cauldron

Yeah, i turned it on just to showcase where i was actually looking. --- It is actually eye opening (punn :megalol:) to have something showing you where you are actually looking. It turned out that for me my sight was faster and twitchier than i could have imagined, it also preempts mouse movements. the other day i tried an exercise with the grey circle on the desktop to chase my mouse around the screen. I couldn't ! I keep "arriving" before my mouse did, i would think "hand move mouse there.." and my eyes where already be there waiting to see the pointer arrive there. some fun experiments to be had!

My first attempt at demoing this baby, i am still far from done tweaking its settings but i got it well enough to really "feel it" now... its feels intuitive, the screen responds intuitively, i don't have to turn my head and keep looking straight ahead anymore...

Haven't flown in a while for personal reasons... But... Here is a video some of you may enjoy. I am using tobii eye tracker 4c instead of trackir. It highlights some of the niceties of the system, apart from not needed anything on your head! just needs to have a good view of your eyes! Anyways, A side note... my real purpose to post this it to demo the Tobii eye tracker 4c...but, Since this in on the Mirage forums, i do have have a couple of critiques... hopefully the devs will look into it. The RWR: 1.The constant chiming of a missile launch or lock Loooong after it is no more is a real liability to the pilot, it deceives you more than giving you pertinent information. Imagine a multi aircraft engagement, mind as well turn off the RWR for all the good the constant stream of dis-information will do, pay attention to it and you'll get killed. It is my belief that an instrument should NEVER purposefully lie to you, the fact that it chimes and screams at you for somewhere between 5 to 8 seconds is insane! Not even to speak of trying to determine elevation of a missle threat by banking and noticing when the rwr engages and disengages ( btw what is the elevation limits of the mirage rwr?) In this video i have already killed the mig29 have gotten behind its flaming wreck and its still telling me it is launching a missile at me.... come on! Stop making instruments that purposefully lie to me... no the excuse that maybe i missed it, and its there to remind me i missed the cue, and that a missile was launched or a radar lock was made IN THE PAST has no place where second by second the situation is changing. If you want to make instruments for sucky pilots, yeah go ahead knock your self out. But in my opinion if i am a good pilot with good SA i will use the fact that I lose and reacquire RWR signals as useful data to make proper and timely decisions. If the RWR would tell me real info instead of "fake news" I could determine elevation as well as azimuth of the threat, if i also knew the elevation limits of my RWR and my bank angle, as well as terrain features... but no, this on assumes I suck at piloting and keeps telling me a missile is tracking me when it actually fell under a ridge line, or overshot me and i am free to break, nope... an instrument designed for the dummy, should the manual come in yellow, with big bold black lettering as well? 2.Also, the fact that a strong contact appears literally smack in the center of your display gives you the idea that the radar is on top of you but it could be in front, left or right or behind... its not gonna tell'ya. Ok, rant aside... How did you guys think of the eye tracker??? fun huh ? :pilotfly:

Pilot Squawk sheet: Auto-Land landing rough and harder than expected... Engineer Work Order response: Auto-Land system not installed. :smartass:

Gunny, The patch notes thread labels which version has which update. Just follow it for the latest news.:thumbup:

Uh... no. This is one where you just have to read the memo in its entirety, doesn't take long at all and is a sensible read for any and all.

My point exactly!.. add the eastern block FC3 planes to this aircraft list as well. So someone explain how the BAP-100 or even Durandal are any different in mechanics from these bombs. Also, they [betAB] have been patched lately as well, clearly showing the parachute phase and rocket phase. the only issue with them is the Horrible dispersion pattern they take, but they work. Someone said this "type" of bomb doesn't exist in DCS and that they are waiting for ED to make one... So... "things to make you go Hmmmmmm..."

skip to 5:00min mark for top gun reference A nice video done by a good friend of mine. Skip to 5:00 for the TopGun reference to enjoy some F-14 TopGun movie flashbacks. Its a fun clip to watch.

I checked my out box and my email spam folder, address was correct & no response... But.... Thank you very much for the patch PDF i was able to follow it and it worked to reset our activations. hopefully star force has this cleared up so it does not repeat. off to do some flying :pilotfly:

I ran into this problem AFTER the patch event, my serial numbers - being correct - did not work. I made an error report from the mig-21 splash screen and sent it to support by email. So far no reply and its been about 3 days now. So.. i came to the forums to see if something was amiss and.... there most certainly is. 1st... Thank you for trying to deal with the issue. Secondly: Star Force has a history of causing severe problems to peoples computers, personally i would throw them to the curb, and not "feel lucky" they are peddling out a few more id's. I'm not a computer expert, I have read the posts and I don't understand how to fix my DCS so myself and my friends can fly the mig-21 until apparently the next patch sequence. Now don't get me wrong, i'm not interested in putting more effort into learning how to fix this until its "fixed" i already put as much time and effort as i'm willing to put into it, maybe i should know more about computers, but i don't and i'm not the worst out there <-- hint. I feel slighted that there was a days notice on the forums to prevent an issue. It should not be expected that every paying client, check the forums daily to insure that its "safe" to run the module. Now, don't misunderstand me, I appreciate the effort. But i'm not going to get "virtually" slapped in the face and sit here and say "thank you" may i have another to Star Force! I'm am a paying client of this module, and i have made an exception to my BAN on StarForce only because there is nothing else out there like DCS. <--- only reason DCS is on my computer due to those &*^% tards at Star Force *&^king yet up again with my computer. maybe i should have waited until this all blew over, and i would write less emotionally, BUT developers should get a feel for the emotional response this kind of stuff generates upon their paying customers. respectfully pissed off. Thank you.

Would like to start a thread to discuss the Tobii eye tracker with head tracking for DCS. Is there any news on support? this system would take DCS to the next level beyond trackir type setups, as VR widespread adoption is still very much on the far horizon. Cheers, lets stay on topic - Thanks ! :joystick:

I only run the BETA 1.5, and Alpha for 2.0... So i'm not sure how to troubleshoot this. It seems that sometimes it runs, and sometimes it reverts to default. Thanks for the check.

Copy of my file: In DCS/Mods/aircraft/M-2000C/cockpit/scripts SPIRALE.lua

Hi, OBS: Its been a while since I've messed with the flight sim, so please excuse me if this has already been addressed - if so, kindly redirect me where to look, I would appreciate it. I followed the directions to edit the scripts.lua file for the cockpit countermeasures programs. I edited it fine, but for some reason today the plane keeps reverting to the default, even though the file has already been edited correctly (double checked). Has anyone had this issue? I thank you in advance.

Right, don't know why i missed that. Thanks.

I think i may have seen that source... it's from "An encyclopedia of flight" by Troll Inc. Publishing.

Anyone have any good information on how this will work with the Viggen module? I'm guessing this guided munition will/could make the Viggen a highly valued attacker not only vs. Sea targets but land ones as well. I saw before an awesome thread about the Rb-04, hoping someone could shed some light on this system. Regards.

Ok then, thanks.

Just call your new MRM the 51-D missile, instead of the Matra-530D and all will be well. :megalol: Let's see, from your own posted tacview i see no issues stand out right away. The missile flew 40km not 60km to its target launched from 1.4MACH vs a closing target also at approx same 1.3MACH and each at 46,000ft altitude. The atmosphere is very rarified at that altitude. Rockets love those high altitudes for range. The Acceleration & deceleration curves have been discussed in much detail ad-nauseum and have been soundly reviewed as being in the right place for the 530D. Considering that DLZ's vs Raero are hard to comeby, Feelings and patched together rationalizations put forth to claim the missile is incorrect will fall short. For the most part there are seldom discussions about missile ranges vs targets over 40k feet. Why not launch at 50k feet vs. a closing target at 70k feet and your "range" will increase even more. The rational just isn't up to snuff, again the drag curves have been gone over already. You may want to try to look at the " contemporary " missiles you speak of and get their Kinematics reviewed, you may have better luck there. Watching the progress of this module Simulation is of concern, not "balance" with contemporary missiles. In my opinion if DCS hedges off to the path of "arcade" and "performance balancing" will make it turn into WarThunder, something I think this community would cringe at.

LMAO, this is a historic event. Someone asking for ED designed missiles instead of ones made by the 3rd party. You didn't see how horrendous those ED 530D's and 550's were, thank GOD they got those travesty of a flight model original missiles removed from the game. This cracked me up a bit :megalol: "disproportionately more range than competitors"... I see where your coming from.

So... pre-purchase grants no benefit to access, just the discount, is that what you are saying?

From LNS ... " ....Leatherneck Simulations, in association with The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics, are pleased to announce the AJS-37 for DCS World is now available for pre-purchase! The pre-purchase provides both a 20% discount off the retail price and access to the Early Access coming in early 2017. Get a standalone or limited edition bundle copy at the Heatblur store http://www.heatblur.com! Ordering at the Heatblur store also enters you into an exclusive chance to be one of 14 lucky simmers to get your name and callsign painted on one of the official liveries for the upcoming DCS F-14 Module! (winners chosen on AJS-37 Release Day)<<<<<<< DCS: AJS-37 Viggen will launch on January 27th for $59.99. Pre Purchase now for $47.99 and save 20%! ..." --- --- So... does this mean i can buy it for 60$ on Jan27th and use it then, if so when does the "early access phase begin" that pre-purchase provides along with the 20% discount? So if I pre-purchase now how much early access will there be, and from when to when will it be? Thanks, this will help determine purchase decision. regards

1st, no one is ridiculing you, so stop being such a brat about it or you'll find not many people to even listen to you. What is the basis of your "laboratory" data? your "F" in F=ma in your laboratory data is missing a lot of factors, which implies your experimental data will not give you any valid results to make any claim of under-or-over powered. You could find some interesting things, like where L/D max is for each plane at different altitudes, maybe graph the the ingame curves for evaluation and interpretation, you could do a lot of interesting things with what you are doing. But your premise and "laboratory" models of static thrust from the planes being the only "Force" is far from the only Force acting on the planes in your acceleration model. The game simulates a lot of things, exactly which we don't know. Your test can show a window into them if you dig deeper. I'm done if you keep knee jerking into insults and feeling insulted constantly.

There was nothing rude, nor condescending in my remarks, criticism can be hard to give "gently" and hard to receive. But such a reaction as yours is not warranted. No where do i imply you are an idiot, nor a liar. The comment of "trivial" is not a mathematical one but one that you trivialised some important factors involved in your experiment that heavily influence the outcome of it, do not take it as a comment to your person. You, as i said, are on the right track in testing and experiments. the formulas i used have the same math that you used, the most complicated had a squared function, multiplying and division, and writing formulas in a txt chat is not fun, and i spent quite a bit of time to try to show you some of the factors evolved, and even looked up some books for you, that can be tested for in the simulation if you want to go that way, the mig-21 and the F-5 are wholly de-classified. Try not to jump to conclusions of ridicule, when you post an experiment for being read and reviewed by others.

Malek, Also, the M2000c is contemporary to the F-16 and the mig-29. The M2000c is a tailless delta with vortex generators, automatic leading edge devices and an unstable center of lift, the mig-21 is a traditional delta similar to the mirage-3 and F-106 delta Dart though the mig-21 has a tail, both good and bad depending on what kind of performance you are after. A more direct comparison would be the F-5, or outside DCS the Mirage-3 or mirage F-1 the Su-15 the F-4 Phantom or the Bae Lightning, the F-8 Crusader, and F-106 Delta dart. there is lots of data available for all those planes to make comparisons. These are all contemporaries of the Mig-21