly proved to be wrong. External gun pods were designed, afterwards bis variant was the first to get the on-board guns. As during that time MiG-23 was too expensive for many countries and a lot of 21's were in service the platform was extended with possibility to curry more armament. Not much could be done with the radar as the nose provided an extremely limited space. To fit a bit better radar a whole nose of the bis variant had to be redesigned. MiG-21 is a great plane, one of the (if not the) first 3'd gen with all aspect and all weather/night capability. One of my favorites currently in DCS. The thing is however that it's not a fighter, nor really a multi role aircraft. The biggest problem is that as for the moment we've got a poor SP campaign that didn't focus so much on showing the real potential use of the plane as it was expected in early 70's. Not even mentioning that MP is far away from anything that 21 was expected to do.

Due to having a great idea of making things that work working better I've ended up in a need to reset BIOS CMOS. The bad think is that, afterwards MiG-21 module asked for an activation, actually using one of the licenses - instead of reusing the existing activation. Now I'm down to 8. Nothing has changed in the computer config, no part has been removed or replaced.

Please, how complex it can be :) No, the snap views are in game feature - which are not related in any way with TIR setup. Resetting TIR will just reset TIR to central point - where the central point is in cockpit is defined by the head position values set in DCS.

I wouldn't expect the size to get smaller - actually opposite. The "terrains" folder with Caucasus (1.5) is ~10GB, Nevada (2.0) is ~33GB. Considering that Caucasus gets upgraded, Normandy released a single 2.5 install with 3 maps roughly could be expected to be about ~150 GB. Still, probably not a big issue - unless you want to run DCS from SSD.

I guess the point is that compared to i5 you don't get more physical cores with i7 - both have 4. The HT logically doubles the number of cores but the result is that 2 logical cores are backed up with a single physical core. No intention here to prove that i5 is better than i7 but cost wise, for gaming i5 is probably more optimal choice. 4 cores is really plenty for event the latest games and while a few (if any) will take a benefit of HT. I can even recall some benchmarks showing that titles that aren't so well optimized for multi threading can run faster on i5 than on i7 (or that disabling HT in i7 showed better results in some games). Still i7 is overall better, is it worth the 100$ more for gaming? IMO simple answer is no unless you really have money burning your pocket. Saving for better GPU, more RAM, SSD will be a much more efficient way to spend that 100$ when building gaming PC. Or save them to get an office laptop with i7.

In reference to the Bag the Hun as also after some testing: 1. The sight settings and don't correspond to the actual distance. In general, the horizontal spacing in sight reticle is smaller indicating target farther away than it should be. Conclusion - across all the settings the gap between horizontal lines should be wider (thus indicate a closer target). 2. The sight circle is a bit bigger than it should be. It's most apparent when the target is at 100 yards distance but also with other distances. Conclusion - the sight circle should be smaller. This would allow to match the 100yards target = circle diameter, 200 yards target = 1/2 circle diameter, 300 yards target = 1/3 circle diameter, etc.. rule from Bug the Hun. Note that the circle is static and not affected by the dial settings. The results should be taken with a grain of salt - it's not a quantum laboratory, there is some level of acceptable error. The test was done with Bf 109 and sight base setting to 35 feet. Mission was setup using moving zones attached to the target with 500, 300, 200 and 100 yards diameter and a trigger displaying range for 2s once the Spit entered one of them. Screenshots as also mission is attached. I really have to practice more as keeping sight perfectly centered on an steady flying target wasn't such an easy job :) Spitfire MkIX Training03.miz

Great server, love the multiple missions setup :thumbup: Really enjoyed flying yesterday evening.

My advice - DON'T look at the modules themselves. From this perspective it's like a windows vs. linux discussion. Look at the wider context: 1. If you like one the planes more in reality for whatever the reason is - just get it. 2. Content. MiG-21 is not best in this area - it's a great module itself but the stock training missions are quite specific (due to humor which some may like, some not) while the stock campaign is rather poor. There is a community made dynamic campaign for MiG-21 which has positive reviews but personally I can't comment on it as I didn't try it out. F-5 I don't know, one of a few modules that I don't have (due to point no 1). As for the payware content, at the moment if you have NEVADA for F-5 you can get a payable Aggressors Basic Fighter Maneuvers campaign.

I know that in theory more RAM is always better but how does it look in reality for DCS. Anyone with a practical observations after extending RAM from 16GB to 32GB ? Does it improve experience in DCS in some noticeable way?