firmek

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:

Thanks for the replay Mattebubben. I'll check in 1.5.5. If it works there then maybe the problem was already resolved and exists only in 2.x as it hasn't been updated for some time. EDIT: I've checked in 1.5.5. Everything seems to be fine. It looks like that the problem exists only in NTTR.

Turning the radar on for MiG-21 freezes the client. The problem appears on NEVADA in MP. It looks almost like a former bug with M2000C but is more severe as the client practically dies. Freezes don't appear 100%, in some cases turning the radar on doesn't result in any problem. Still roughly 5-8/10 times the freeze is guaranteed. The problem is critical as pretty much disables MiG-21 from MP on Nevada. Few quick tests didn't show the problem on Nevada in SP. Further testing should be done as also I didn't check yet in 1.5.5.

Yes, this can be appreciated. Everyone realizes that sims are not the AAA titles. The situation however is that it's not a first delay. Sorry to say but such situation may turn even the most supporting users into sceptics. Yes, we don't know what is exactly involved. But do we need to? At the end, from a high level perspective there is nothing special with DCS, it is a project like many IS or other projects. If delays, no expected release dates, constant alpha become a standard there must be reasons for that. After all, only those that don't make anything don't make mistakes, but if the same situation keeps repeating, what does it show?

It's frustrating to be on the receiving side as boring to play on the team with no opposition. There are tons of posts related to "balancing" the aircrafts, missiles, etc, while the highest priority should be addressing the teams population. What are the plans for updating the server to 1.5.5? The situation that a lot of people which updated their clients can't connect may be adding up to the uneven teams.

For sure it can be done. Just that it's not so easy at it may seem. It "works" in case of Mi-8 is really subjective: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=169039

Probably a nice feature that would add to the overall immersion. But it's probably not so easy as it may appear. There are essentially two models - one is the external one, other is the cockpit view. If when sitting in the cockpit player would be able to stick his head outside, he would see a lot of the parts of the plane missing. Such approach is usually taken from the performance perspective - to save processing power from something that would never be rendered. Apart of implementing functionality allowing to stick the head outside also models would have to be probably updated.

If you haven't tried yet, play the stock campaign. It's ok, nothing special, sometimes quite repetitive but good to start with and get some experience.

My personal choice would be 34'' 3440x1440 monitor. From other characteristics: adaptive sync (GSYNC, FreeSync), 100Hz, IPS. Moving from 24 to 34 widescreen the first impression is "wow it's hudge". After getting used to it's more like "it could be bigger, at least higher". Then, why not bigger than 34''? 40'' usually come in 4K or HD resolution. 4K for the moment is too demanding, even for the latest most powerful graphic cards like GTX 1080. HD resolution on the other hand is too low as sitting close (as it's a case with a monitor, but not a TV) to 40'' 1080p individual pixels will be visible.

I wouldn't count on that... The problem is not only resolution but the contrast ratio between the objects (airplanes) and the background. At least 34'' 3440x1440 doesn't help a lot. At the end of a day, if it's 24'' or 34'' or even bigger, the visuals are as good as DCS renders them which is basically the same. Not saying that resolution is something negligable but first it's the engine capability and then the resolution.

Most of the points have been already mentioned: 1. I is difficult to spot targets in DCS. Hopefully the 2.5 with better lighting will introduce more contrast and make the targets to be easier distinguishable from the background. 2. After losing the target while in a dogfight look for it at your 6 3. Targets are better visible when appearing on the sky. In other words try to put yourself below them - though this may not be the best position from the advantage stand point. 4. Spotting targets flying low, having ground as a background is extremely difficult. Use this as an advantage when flying against human opponents. 5. Try enabling the model enlargement - small, max medium (high is too big). Use it to practice at the beginning and try disabling once getting more experience. 6. Use a balanced Field Of View - too wide will give a better periphelial vision but will make the small details too difficult to notice. Too narrow will result in a tunnel like vision. Usually 90 deg is considered optimal for FullHD monitors, 107 deg for ultra-wide. Take it with a grain of salt though as it depends on personal preferences. 7. Learn to use zooming, map it to an easily accessible button/slider on your HOTAS. For TM Warthog the throttle slider is a good option. 8. Calibrate your monitor - may not help much but having a bad color balance, gamma, brightness and contrast can make distinguishing smaller details harder. Especially the gamma settings may influence ability to notice small details.

Overall, The WWII period in DCS is: 1. Normandy Map Not only the map itself but also ground, land and probably naval units. 2. Modules: Already available: - Fw 190 D-9 - Bf 109 K-4 - P-51D Released in 2016 - Spitfire LF Mk. IX - P-40F Kitty hawk Probably released relatively soon: - Spitfire Mk XIV - F-4U Corsair And more planned in the future. Just roughly with new Normandy map there are going to be 5 airplanes at the start and possibly 7 soon afterwards. Considering full fidelity modules (not counting FC3) and excluding trainers, from other periods there are 6 planes and 4 helicopters. Those in total are from 1'st, 2'nd, 3'd and 4'th gen while the Caucasus and current availability of AI units is mostly tailored towards 1980+ scenarios. The overall package of modules, map, AI units from the same era has much bigger value than each of the components separately. Thinking about it is quite interesting as comparing to the other periods, the WWII in DCS will be the most complete one and will provide the most consistent experience.

Simply no, for many reasons: - already mentioned lack of data - close to zero possibility confronting the model with the real life plane - opening yet another work-stream, it's better to focus on providing complete scenarios - units, maps and then aircrafts - there are other much more interesting periods that are sparsely addressed - WWII, 1'st, 2'nd, 3'd gen - small customer base - niche in a niche - small community base, not enough momentum to keep people creating content like missions, campaigns, setting up servers and having players populating them - can get boring in relatively short amount of time - other titles already on the market

Running DCS in 3440x1440 on a single 34’’ display is demanding enough for GTX 1070. Two would require a heavy compromise on the DCS video quality settings - my bet would be somewhere between low-med.