firmek

+1 to above. There is no reason to be religious about the realism aspect. Just consider it from other perspective. If those small airports would have a cold start capable they would become just like any other airport but at the same time being a much worse version of them. With the recent extension there are plenty airports at Nevada. The fact that there are just a few that can be only used for emergency landing makes them unique and so to say in this way adds some "fun" factor to them. For that reason I would appreciate them as they are.

A single GA flight every second day, 3 small aicrafts. Being straight, it's just an small GA airport in the middle of nowhere. Just take it and appreciate it for what it is - a runway which can be used in case of an emergency landing. No reason to try to make it into something that it isn't. DCS is not the best place to consider turning things for what they are not just for a "fun" factor.

Learn the location of the targets from SOP document. Mirage has a great navigation system - INS. Use GPS coordinates to create the flight plan and mark the targets. MiG-21 - RSBN, ARC and dead reckoning. In reality the targets in BF are static. After getting experience with time visual navigation may be enough. Hate to say it but the once knowing where the targets are the easiest way is the own location mark on F10 map and the bearing tool.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=174216 ;)

For that reason keep distance all the time and don't fly over the neutralized FARP. Just in case to avoid ending up as target on a silver plate when the AA defenses respawn :)

The lagging is a problem but it is affecting both sides at the same level. It's not an excuse, it shouldn't be that way but or the titles of the videos: "hard target for the red", "blue pilot saved his life" is really unfair as it clearly imposes that only RED are affected and BLUE are exploiting it for their purpose. Again, both teams suffer from the lags. PS - I'm playing on red this testing round so no need for conspiracy theory.

Probably it's not a big news but the server is lagging a lot and constantly crashes. Today evening it was hard to play a single 3h session without a crash or disconnect. Not complaining - just reporting as it is a testing session ;)

The update was ~20GB but... since it was an update it does not mean that DCS size increased the same. 2.0 is quite big though ~58GB. Regarding reflections, it's kind of strange but I didn't noticed them neither in SP or MP. Are they connected with graphics options?

Which version has the problems - 375.70 (28.10), 375.86 (?), 375.95 (18.11)?

Looks like a great (feature and sizew wise :)) update :thumbup: Can't wait to try it out when the download finishes! The potential for building new missions and scenarios just got to the next level. Maybe I'm too optimistic but the map just got a second breath :) The first thing to do after starting DCS - check the F10 map, fly and enjoy the scenery, make a new airport frequency chart :) Just wondering, do the new airfields support RSBN for MiG-21? It seem that it doesn't work on the current one (or the kneeboard is outdated).

I've started to come to conclusion that this is probably the way to go - keep the right hand on the stick and use left hand to operate the mouse. The only reason why I didn't try it is that I've organized and pinned all of my cables together and don't want to ruin it. Then however, usually if there is a need to operate a switch during the flight the best way to go is probably to map it to the HOTAS or asign it to an easy (one letter) keeboard shortcut which can be operated quicker than trying to hit something with mouse run by left hand.

The main impact on the FPS is probably related to the complexity of the cockpit as also quality of the mesh and textures. Older modules may be using textures with smaller resolution. I don't think creating the list will bring much of benefits. First it's quite hardware and setting dependent. After applying a mod with better quality textures the FPS will drop. Also 2.0 and 1.5 have different performances. Then, the FPS count is different depending on the mission setup and plane position - on the ground FPS drops substantially. At the end there are just too many variables. To draw some conclusion, the comparison should be run with exactly the same test mission which is flew in exactly the same way during the same time and under the same graphical settings. Otherwise the result will be confusing with wrong conclusions being made.

This might be actually the answer - supported by the picture from the first post and the arrows with the reticle aligned on the target. As I understand the shape is not so much perceived as an displayed on the surface of the glass but rather it is focused in the infinity.

This would no help a lot. The most frustrating point and motivation killer is the gap between MiG-21bis/Tiger when opposed against FC 4'th gen airplanes and comparing to 2’nd/early 3’d gen jets, relatively modern AA systems. Chances of surviving and being useful for the team in old airframe are extremely reduced. For sure there are great pilots that can manage well Fished and Tiger under such circumstances. I'm probably not the one. While I love the MiG-21, every time when I spawn in it in BF the first impression that I get is I'm screwed. Being forced to apply the tactics like hiding all the time in canyons also doesn’t help as it ruins the overall immersion of flying the module as it was designed to (high altitude interceptor). It is hard to find an incentive for someone being asked to put himself willingly in disadvantage and fly it more kind off in an “arcadisch” style. For that reason prety much as recently I’m spending most of time flying older planes like MiG-21/15, Sabre/WWII I skip the servers with FC aircrafts – including BF (unfortunately). The only way to have the incentive for older planes is just to match the scenarios and their capabilities. I just can't wait for an Korea, Vietnam setup. Maybe removing the FC 4’th gen would help but then it wouldn't be fair as it would ruin the fun for all that appreciate more modern setups.

Personally I use this page: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/? It's for sure not comparable to using a professional equipment but should be enough if you follow the instructions. Save your settings before playing with them. EDIT: for compression, I've attached a screenshot from the mission when I run it. It's ok for me and if it's too dark for you then probably it's the monitor settings. Also I've attached a modified campaign mission by moving the time 30 minutes later which makes it less dark. Just copy it to ...\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\P-51D\Missions\EN\Campaigns. Note that the update will restore the original one. Mission 10 - City River Run.miz

If I recall correctly it's the switch that's located on the bottom side of collective control. You can't see it. It has to be operated by a keyboard shortcut - Home. But that's described in the manual.

I flew this mission just recently. It was ok. It is a night mission but it's not soo dark. All of the buildings, ground details, river etc. are clearly visible. The problem can be quite prosaic. Check monitor brightness and contrast as also if gamma is callibrated correctly.

Yes, and I perfectly love to use the dead reckoning with doppler navigation in Mi-8. It's just that, heaving the possibility to mark for myself and maybe other guy with which we're setting up a Kub the location where the crates were dropped just saves the paper and simplifies the communication.

Ok, Ka-50 and ABRIS provide the tools for you to do that. But if I fly the Mi-8, or pretty much any other airplane in DCS at the moment, do I really need to have the Caucasus map printed at my desk? Really, let’s not make the things more complicated than they should be. To be clear though - markers and automatic own position enabled at the same time seem almost like cheating. Markers on their own, without the position should not be such a big problem though. Ok, the fact that they are visible for others is more than just being able to mark something on the map for yourself but still I would consider that more of facilitating rather than replacing the communication. Think that BF is a constant action, with people joining and leaving all the time, without a proper briefing. You can try to organize with a group of friends, but it’s really hard to expect that a group of strangers with different real life schedules will share a priority to organize themselves to the same level. It’s a different setup from flying a specific sortie with set amount of people, pre-planned scenario, briefed together before the mission, etc. I agree though, it's really comes down to the attitude. Requiring everyone to be on SRS or TS, disabling labels and own position will not magically make people to PTFO. The fact is that I’ve seen several times the team with 2-1 advantage, most people on SRS, all flying so called “CAP” and just a single guy in an attack aircraft without anyone in transport heli. But I guees the fact that I check the online map, PAC intel, spawn locations of both sides and ask on chat that I can fly the troops to the FARP being attacked means that I don't care about the goals since I'm not on SRS.

When it comes for constant own position, +1 to disable it. Then just use whatever navigation aids are provided by the plane to figure out the current position. But why the markers are so controversial? I guess in reality it's rather easy to take a pencil and mark something on a map, then use the radio to communicate it to others so they can mark it on their own. As an example, marking on a map where the crate was dropped helps a lot. Also let’s not pretend that the location of the objectives is unknown - maybe for someone new to BF. Others, after flying few sorties know exactly where the targets are. Then Ka-50 ARBIS can see the detailed location anyway. If it wouldn't be for the fun that new players can get from searching and locating the targets for the first time, I would vote for showing them on the map. Though not in a way that would expose their status as for how many units are alive/killed.

A safe bet would be latest version of 2.0 or an update of it (but not 2.5). One reason why not 1.5.x is that as many times it has been stated it does not support multiple map modules.

Just to be more specific, the current stable version is 1.5 (.something), not 1.2. Which isn't so much different from 1.5 beta. It's up to the personal reasons to install whichever version. On the other hand, frankly speaking it's hard to justify staying on 1.5 stable as the 1.5 beta is the latest and really stable. From my few years experience with DCS I can't recall a case of being forced to roll back from beta. As for 2.0, it is in alpha for more than a year now and I guess it's better to enjoy it rather than wait for whatever reason for release with a "stable" label. The software is there, it's released and is working. Why it is so much important how the release is called.

I think we're approaching the point from incorrect angle. The question should be more about the period of time and air warfare that was appropriate to it. Normandy is 1944 which is much later, after the Battle of Brittain. On the other it would be good to understand if setting up scenarios native to 1944, like escorting strategic bomber runs is going to be possible. It would be good if anyone more familiar with 1944 air warfare history could put some points on that.

It would be good to have it clarified. According to the last update both, updated Nevada and Normandy will be completed and released before 2.5:

On 14.11.2016 the Moon will be the biggest (closest) since 1948 - http://www.space.com/34515-supermoon-guide.html DCS is a SIM after all, but I didn't suppose such details are simulated :lol: