Donut

No problem buddy. I completely understand what you mean. I just wish the Newsletter would address the "hot topic" bugs, just as an update and to let everyone be aware. A lot of info can be buried in so many posts...plus, not everyone frequents the forums and the Newsletter is all they really go by. Anyways, happy flying and I hope (judging by your avatar) that the Hind is released soon!

Well, out of 93 pages in the Crash section of the forum dating back to 2012, the 2.7 crash topic has by far had the most replies...1K+ with the next topic having 252 replies. Take it for what it's worth, but it seems to be the most significant problem with crashes in 9 years.

In this week's newsletter, why is there no mention/acknowledgement of the continued and worsening crashes in 2.7? It has long since become a widespread and critical problem with no obvious cause/solution.

So HB is saying don't trust the info bar...and they don't use it for testing; but, ED uses it and apparently it matches up to real life performance charts. Maybe this explains why the Tomcat's performance is off...?

I am seeing the same crashes as well...in addition to intermittent crashes with a 2nd mission load. This latest patch has only added to the crashes. Crash logs sent to ED.

Crashes continue for me after today's update...seems even more unstable. Along with the continued crashes on 2nd mission load, I received a crash right after install of the patch and then another crash upon mission exit. Some crashes make the PC unresponsive and require a reboot. Crashes are with the Hornet and Tomcat and I have been doing Instant Action only. Crash logs are being sent to ED if/when created.

Wow, what a fascinating and...spirited conversation this has become! In regards to my OP, from what I can gather from this discussion, it seems that the FM changes should result in a less draggy and faster accelerating F-14B.

The FM is still a WIP and listed in the roadmap. As of right now, what is the current state of the FM? What needs to be corrected/adjusted? There are plenty of forum discussions regarding turn rate and acceleration/drag, but it's difficult to figure out where the DCS Hornet currently is compared to real life performance with all the conflicting opinions and reports.

I would like to see HB update their manual to an include a detailed section on Jester.

The new infantry does look amazing...but, how about updating the pilot models first? I have yet to see updated/correct US Air Force and Navy pilots/helmets.

I posted this a ways back... https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/220370-not-a-bug-formation-lights-dont-turn-off/?tab=comments#comment-4101361 The exterior lighting controls are correct, but make no sense at all. They do not do what they are labeled to do.

Oh goodness, I am not mocking you and truly apologize for the frustration I am causing. Thank you for sticking with this topic. I think I understand things now. The monitor represents the human eye. What I was trying to do was keep the actual FOV of my real eyes and view the monitor as a window into the DCS world. Draw the curtains back (wider monitor) and more of the DCS world is made visible to my real eyes. As many of you have explained (many times), that isn't how the view works with computers. With my wider monitor (representing my eyes) I need to use the DCS FOV to "draw the curtains back" to make more of the DCS world visible.

My example does not change the zoom level, yours does and that is the problem I am having in understanding all of this. The FOV adjustment seems to be a workaround instead of actual 21:9 monitor support.

Thank you all for the examples and in depth explanations. I understand what FOV is and how it works in DCS. I just fail to grasp how a wider monitor does not natively display more of an image than a narrower one. I imagine myself looking through the windshield of a car with 1 foot on each side blacked out (16:9), then I look through the same windshield with nothing blacked out (21:9). The image through the windshield has not changed, I just see more of the view now. Also, my view of the dashboard would not have changed either. This just does not seem possible in DCS.

Thank you. Just a simple example...Tomcat sitting on a runway is fine. I see that FOV and zoom are the same in DCS, but I think that is what doesn't make sense to me. In the two examples I posted above, zoom doesn't change. It's as simple as a wider aspect ratio just equalling more horizontal view.

But not the same way DCS does. In my two examples, everything stayed the same except for an increase in horizontal view. View distance stayed the same. In DCS, the zoom level changes as well making everything different...view distance to objects inside and outside of the cockpit. Your drawings do not account for how the scenery changes as well in DCS when FOV is adjusted.

Can someone explain these examples then... https://youtu.be/vwAY3t6JdPo https://youtu.be/V2lkTv6VqJ8

I could very well be the dumb one here, but I just don't get it. It's not what I am seeing and not what examples from other sims/games show. I need pictures/examples..lots and lots, and maybe beer...oh, and donuts. Thank you to all who are taking the effort to get this understood.

This where I am not understanding things. A 21:9 has more pixels than 16:9 as well as should display more cockpit real estate horizontally...all while being at the same FOV/zoom level.

So are those of us with 21:9 monitors to just deal with either a vertically cropped display or a zoomed out FOV that distorts the image/zoom level? I bought a 21:9 inch monitor to more realistically simulate a person's natural vision with an increased peripheral view. You are saying that isn't achievable in DCS...

And that is why adjusting the FOV is not the solution. A 16:9 monitor right next to a 21:9 monitor both displaying the exact same image and FOV should be identical except that the 21:9 monitor will display more to the sides which are cut off by the 16:9 display.

There is definitely an issue/bug here. All things being equal, a 16:9 and 21:9 monitor will have the same vertical picture displayed, but the 21:9 will display more to the sides. For example:

21:9 monitor here as well and I noticed the same thing. Coming from 16:9, I am disappointed and hopefully this is addressed by ED. @BIGNEWY

The P-51 has needed an updated 3D model for years now...it is just outdated and not up to current quality standards. For example, look at the wing...the fuel caps are painted on textures instead of being 3D modeled. The overall model lacks the detail and visual pop that the newest aircraft have.

Me too buddy. Speculating on the next aircraft can be fun, but there is still a ton of work and fixes to do on the Tomcat and of course endless enjoyment to be had. For me, my adventures with the Tomcat are only beginning, despite flying it since release.