MikeMikeJuliet

ED has also talked about spherical projection maps prior releasing NTTR if memory serves me right... I wonder if that was just tech talk and has been left un-utilized.

Grand! Some good fixes there! And looking at those UniverseRadio features I sure am looking forward to similar SRS functionality ;)

Did you know btw, that this feature already works in DCS, but only in menus. Try it in VR. Those who have, know that the game menus (main menu included) is played within an aircraft hangar, effectively in-engine (and not in some menu-dimension). The mouse pointer in ALL menus stays still when not moving the mouse regardless of where you look or how view is used. Same thing in-game. If you pause the game with the escape-key, the menu that pops up holds the mouse naturally in place. And as you know, you can still move your head and view around the cockpt. Only when no menu is active is the cursor following the viewport! And to revise, the mouse cursor is set to the correct depth in the cockpit, meaning the only thing remaining is to not apply the cursor travel with viewport. Eagle Dynamics: this must be an oversight surely! I know this feature has been a part of DCS cockpit interaction for years, but as I see it, the feature is already there, it just doesn't affect the cockpit. Many of us, VR- and TIR-users would appreciate the requested feature immensly. Regards MikeMikeJuliet

Take your time. We know the 20/80 principle... it takes 20% effort to get things to be 80% complete... but oh my, it takes the 80% of effort to get the last 20%... and the closer to 100% you get the slower it becomes.

Looks good. Something I would like to see as well is a similar map, but using only the given radio-navigation-aids for navigation. So if an airfield does not have any it either wouldn't be on the map, or is pointed to with the closest navaid. This would help a lot in navigating to each airfield "properly" using older aircraft. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

How's that 1% coming along Brian?

Ever used VR in DCS? The mouse pointer is stationed at the same depth level as the control it is on - so the pointer nowadays is in fact in the correct 3D space in the cockpit, and thus making the OP:s option very much viable. If it weren't it would be impossible to accurately use the mouse in VR. And people don't seem to realise: This would be an OPTION! You can always just not change the control type, and you would never know it's there. For the rest of us who absolutely want this, pleas ED, PLEASE! Cockpit interaction with the current system is frustrating as heck. Allow us to have such a convenient feature! Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Oh yea... and then be horrified once he encounters his first planing-link failure during landing

So I guess you weren't convinced by Wags stating just weeks ago that 2.5 will be arriving by the end of January 2018? They have been stating so many times that they don't give time estimates anymore unless they are absolutely sure, and Wags has now stated "end of January, that's a promise". Yes 2.5 is close. It has been announced already.

What is your speed on touchdown and what is your loadout fuel included... My hypothesis off the bat is that you land it too heavy and too fast. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yes please! This would allow for more ambiguous situations with the IFF and ID... not every "hostile" dot on your radar is actually hostile.

2.5 early access starts at the end of the month as stated by ED. Your wait will end shortly.

Eagerly looking forward to the video.

If ED provided for a voice-template making new voiceovers would just be a matter of time. I agree we need more callsigns, but I would also like more voices for the current callsigns. Rather uninspired hearing the same 4 voices over and over.

Woah. That was mesmerizing!

Yep, I've figured in the past 48 hours. As I've said, case closed. My brain hurts.

I tested the L-39 on both versions, and it showed the same bearing on both compasses (HSI and backup). All those aircraft also show the exact same headings. What complicates things is that I just checked the MiG-21 manual, and it claims the headings are in magnetic... so how are they the same headings as the L-39 and Harrier if those are supposed to be True? I did all the tests I reported here today, so it's not like this is old info. Current Stable version 1.5.8

I know this. Problem is, the full fidelity aircraft apparently don't take this into account. The Headings are exactly the same on All FC-3 aircraft, L-39C and ZA, Harrier, TF-51, Su-25T and MiG-21 (those I own). The only modules I own that seem to follow this are the A-10C and the Hawk. All others show exactly the headings shown on the ME/F-10 map. A couple of squad mates tested the same with the MiG-15. I digress, we hade a long chat about this on our squadron discord and came to the conclusion that DCS modules don't follow the same rules between each other. i.e two modules claim to use magnetic headings, but show different values separated by variation amout. Also, neither true nor mag refers to the Lat-long coordinates. Now I don't mind if the data on DCS doesn't show exactly the real world values, so long as the same error is applied to all modules. Case closed. DCS is borkeh.

Yeah, I've been looking way too much into the issue in the past hours. Now let us pass the semantics and get to the bottom of this! An update on the previous observations! A-10C magnetic backup compass does read the same as the HSI. I've now tested All my available aircraft on Batumi by spawning "Take-off from runway" which gives the runway 31. All other aircraft except the A-10C and the Hawk give the heading of 306 (as suggested by ME, F-10 map and all available charts DCS or real life). I will further investigate on other airfields.

Pardon. English is not my native. In finnish it is called "eranto" which translates to declination. My mistake. Bottom line is, I'm talking about the difference between Mag and True on Caucasus (even though the True there is more akin to Grid north due to the nature of the map projection). EDIT: Strange though. Is started to look into the differences, and all sources I'm able to find at the moment declare quite the opposite. I will further investigate. EDIT2: Can't find my ATPL material... call it even and let's use Variation as a median? After all, approach charts use the term "Mag Var."

No I'm talking specifically about magnetic declination, i.e. the difference of magnetic north compared to true north. Now I am aware that the current Caucasus has some accuracy issues on this because of the flat-earth projection, but that only becomes an issue on the edges of the map, and does not create more difference than 1 or 2 degrees on the map. What I'm talking about here is that: 1 - The HSI of the A-10C shows incorrect values. Firstly, the manual clearly states the heading should show magnetic, which it does not. 2 - The A-10C HSI doesn't even show true, because the True heading on Batumi in particular (ILS) is 126 plus 6 degrees! Not minus! On the HSI the A-10C HSI shows 120 degrees (backup compass shows correct 126). If it showed True north (which would still be wrong, see #1) it would show a heading of 132. The point about Hawk was just a curious point that I reported separately on the Hawk subforums as well. All other aircraft I've tested so far show correct magnetic heading of 126 on Batumi. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Negative. I just tested on the Batumi approach: F-15, Su-27, Su-25T, TF-51, Harrier, L-39C, MiG-21 and the A-10A all show a magnetic heading of 126 on both HSI and magnetic backup compass (if installed) on the approach course. Only the Hawk (in addition to the A-10C HSI) shows a heading of 120 on both HSI and the backup compass. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yes please! The blue is impossible to read at night too. I have to ho out of my way to try to find a light colored spot to put my chat over to read it... Bad, bad UI design.

Hello, upon looking some things up I've come to the conclusion that the A-10C HSI / HUD heading tape shows incorrectly Manual states that both HSI and the HUD should show Magnetic heading. We can be certain that the backup compass shows magnetic. My case is on Caucasus, Batumi approach. The Mission Editor shows the ILS localizer on heading 126. By comparing the direction of the shown ILS arrow with the ruler you can indeed see the same heading. On the in-game F-10 map you can compare the ruler to the Lat/Long lines. When positioned to north the heading says 354 near Batumi. This is correct given the 6 degree eastern magnetic variation. If I line up perfectly on the final approach course with my A-10C, the ruler shows a heading of 126. This is all fine and well. With eastern magnetic variation, the magnetic heading compared to true should be less, which is true in this case. However! In cockpit however both HSI and the HUD heading tape show exactly heading 120. The backup compass shows exactly heading 126 (I assume no compass error is modeled in DCS). This means that the HSI and HUD heading tape actually doesn't show any meaningful direction. True heading is 132, magnetic heading is 126 and the HSI and HUD shows 120. This doesn't seem like a problem only because of the old "2D" caucasus, there seems to be correction on the HSI, which is *A) wrongly in place and B) done in the wrong direction anyway. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Brave move. On the Original post: First off, your timing on the request is probably the worst possible, as Magnitude 3 just announced a GA Aerobatics aircraft and this riling the crowd quite a bit after a week-long teasing period. Secondly, asking for a GA aircraft with such a tight timeframe just makes all possible voters run away, as every DCS user knows the utmost important thing for Eagle Dynamics at this time is to get the 2.5 out and then support it maximally to actually provide for a simulator that it fit for purpose (i.e. not broken all the damn time) and feature complete. I personally don't see any harm in a developer tackling a GA aircraft in DCS, but I have to say it should regard a more realistic timeframe, and a developer with sufficient time on their hands. DCS as a platform does NOT need features to support light GA aircraft that it shouldn't have anyway! In that light, considerations that DCS would become a civilian sim are in my opinion ridiculous. In particular DCS needs a proper ATC system regardless of aircraft types in the sim, and that is already in the works. Adding GA aircraft does not require the altering of the base game. That is not a good counterargument. Argumenting the nature of DCS by the title alone has merit yes, but it is not the whole story. DCS is described as a sandbox. Besides I see plenty of freeflight and aerobatic servers around. Does someone see those as a threat to DCS? I don't mind GA in DCS, and a good argument for the is, that no other simulator comes to par with DCS level flight modeling. In that light some may look upon DCS and hope "if I could just fly my favorite aircraft with that much fidelity". I do mind if the developement of such aircraft interfere with the developement of the core game. Yes! DCS is a combat sim at heart. It damn well should be! But if someone capable wants to pop into DCS with a GA aircraft, be my guest. So a yes form me to the concept. But a no for this particular proposal. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet