MikeMikeJuliet

Full fledged keybinds should be there for every aircraft. Desynced controls are never good, and easily avoided. besides there are a ton of key combinations available.

Well, I sure was a dumbdumb not figuring that out. Now I can do all sorts of key combos. I don't know if it's bugged on SimpleRadio Standalone's end or what, but the DX outputs via the skript don't seem to work in it... they do work on DCS though, so I'm kind of half way there. Need to do some more testing.

I agree, a traffic package would be a nice addition for cerrain kinds of maps. Just that in my opinion the radio traffic as it currently is, is annoying more than anything else. The current option for civilian traffic is for ground traffic only.

The other thing is, DCS radio commjnication is not really that good... If you want to have atmospheric radio chatter going on I suggest joining a server with human atc...

Thanks for the input. For some reason I was unaware I could just simply do that. Now that you mentioned it, it's very obvious. I'm at work and got a busy weekend, but I'll come back if it doesn't work for some reason.

Alright. You can get the F15 by itself or as part of the flaming cliffs 3 package, so it is an FC3 aircraft. No idea about the usva F18, but Mirage should have adjustable pressure setting. The F15 on the other hand does not, so you need to play with it as it is. I'm not actually sure what pressure setting it gives you. It could be standard (QNE), QNH or QFE... and depending on which it is the altimeter might give you strange readings on very high or low pressures.

Also, your natural reaction relly keeps the head in the cockpit... At least it does for me.

Seems like a lot of things were broken by this update. Interesting findings...

Which modules do you fly? You need to set the correct qnh every time you fly, though some of the FC3 aircraft don't have the system working. Just to be clear too, QNH is the pressure setting for sea level, so on an aifield you should get an altitude that the airfield is at, and not 0. If you want the altimiter to read 0 on ground, you use QFE (in other words, set the altimeter to read 0 on ground). DCS atc provides this to you in takeoff clearance. Btw, is this thread in the MODs section by accident? Or am I missing something here? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I know this is all opinions, and you lot may have yours, but let us think about the whole thing for a second. F-22 would be a bad addition to the sim considering the complete package. Why? There is nothing that can fight it! Oh yes, it is fun to shoot Su-27s out of the sky when thy never realize it, but for how long? Once? Twice? In my opinion an earned victory is way more interesting than a laughable roflstomp where the enemy never even had a chance. So even if we were magically provided a full fidelity F-22 there would be no sense putting it into multiplayer, or to any other interesting missions anyway. Operating the systems within the plane might be interesting, but fighting with it... it's not a fight if you just kill the opposition when there is nothing theh can do. It's just a massacre. Now consider modern planes as a whole as well. I tend to find that the most interesting gameplay comes from the need to use your brain instead of integrated systems. Older planes with less capabilities need other planes with them to succeed. I find it much more interesting to have a COMAO of multiple different aircraft with different purpose, than just "oh it's another F-18". That way protecting key assets would also be more critical because you just can't change roles on the fly. Think of the possibilities in scenarios... Now don't take this the wrong way. I absolutely enjoy any aircraft we get. It's just that I find older aircraft usually make things more interesting. You fly and fight with them. Modern planes are just "operated". Feel free to disagree. EDIT: I cracked so hard at an autofill text... it's corrected now. Damn phone virtual keyboards... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

You can use it if you know exactly what you are doing, but I completely agree this should not be the case at all and the hsi needles being dead on FC3 aircraft doesn't help either. This shoukd have been fixed a long time ago, and I wonder what is taking so long...

Hello everybody! I have been making my own TARGET script profiles for some time now. Those of you who have dipped into the skripting should know that the skript outputs the keys you tell it to output. Now the problem arises when you cannot use keyboard unputs, such as the new UI layer commands for VR use, where you can bind mous keyes to your controllers. As we know as well, TARGET combines the controllers you set as one virtual DX-device. Now the question is, is there a way to use a blank, non-skripted button or switch on my controllers, while the skript is running to make a keybind within a software? That probably made no effin' sense, so let me expand a little. If I make a skript in which a particular button is left unmapped and I go to dcs, is there a way for me to bind said button within dcs? This would also help with Simple Radio Standalone, since the program doesn't apparently register keyboard inputs while DCS is the active window... again meaning that I cannot skript a certain key to a button, because it doesn't work. Without the skripting I lack a lot of features on my controllers, and I would need to revert to way clunkier control setups with major limitations... or else I need a third hand to press buttons on a separate controller... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Apparently sone of the features for VR are not yet working on the VIVE. In particular the VR zoom and the pixel density setting. Has anyone got an idea if this is intentional and just not yet implemented, or is this a bug? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

It should be doable with a static object that is then swapped for a player controlled one when the player enters the cockpit... and vice versa.

Good point and a detailed suggestion. I hope ED finds this.

This is MOST probably my own incompetence but it seems the VR zoom is not working... Just to be sure though, would someone clarify how it's supposed to work? Is it supposed to do something the moment I press the button, or am I missing something here? I'm using the HTC Vive Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I was about to ask the same...

This could be a bug translating from VR. You see real HUDs are designed to be looked through with both eyes, so a part of the HUD is visible only to the left eye and part of it to the right eye. Only the center is visible to both eyes. Naturally in 2D the view is sort of in between both eyes. Perhaps the HUD has been skaled to show as intended in VR, and that has broken the 2D view on normal screens... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Thank you for the info. Would it be possible to get such information with the patch notes when a version comes out (or whenever the delay is noticed)? Even a simple "steam version delayed" would help a lot. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Having it as a 3D-kneeboard object that you could perhaps move around even, would solve the problem, because then it wouldn't be about the scaling of resolution on a 2D plane, but rather just another texture in the cockpit... Though we would need to have an option to change the kneepad resolution separately in that case.

Very good OP. As said, we are not trying to be aholes, and that said this issue MUST be solved. If a program has sub-par performance, no amount of content in it will compensate. "It has always been like this, get used to it" is not an excuse for poor performance and taking VR into account you really don't want to cause your VR playerbase to vomit every 5 minutes... literally. Actually in my opinion, DCS has a rather mediocre options menu when it comes to graphical settings. The more adjusting we users are allowed to do, the bigger is the chance for each user to find settings that give them good enough framerate. As stated in the OP this actually does NOT seem like a CPU bottleneck, but rather bad optimization. The complexity of the simulation seems to not be the issue here, which means comparison to other software's performance is also valid given similar situations with large amount of drawn objects, and it seems many perform much better. I hope someone from ED sees this thred and at the very least gives us info on what this is about. With all appreciation, I know such issues are difficult and time consuming to fix, but unless DCS runs up to par, it's bye-bye for VR for the sim. With the utmost respect, MikeMikeJuliet

It seems like the weather system needs first and foremost a more clear cut UI especially for the dynamic weather, and a lot more options and a greater range of values to use... Btw, is it just me, or does it seem to you guys that increasing the amount of cloud does nothing in the mid ranges... it's either clear sky, partly cloudy or full overcast... seems like the amount of clouds in "partly cloudy" is always the same no matter what... I mean, in meteorology you have no clouds, isolated, few, scattered, broken and overcast... and the sky is broken into octals... so overcast would be 8/8 where as no clouds are 0/8... It would be nice if these options would reflect real life as well.

Sure thing. I'm still on 1.5.3 since steam has still not updated the open beta. On a sidenote. Think about a following situation: IMC and your wingman loses some navigation instruments. You need to get him sorted on top of cloud and then escort him, in close formation (!) all the way to an ILS and land with him. I'm not sure which would be the more stressful seat, yours or your wingmans :D If anyone is in for a try... ;)

Not sure actually. It could just be that all the Caucasus airfields are on low ground. That said it would be interesting to be able to set cloud conditions individually to different areas (i.e. to different airfields). It would not yet be quite dynamic, but you could block off some airfields with bad weather if you wanted to.

Yea, I get that really well. I'm not an impatient person, so for me to wait for an update is not really the issue. The issue is that there is a lack of communication for the steam version by ED. I'm all good waiting for 2 or 3 weeks to get my update, if someone just came and told us "hey, all *this* will be updated to the steam version in 3 weeks". If the open beta is left unattended on steam for such long times, why have it at all. All this said, this is NOT a thread about which version is better. It's just to point out that some attention to the issue is needed.