firmek

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?

I had exactly the same issue with my old GTX 660Ti which was factory overclocked (to 1100 Mhz). The way to resolve the problem was lowering the core clock by few Mhz. IRC in that specific case 50 Mhz did the job, resulting in 1050 Mhz which was still more than stock 980. Which 1070 card do you have? If it's factory overclocked try to lover the clock. Use the free MSI Afterburner. See if it helps. If yes, create a profile, make it as applied on startup and enjoy your new GPU.

Kind request. It seems that the missions are created in a way that they override the user view settings (SnapView.lua, Server.lua). Would be great to have it fixed. The procedure is not complex: from http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views

Get i5 and save the monay for better GPU.

You must have taken a hit into engine or wherever the governor is located. The problem is not so much the systems damage modeling but the visual indication of the damage which is not exactly reassembling places where the bullets have hit. Not even mentioning that the holes don't follow the bullets patter but rather look like a spatial damage from fragmentation warhead.

Few months ago I've upgraded my GPU from 660Ti, kept the i5-3750k. DCS is installed on HDD. 16GB RAM. I didn't had any major issues running DCS in medium/high settings with that configuration. IMO first increase your RAM then consider a new GPU.

A-10C is a signature module of DCS, can't go wrong with it. Especially that apart of the aircraft itself I think that more important is the content for it, which for A-10C there is plenty of. If you're interested in WW2 why not to go with Spit also. It's in early access and some things are expected to be tuned and added but with Normandy across the corner we can only expect that WW2 will become much more interesting. At the moment unfortunately it’s mostly MP with dogfight and air-quake like servers. Sabre itself is a great module which on the other hand suffers quite a lot from lack of content. On the other hand there is a fantastic Museum Relic campaign for Sabre and MiG-15.

From user stand point, its a bug. Technically, rendering the sight in front of the reflector glass was probably what was possible to achieve an infinite focus perception. Another way could be probably rendering it on the surface of the glass but playing with it's size while the pilot gets the head closer. Then the resolution would be becoming an issue as getting close would make the sight look bulky. It's not a biggie I think, impacts a bit the immersion but wouldn't I guess change the practical use.

Happened when overspending in a dive. But then again, it was from a high altitude and while intentionally testing the limits.

Trying to be realistic, I wouldn't expect a release but rather a news about a pre-purchase and release day. But, the hope (and the hype train) dies last :) Merry Christmass to Everyone :) Edit: got sniped :). Great sales and Viggen is coming :thumbup:

Yes, the website is always updated some time after the newsletter is sent out. Usually I guess more or less 15:00 - 17:00 CET.

I've done it for M2000-C (as also for almost every other module) using the same approach as n26. The JSGME may not be so bad idea with M2000-C as it becomes stable but on the other hand I wouldn't suggest it for a number of reasons: 1. DCS has a really good update system. After running an update it takes just a moment to copy-paste from the latest "__backupXYZ" folder. Can't get easier than that. 2. From time to time it's good to compare the files in order to check if the update didn't bring changes to overwritten file. In such case own customizations should be re-added manually. For that reason knowing what to do becomes handy. With JSGME there may be a false impression that running it after an update makes everything right while in reality the fixes/updates are potentially overwritten with old code.

Yea, I was too fast and did a small mistake with my calculation. To serve the 109 or 190 the base should be set to ~35 not 30 feet. By the way, what is the minimum setting for the base 35 or 30? It's hard to judge by looking on the base disk scale in cokpit. Regardles of that I think the results are more or less the same which is with setting of 300 yards and 35 feets the sight shows the target at ~500 yards. I have an idea how to do some more testing. I'll try to get back with the results during the evening.

Run the process from attached wiki link. It'll create the file in saved games DCS folder.

Thx for sharing Sokol. The gun convergence of Spit in DCS is set ATM to 300 yards. For Bf 109 or Fw 190 according to the book this should be 1/3 of the sight circle diameter. Now, setting the sight distance for 300 yards and base for 30 feet at the moment results in more or less 1/5 or 1/6 of the diameter. Am I missing some understanding or is there some misalignment between the book and how the Spit sight is working in DCS?