Mr_sukebe

IMO, a pair of Rayban Aviator's should be an option and bindable control for all pilots in DCS.

Does it skip under high G turns? As for CD players, Sony launched the first one back in 1982. The first Discman was in 1984

My thanks for fixing a number of the above. Whilst out this evening, I spotted the following missing/not working: I was unable to bind any HOTAS/controller button to the Show Pilot Body The binding for the Rocket Panel cover didn't work for me I couldn't see binds for the Rocket panel control switches The right panel has 6 switches covering the various external lights (e.g. tail, wing, formation). I bound those to one of my panels and none of them worked The binds for the Defrost and Pitot head didn't work with my panels The binds for the drop tanks (e.g. lock, drop) didn't work with my panels

Could you tell us what action was taken?

Maybe this should be date restricted as Auto-reverse Walkmans didn’t arrive until 1982

My thoughts and hope on this is: - I’m not expecting Razbam back - I’m hoping that the initial agreement between Raz and ED was purely about the argument over payment to Razbam and the potential issue about intellectual property - if the above is true, that it might still leave the Harrier, M2000, Mig19 and F15e modules as IP property owned by Razbam. If so, then may be Raz could sell the IP/source code to ED or another 3rd party, who could then take on responsibility to maintain and also the opportunity to start selling them again. Being realistic, I’d be a bit skeptical of the sales potential for the first 3 of the modules that I mentioned, despite owning and liking them all. However, I’d happily buy the F15E again, and for a developer who fancies getting into DCS, it might be a good way to open some doors.

For the axes, have you tried recalibration of them using the Moza software? That worked for my Alpha Prime.

To add, I was just reading how when Galland was asking for more fighters with the expectation of increasing bomber group sizes, that funding instead went to “terror” weapons like the V1 and V2 and how Hitler was still insistent on building bombers to strike back at the UK.

Has anyone retested the speed of the Corsair? From the update notes I see that the RPM overspeed issue has been resolved, whilst drag has reduced. At 2700rpm, how’s the speed looking against the charts? Sorry, away from my PC for a few days, so can’t test myself

No, that still doesn’t work. There was a reason that the Luftwaffe waited close to the German border before engaging the bombers, ie to avoid the shorter range allied fighters. If a bunch of 190s had gone in at altitude over the channel, there would have been time to get a shed load of Spitfires up to meet them. The nuisance raids were effective because they went in at very low level, so as to avoid radar, giving little time to respond. The only vague would be to go in at low level, then try to max climb to 25,000 feet to intercept, putting the initiative height advantage firmly with the allied screen of fighters. That might have distracted some of the screen, but not all, and the 190s would probably have been cut to ribbons. You really think that any of the above options sound sensible?

My logic for expecting higher losses are: - Longer flight durations just to get to and from the combat zone, which burns fuel the Luftwaffe didn’t have and adds wear to engines - Fighters sent to England would be intercepted by not just the long range fighters, but most probably the hone defence fighter groups, which if anything would be more dangerous than coming across a bunch of P51s, as we know all too well that the Spitfire was a better dogfighter - if you get shot down or have a mechanical failure over England or the Channel, you don’t get to bail out and take a taxi back to base. Instead you get escorted to Canada to a POW camp or maybe get picked up by air sea rescue

If anything, my belief is that attempting to engage US bombers over England would have finished off the Luftwaffe even faster, as they would have lost pilots much quicker. The 1000+ aircraft redeployed as a result of DDay weren’t just from France. On top of that, the Allies knew they were being sent and also which airfields they were going to, which made them easy pickings. Those 1000 made no significant difference.

Probably just aswell that it was nixed, it’s a dumb idea. A key benefit of flying over your own territory is the ability to bail out from either combat, or technical mishap and most probably get to go home, as against a POW camp. Trying to move the combat outside of Europe would have been a disaster. On top of that, there were more than enough shorter ranged allied fighters (eg Spitfires), that could have seen off the Luftwaffe fighters, and still send out long range escorts such as the P38s, P47s and P51s.

??? Circa 2/3rds of the fighter production in 44’ were for 109s and the Luftwaffe will have been only too well aware that fighters outfitted with additional cannons to shoot down bombers, are going to struggle in a dogfight, which I assume is why the fighters were told to avoid allied fighters and focus on the bombers.

This suggests that only 100 of the 481 available aircraft on DDay were fighters; https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/gaf-invasion-normandy.html This article states that JG26 had 3 fighter groups on DDay, two of which were A8s and one being a G6. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdgeschwader_26

I’m hoping that eventually they’ll be added to the map table. That would be cool.

The American made equivalent being?

Maybe the next time you see someone with a MAGA hat on, you can ask them to pay the tax. They voted for it.

I see that active pedals are now available for racing sims. Has anyone seen software around that would allow configuration for use as a set of rudders?

Take a scan here, might help:

To answer the OPs question, based upon my own experiences of moving from a 3080Ti to a 5080. Rest of my PC is 7800x3d/64GB ram: Do ensure that you've tidied up your VRAM use (e.g. disable Oculus home, use VRemptyHangar. Having done that, I've not seen more than 12GB of VRAM use with my 5080. The 3080 would on some map/aircraft combinations could therefore be VRAM saturated, which leads to some very unpleasant stutters The 5080 is a good deal faster in general visual processing, you'll notice that The 5080 is a lot faster on sourcing data to and from RAM, again reducing stutters None of the above will make the slightest different to the legibility of the cockpit of your aircraft. That's dealt with by selecting the cockpit resolution in DCS and any super-sampling that you might also add in VR. The key point being that the performance enhancements from the move to the 5080 will allow you to run higher cockpit resolutions and super-sampling without completely tanking your frame rates. For myself, my frame rate is now mostly 72fps in my Quest Pro and with "good" visuals.

If you’re talking FFB, that can be enabled in software for some bases

Bearing in mind how well the Zero could turn, basing on a P51 seems a bit of an odd choice. An i16 is probably closer

Wow, that's great news.

Yes please... Maybe ED to give the Spit a visual overhaul, give us 1944 levels of boost, add the hook as an option and charge us a smallish amount for the update.