Mr_sukebe

I think that I've knackered some of the USB ports on my motherboard by using them to power some of my gear, hence the move to powered USB hubs.

The USB hub is an Anker 10 port. Here's my links: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07K7DGKHN?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details These are even more important than the USB power pack. I use three of the four supplied side to side. Made a huge difference to my comfort https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00VE4UJD4/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 This is the Anker USB hub https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07FMYV5H6/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 And the USB cable that I use

I personally use of powered USB hub with an aftermarket USB cable. It still doesn’t maintain a full charge, but I’ve never had it run out as yet

I hope that you used the standard British way of cockpit ergonomics, i.e. put all the buttons, switches and dials in a box, throw in a hand grenade and see where they go.

Chaps, Apologies for sounding a bit thick. In the Config file for the quad foveated rendering are the following settings: [Oculus] peripheral_multiplier=0.4 focus_multiplier=1.1 horizontal_focus_section=0.5 vertical_focus_section=0.5 turbo_mode=1 How do those interact with the "rings" that are used by OpenXRToolkit to define the levels of dynamic foveated rendering? Do the horizontal and vertical refer to the use of a rectangle for DFR, that ignores the three rings of OpenXRToolkit? Does turbo_mode=1 mean that it's enabled and that I should change it to zero to turn it off? I don't have issues in game.

There are some settings that you might want to play with in mission editor, eg; - min engagement altitude, which I use for large WW2 AA - enemy engagement restrictions. These allow the option to disable engaging Air or Ground targets. Personally I’ve started disabling tanks and AFVs from engaging aircraft, unless they’re specific anti air units It’s not perfect, but IMO better reflects reality than having T55s sniping helicopters with their main gun

I’ve just received and fitted the TPR damper kit from Cubesim. Some photos: Whilst the damping is working, I have to provide other feedback for our fellow pilots; The initial price for these looks "not terrible". Hence me ordering them. Rather stupidly of me, I was on autopilot whilst going through the Paypal element, and simply said yes, before then realising that the postage was nearly 40% of the total cost of the item. Clearly my fault, but it could have been covered earlier in the ordering process Having realised that I'd just ballsed up, I emailed them straight after placing the order, to the email ID that they'd suggested. Followed that up with a polite reminder 3 days later. No response The assembly was fairly straightforward. They have a video on the website walking you through it. Fairly mug proof. HOWEVER, the bolts that are supplied to connect two of the printed plastic components are not quite long enough. My solution was to use a drill bit to deepen the whole just a little (having no appropriate bolts to hand). Sure, that's worked, but should I really need to be doing DIY? If you look at the first picture, the damper is not actually aligned perpendicular to the bolts. It's maybe 5 degrees off. Not enough to stop it doing it's job, but frankly, a bit pants. This is particularly so as the block that fixes onto the base of the TPRs is made of an upper and a lower printed plastic parts. If the holes in the lower plastic part were maybe 5-7mm further inboard, it would align perfectly. How was that (a) not noticed, or (b) ignored In short, yes, they seem to work fine, but the above list really niggles me, to the point that I struggle to recommend them to others.

Interesting idea. What it might then call for are maintenance benefits and times. Eg, let’s say that you’ve gone out on a mission, overused the engine a little and blown a tyre on landing. The tyre should be a fairly obvious repair item. For the engine, would you want for there to be a pop up maintenance window to give you the choice to repair? It would feed in nicely to the dynamic campaign idea as you might be able to restrict those maintenance windows if the airfield doesn’t have the appropriate supplies. Definitely worth interesting, though it could be seen as micro-management. I like the idea of it as an option, though it feels fairly low priority.

ok, you’ve made your point that you don’t think this adds value, we hear you. Can I please now ask that unless you’ve something new to add, that you allow others to have their say.

Tornado IDS, so I’m waiting patiently for it to arrive…sometime…

Your experiences appear to have been a common theme since Pimax made it to the market, and are the reason that I ended up with an alternative solution. Have to say that I’m still surprised that after a number of years that they’ve yet to really learn and implement genuine customer service

Hopefully for ED too.

How about both flying the A10A? It’s easy to dismiss the FC3 aircraft for not being full fidelity, I’m guilty of it myself. Having said that, I always end up smiling when I fly them, and whilst being much simpler, they do still fly very nicely.

I found the move from a CH Fighterstick to a Virpil CM made air-refueling a lot easier. Is it the best HOTAS? I have absolutely no idea as I don't have experience with a VKB or WinWing unit. My suggestion is to research all three.

I've seen friendly fire from enemies in DCS. I have a mission on the Normandy map and added a cruiser in port to see if I could attack it. One the way in, I was on the deck. The cruiser laid waste to the Calais docks and buildings nearby trying to shoot my aircraft.

It’s possible to fly in DCS with a pad, but not easy. FC3 aircraft would be the most viable. Have you thought of working in a single aircraft with you flying and him in the back as a systems operator, or in say the Apache as the copilot /gunner?

If that’s how it works, then no, it doesn’t make sense. Firstly because it’s not obvious, and secondly that would mean that if you only want to disable a controller for say 3 aircraft, that you’d have to disable the controller for all, then re-enable for the other 30+

It does work, however, it means having to go into the controls menu when you change aircraft. I couldn't see a way to have it such that my Spit could be left with MFDs permanently disabled, whilst they worked fine in the F16.

Apologies, can you please talk me through this. I've gone into the "controls" for say my Spitfire. Within that screen, I've gone to say one of my F16 MFDs. On that box, there's a drop down that opens by clicking on the inverted triangle. Within the drop down, there's an option of "disabled". When I click on that, it adds a Tick against it and that definitely disables the MFD for the Spitfire. However, if I then go to my F16, the same is disabled, despite me not disabling it for my F16.

A few thoughts: - Just tried disabling a controller via the little triangle drop down on the right of the device name. However, that appears to disable the device for ALL aircraft. How do I limit it to the specific aircraft in question? - Ref common controls. Yes, there are very much called other things, e.g. to account for different countries giving them different names. However, many do pretty much the same thing, e.g. gear down. It would be very viable to have a "gear down" option in the Default, with then a mapping in say the Spitfire controls to link the currently named "undercarriage down" to the "gear down". If the developer couldn't be bothered, I'd do it myself. Again, using the mapping, if you have a control in the "default" set that has no match up, e.g. the "gear down" within default, whilst you're in a Huey, then it could simply be ignored. That gets around the not particularly useful option of save and load profiles, which as you say, are tied to identical control layouts

I've just replaced my throttle. Having most modules in game, unsurprisingly, that results in shall we say, a fair bit of work to remap controls for over 30 aircraft. Having pondered about it a bit, I'm hoping to make the following suggestion: Disable DCS auto-assigning for new controls. It invariably applies the wrong configurations and just leads to confusion Introduce the option to "ignore" a controller, for both all of DCS and also by aircraft. I fly in VR. DCS has introduced settings for my VR controllers, which might be useful, if I ever used them. However, I don't. More to the point, I have 12 controllers (excluding the usual keyboard, mouse AND Oculus controllers). What I've found is that DCS really does seem to have a limit on the number of controllers attached. Keep adding them and it gets very upset when I try to open the controller settings whilst in game. I'd like to be able to completely ignore say my Oculus controllers for ALL aircraft, and then ignore my TM MFDs for the Warbirds Introduce a new page called say Default Controller setting (or rename/re-use and expand the current "general" page). Don't automatically have that apply any configurations elsewhere Give the Default Controller page a LOT of typical controls. The current general one is just too small. If you take the latest F16 and Mossie binding options as an example, that would help. I'm thinking of: LOTS of axes, i.e. for not just the usual roll, pitch, rudder, but also for lighting, e.g. call them something like front panel, HUD, left panel etc Give the names of the various controls the option for use to give an additional name, such that we might give it something more meaningful LOTS of controls, to cover jets, warbirds and helicopters For our aircraft, allow: Inherit ALL Default Controls (useful for new aircraft) Inherit Default Controls for a specific controller (useful for new controllers) Inherit Default Controls for a specific controller to ALL aircraft type (helicopter, warbird or jet) (also useful for a new controller)

Do you have a link of the details of the director? I have to ask, even if the director was radar controlled using modern systems, that wouldn’t take away from the delay time between the prediction, through the choosing of the right fuse, loading that fuse into the shell, passing the shell to the gun, loading it and firing it. On a positive note, we can set min engagement altitudes for all AA, to try to manage the situation. Note that the min alt is above ground level

Would I be correct in assuming that you mis-typed that? You wrote that an 88 "could" pull off an accurate shot. My understanding is that it would be extremely unlikely. As the Luftwaffe didn't have proximity fuses, they'd actually need to screw in the appropriate timer for the shell during the preparation of the shot. Prior to that, you'd have had I assume at least one or two people estimating range, speed and then calculating the optimum timing for the fuse. Put that all together, followed by moving the shell to the gun, loading it and firing it, my guess is that you'd be looking at something like a 1 minute time difference. That's why my belief is that the big Flak guns would have only been used against targets at altitude (min of 2000-3000m) and then not at the moving target itself, rather in the direction of estimated flight path for a group of bombers. I can't imagine a big Flak battery even bothering with a bunch of fighters or a lone bomber.

Absolutely, it's worth ago. Just upped it to 32GB.

The Luftwaffe in WW2 didn't have proximity fuses.