Moafuleum

Don't worry. It is actually still a thing for many people since many set their resolution lower for a purpose: It improves performance.

For navigation the SA page is only of limited use. Yes you can see your waypoints and so on but it is mainly designed for combat. Both HSI and SA page show you the airspace from a top-down view but only on the HSI page you can enter data regarding navigation, your own A/C (like change coord. system, mag/tru heading and so on..) and show course lines trough tacan/waypoints.

TCS slew control and sensor select switch (aka castle switch) are two different ones. Both are part of the HOTAS and should be bound.

You can have the Radar on the right and the Maverick on the left. Put the stores page on the left DDI and press the MAVF Button. The seeker view should appear. Then press sensorselect switch left to make that window active (indicated by the diamond). You should then be able to slew it when it is uncaged.

Remember: the barometric altimeter is the one on which you can set the ambient pressure. The radar altimeter ia the onw on wgich you can set a warning height. Ps: above a certain radalt, the hud always sgiws barometric altitude, regardless of the altimeter source switch

Maybe you mistake the radar altimeter with the barometric one. Ehile the R altimeter is indeed limited, the barometric is not. The Radar altimeter is on the right console below the hook, the barometric one is near the standby airspeed indicator underneath the right DDI. Also, on the HUD control panel you can switch between baro and rad alt. When an R near the altitude display on the hud apperas, the radalt is displayed, otherwise it is the baro alt

WHILE slewing, you need to depress the switch. Alternatively, in the special options tab, you can change that behavior

From the ED discord i quote BIGNEWY

No, in fact the actual damage model for ground units is based on a "life-bar" system. The unit is destroyed when the life points reach zero. This was stated in a recent interview by wags. It is going to change in the future, however. The question that follows from that is: Is it reasonable to model the HARM 'incorrectly' as well to account for the aforementioned incorrect behavior? Because the more realistic HARM behavior leads to the fact that it is ultimately unusuable right now..and since the only purpose of the HARM is to render vehicles unuseable upon hit :music_whistling: A suggestion would be that for the time, the method of "one error cancelles another" is applied, until a proper ground unit damage model is introduced.

If you have programming skills, you can use an Arduino Leonardo/Micro and DIY.

With this amount of information it is very hard to do proper troubleshooting. What are your windows sound settings, which device is set for standard output. How is you teamspeak configured? What is your sound card?

I guess this "bug report" literally meets the definition of first world problems quite well :D

Alright, thank you very much!

Thank you Eldur, that is indeed very useful! Do you know by chance if it breaks the integrity check? Do you know if it is also possible to do these steps with a file in the .../Saved Games/... folder to prevent it from being overwritten? thanks!

Well...looks like i'm exactly at the other side of the world :D Sad, otherwise i'd have applied

Unfortunately I couldn't find a timezone. I think it is crucial to know for an application

Pffff .. Real fighter pilots had scarfs to not get a stiff neck because if they were not able to turn their head to look back, they were dead! :sly: Jokes aside (and also slightly looking towards heatblur with a humble expression on my face): would it be possible to implement an option for setting a default FOV in special options? I know that i can change it by doing some LUA magic but then the integrity check fails. I could also just zoom during flight but it is inconvenient if i need to change the zoom level for some reason and go back to the default one.

This might very well be the devs' point but you get that at the cost of a weird looking scene outside. To me it sounds like a trade-off between either good looking cockpit and distorted outside world or the other way around. Why is it not possible to have both? I understand that everyone is trying to find an optimum in this regard but the question still remains: why is it necessary at all to tweak? Shouldnt one FOV apply to all planes for two reasons: it is more realistic, FOV doesn't vary too much among people (at least not in the range between 85° - 65°) and the world-perception is the same among airframes. I don't want to criticize heatblur in their design decisions but a distorted world for the sake of a wider cockpit view seems to be a questionable trade.

That makes sense, the angle obviously changes at different zoom levels. I did the test again and you are right: they differ indeed. The Hornet has a FOV angle around 65° when NumEnter is pressed, the Tomcat has 85°. This explains the difference in size. This brings me to the question about why this is (apparently) arbitrarily different among modules? I mean, human eyes have (with neglected anatomic variations among many people) the same FOV (unless you are drunk :D ) but as demonstrated, this brings way more discrepancies and problems than only a wider in-cockpit view when everyone cooks his own soup in terms of FOV.

What are field of view numbers? I didn't press num5 but num enter to reset the standard zoom (whatever this is.. can obviously be different among modules)

Hi Since I am flying the Tomcat (which is basically from day 1) I always had the feeling during case 1 aproaches that the ships (prominently the carrier itself as i am focusing on it the most) appeas different in distance when compared to the Hornet. At least i perceive it as farther away. It is like if I zoomed in when flying the Hornet and zoomed out when flying the Tomcat. Obviously this can not be in RL as canopy glasses don't act as such lenses (beside some minor optical phenomena when the view is slightly distorted at glass edges etc. but this is not the subject of this post) To actually see if this is a thing i made the following test. I set up a mission in ME with the carrier on my port side and I fly such that my path goes parallel to the carrier at exactly 1.2 nm abeam distance. I keep flying at 600 ft MSL and I made a screenshot at the position when the sun reflection on the water is at about the middle of the carrier (for having a reference). I carried this out with both the Hornet and the Tomcat to have a direct 1vs1 comparison. The first picture is from the Hornet, the second one with the Tomcat. Of course the shots were taken with reset zoom (i.e. Numpad enter) Does anyone notice the same? Is it actually intended? Am I doing something wrong or is there a clue in a configuration which i missed? cheers

It is not off for some reason but it is actually designed to behave like that. Please see https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3704951&postcount=6

You feel that the Harrier is more polished than the Hornet? If this is your opinion then there is of course nothing wrong with that but it surprises me a little since usually one reads opposite statements (including my own experience)

I am in the same timezone, i will gladly fly with you

You can use the speedbrake as well