Mr_sukebe

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.

Like yourself, I've seen DCS recover from a stall if given a little while. On this occasion, I must have given it 5 mins, still no joy.

No, tell me it’s not true!!

Assuming that ED have already decided to do Vietnam and we know have Afghanistan in the works, then maybe: - Iran/Iraq - southern Japan / Okinawa - the Med, taking in southern Italy, Libya, Malta, Sicily

Excellent news. The F1 is one of my fav modules. Just based upon my experience of that, I'll probably end up buying the F104.

I thought that it would be worth mentioning this. Just been on a fairly lengthy mission in VR with the F15E on the Syria map. Flew the mission with no issue. Parked up, closed the aircraft down and exited the mission. At this point the screen stalls and hangs. The only way to resolve was to go to task manager and kill DCS. What I thought was interesting was the reported memory usage. According the Windows Task Manager (WTM), with the stalled DCS.exe still running, the total RAM usage was 25GB. After killing it, it dropped to 6.1GB, i.e. a 19GB drop. Why that stood out was that in Process tab of WTM, DCS.exe was showing as using just over 8GB, i.e. a discrepancy of over 10GB. Any idea why this would be any different and do others see the same? dcs.log

Makes sense. Good luck! I'm a Brit, so VERY much in favour of getting an EEL.

Just incase you were unaware, Razbam do plan to release an EE Lightning at some point, though we've no idea when that will actually be.

I'm using an 8 core 9700k. The IPC of the 7800 is probably 30-50% better. Sure, that would be a decent upgrade, but only if I wasn't more bottlenecked by my GPU (3080ti), as I play in VR. Take that into account, and I'd probably have negligible benefit in DCS. Once we have Vulkan and DLSS, that might of course change.

Right now, I’d buy a 7800x3d. I’m rather unimpressed with both AMD and Intel that they’ve yet to offer a full on 16 core or above processor. Sure, Intels 13900 has lots of cores, but it still has 8 performance cores and then a few pants ones. With the 7950, you get 16 cores, but on 2 CCDs, which have different fast RAM and don’t talk to each other very well, meaning that it’s also really a 8 “performance” core CPU. As we now have MT, I’m waiting now for the next step change when we can have 16 or more performance cores.

I agree with the OP. You have a think about the prices charged and I do wonder how they do it for the price, particularly so when compared to some other software out there.