firmek

I watched the track. First, you're trying to take off with 2 MiG-29's just over your head but I guess that's not the reason why you can't leave the runway :) As for the reason... just go and read about Lokomotiv Yaroslavl Yak-42 crash. Long story short hit Right Control + Enter to see the status of input controls and everything will become obvious. Stick axis seem to be fine, throttle also but you're making a run still keeping brakes not fully released. I guess you're resting your feet on the pedals. At least it kind of looks like this. Might be it's not an issue for other planes as they have enough thrust to overcome the brakes power - especially if you're using AB during TO which A-10 obviously doesn't have.

Forget doing it in MP though.... I'm quite sure HARM will become the No. 1 banned missile on the MP servers, knocking 120C and ET's right off the pedestal.

Just pre-ordered... and after reading the OP from this thread I kind of feel bad I waited so long. Amazing job and great customer oriented attitude from Heatblur :thumbup:

Basically any server should support it as its nothing more than a client configuration. The only reason for the "mod" not working are the mission creator view settings stored in the mission file. This can be any mission - a multiplier one run on a server or a single player like even a training. As it's a mission related setting it's not possible to create a list of servers. Quite often a server mission rotation will contain a clean missions and another where the user view settings are overwritten from the mission (with stored creator view settings). The only way to solve the issue is to contact the server admin and let him know about the problem as for the most part he'll not notice the difference (it's his view settings stored in the mission). I think the reason why the user settings are stored in a mission is linked to one of the options - can't remember its name but it's something related to enforcing same view settings over all missions. IMO ED should consider removing this option. Have a look on the "Troubleshooting missions" section: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views I used to run this procedure to fix the training missions on my PC.

Putting a lot of attention into damage model for an aerobatic planes sounds almost like another troll from the devs :)

You should really be running open beta then...

Static planes are much more performance friendly than the uncontrolled ones. This is even true when the units are not directly in a line of sight. Large ammount of AI uncontrolled units will reduce the FPS and eventually with a high number of planes introduce a stutter. As a general rule use static units whenever possible especially if the units dont have to take active actions during the mission.

The SOP link in first post has been broken since almost forever.

As far I read about the history of the region the reality is exactly opposite. Since the operation Desert Shield in 1990 there is generally always at least one carrier group deployed to the Gulf with maximum five carriers deployed during Desert Storm in 1991. Think that under current, peace time conditions they have a different role than during a full blown conflict like WW2. One of the main reason of tensions between Iran and US with its allies is the constant presence of foreign Navies in the Gulf, leading to many close encounter accidents between ships/patrol boats from both sides. Many time the dispute is related to trans-passing to Iran territorial waters. Which "topology" is by the way one of the key puzzles of the region geo-politics and which for instance explain why islands like Abu-Musa or Tunb's are so important. Just from the mission building perspective, some high level ideas: - Al Dhafra would be the main airforce base for Blue team, focused on fighters. Thre are also quite a few AWACS and I think tankers on the google maps satellite pictures. - Al Minhad AB is hosting CAS, strike, transport and air refueling squadrons. - Conflict starting point could be a skirmish between US Navy and Iranian speed boats going out of control. If I understand correctly it's really difficult to pass into the Gulf through the strait without crossing into Iranian territorial waters. - Iran rather than using air-force or ships would use the coastal batteries and missiles to attack the US navy - with quite a good chance for a success as the Gulf is a small area. I liked the comparison to a "shooting gallery" from the article linked below. - Another idea could be a pre-emptive strike in response to Iran building up forces in the Abu Musa or Tunb islands. - There could be some collateral damage as the region is extremely crowded with a ship traffic. - Oman could declare neutrality and deny flying over its territory. As for the Al Dhafra and Al Minhad, especially the first one and the region arround it is well protected by the Patriot and Hawk sites. Especially the Hawk sites could change their positions - should it be needed. Here is quite an interesting article about the carrier groups in the Gulf https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/05/02/what-if-the-us-stopped-sending-aircraft-carriers-to-the-arabian-gulf/ Edit: I attached a template mission that I was working on. It shows the SAM sites location as also the squadrons - based on the generally available information. Just delete the "client" flights in order to get more or less a clean template. Template Persian Gulf 2K 20180629.miz

C'mon, thats not fair. I finished the Oilfield campaign not so long time ago :) Being serious, good luck with the feature :thumbup:

Hawk (though I don't know in which shape is it) and C-101. Besides there is no reason to not have L-39 also on the Blue side.

Well the good news is that we know Kiowa is on the road-map for DCS. The bad news is that we don't know who and what's most important by when it'll be done. We had also witnessed on numerous occasions that the priorities as also the plans as for which dev which make which module get changed. Like the recent news of F-4 being pushed back behind F-16. The modules licence is also not fixed in stone like the MiG-23 which RAZBAM was asked to put on hold just to get it back after a year or so. Lets see. Hopefully Kiowa will get some priority.

Just ask him which plane he likes in reality and start with it but DO NOT take any of FC planes. Take a full fidelity module where its possible to do some basics of radio navigation, ILS. My vote would be L-39 and the Kursant campaign but this campaign is actually quite tough.

As far as I understand it doesn't really mean anything for FC3 users. You keep it and can fly the planes you have. That's all. If you wan't to play some of the new simplified planes you'll have to get the MAC but as there are already many planes in that package that FC3 owners already have, ED will offer MAC to them at a discounted price. Edit: seems the question got deleted in the mean time.

I think we're over complicating it. It seems to be just the FC4 - aka FC3 plus a few new planes - aka DCS arcade mode, packaged in new branding "MAC" for a marketing purpose.

I think its this one: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA321294&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

+1. It seems that two last cases (3 and 4) result in a situation that the pilot is trying to communicate with an hostile airfield ATC. Not even a neutral one, simply owned by the opposite coalition.

If you're in a business - and it should be obvious that as soon as you start taking someones money it's a business, you should consider yourself not only as a specialist (developer) but a manager and a business man, responsible for taking your business seriously and managing the customer expectations and satisfaction. I'm not really happy and don't feel satisfied with saying that but in case of MiG-21 a results of a lot of good work like the recent cockpit overhaul is lost because of something really small, not worth insisting on like aligning the canopy glass with the rest of the DCS modules. Something as a side note but interesting to consider is how hard is it to get and maintain customer loyalty and how valuable such customers are as that will actively promote the product. Contrary consider how easy it is to create detractors which not only are not satisfied them self but actively spread around their dissatisfaction. How likely is it that you would recommend our company/product/service to a friend or colleague? The scoring for this answer is most often based on a 0 to 10 scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Promoter

I'm running 100Hz GSync and can easily tell it does make a difference in DCS. TrackIR is just much more smooth, crisp and responsive and fore-mostly much more precise in 80-100 FPS range then it is at 40-60 FPS. I can generally feel the difference when on ground with 40 FPS and when flying high or or looking into the sky with 90+ FPS. As for the VSync - DCS is the only community where I find it being advised. I played FPS for a long time with a group of friends and turning the VSync off was a pretty much a first advice being given to anyone. Not even because of trying to be competitive but just being able to stand a chance. Just look at the video below. I think it really makes obvious how big the cost of VSync is. Doesn't it really matter for DCS? Again consider the TrackIR response lag or maneuvering in a precise flight regime like air refueling or even landing. Anyway, its a private choice but I don't see much of a logic behind improving a bit the picture quality with a cost of ruining the way how hardware is being interfaced with and experienced. Everyone complains about the DCS "net code" and network lag. I wonder how many of those folks fly with the VSync on.

Absolutely stable FPS is generally not possible. Eventually the FPS will drop below the 60 FPS cap, which in case of VSYNC enabled will reduce the FPS by half, to 30 FPS. Besides the fact that card is underused and instead of potentially doing 53 FPS it does 30, this transition quite often is accompanied with a noticeable stutter. Another great "advantage" of VSYNC is that it creates a horrific input lag. Maybe DCS isn't a crazy fast paced FPS like game but just because the of the TrackIR, the input lag really matters. Want to have this "sea sickness" feeling of TIR connected to your PC with a rubber band - just set the VSYNC to on. Variable FPS is no issue when using a monitor with adaptive sync. If you think about it, the whole whole concept behind the VSYNC is flown to begin with. It's kind of like solving a problem by trying to fight the symptom not the root cause. You can't solve a hardware problem with a software. Anyway, the good thing is that since few years already the adaptive sync capable monitors are publicly available. While obviously being more pricey a monitor with an adaptive sync is really a only true solution to the screen tearing problem.

Exactly. Games are generally programmed to utilize the GPU fully, running as many frames per second as it possibly can. The graphics options quality level will affect how much frames per second GPU is able to render. The only way to have GPU working below its full capacity is to free resources from it (which again game by default is trying to fully utilize): 1. Have a CPU or other hardware that is bottle-necking the GPU - which is obviously not a good thing 2. Enforce a maximum rendered FPS level, setting it bellow the FPS achieved by the GPU. This will introduce idle time to GPU. It can be done directly by editing DCS options or indirectly by enabling VSYNC. By default DCS caps the frames to 200 if I'm correct. Little to no reason in my opinion to touch this setting and as for VSYNC - you'll be doing yourself a good favor not wasting your time considering and enabling it. Really, "those aren't the droids you're looking for". Finally, why running a low settings on 1080 Ti? This doesn't seem to make too much sense.

Yes, thank you for the tip. I know about it but it's better that the problem is resolved in the source package. Thus just letting know Baltic that there is a mission which needs fixing. Congratulations!. The final effect is really great. Looking forward for remaining missions.

I would love to have a canopy glass like that in DCS MiG-21: 1. There is no 2 inches of black goo around the edges of the canopy, including the periscope 2. The reflections are sharp and crisp, totally opposite to DCS MiG-21 which glass looks like regularly "cleaned" with a sanding paper. On top of that it’s actually still possible to see through the reflections as the glass doesn’t become a not-transparent milk. 3. And yes the reflections are pronounced due to camera angle effect. Pure physics, the reflections on the left side of the canopy are bigger due to the small view angle. They are almost not visible on the right side (as far as we can see due to the view being obstructed by the pilot head). I really don’t understand if the current version of cockpit is so important, why we can’t have two different versions like already mentioned in case of Mi-8. Just do the textures as they are in F-5 or pretty much every other DCS module – copy, paste, adjust. Name the option “super unrealistic clean option made due to whining on forum for those without an artistic soul” and call it a day.

The current situation is that currently only MiG-21 has such issues with the canopy glass. There are two separate problems though: 1. The level of dirt, smudges 2. Crazy amount of specular, blurred light reflections to the level that at some angles even a 30% of the canopy glass becomes non-transparent. It sounds like a trivial and over discussed topic but in reality the view affects a core game-play experience. If I can't see the scenery, objects and fore mostly bogeys in MiG-21 whereas I can see them in every single other module there is something wrong with MiG canopy implementation. You can have an "educated" discussion about the level or dirt on canopy and bring the smudges SME's but at the end of the day there has to be some basic core game play experience guaranteed by every DCS module. If every single module provides the same experience and one is not, whose most probably wright? As far as I had last checked MiG is a part of DCS platform, not an standalone product. The visibility from MiG cockpit is so poor that its the only module that just to avoid a frustration I don't fly now. It's a pity since it used to be one of my favorite modules after Mi-8 and the recent updates to the cockpit interior are really great.

I assume you're not running the open beta but release. In OB it works as intended. Great and long awaited addition. And it's even persisted :thumbup: It's really a side request but consider adding a similar button to mute the music (only while in mission editor).