PawlaczGMD

Ideally, we would be able to make custom ammo belt mixes from available cartridges - for all modules.

These statistics are not in-depth enough to draw conclusions about the DM. Hits without a kill inflate the rounds per kill numbers unevenly, and in this setting, you can often tank a lot of damage and make it back home. Some of these guns are often fired in combination, sharing a kill (.303 + Hispano, MG 131 + MK 108). This might explain why the MG 131 has such an impressive stat, it is likely inflated by a lot by the 30 mm. Obviously, the .303 is much weaker than the .50 cal, but your data shows otherwise - because it is inflated by the Hispano that it's paired with. MK 108 often overkills, many shots in a long burst go into a guy that is effectively already dead. Proper testing would involve setting up a target AI, and actually measuring the nr of hits from each weapon, required to obtain either an immediate kill, or delayed kill (engine will die in X minutes). I agree with NineLine that you can kill an aircraft with significantly fewer than 8 MK 108 hits most of the time.

This, I think barrel warping from overheat is modelled. Normally you would not get to this point with limited ammo and reasonable shooting. Honestly, rather than using this crutch, I would recommend improving your gunnery/trigger discipline. Short bursts. P-51 has a good amount of ammo without the cheat.

Your point is not very clear. Is it that G-force modelling should be more severe, including punishment from quickly switching from - to +? This might be correct, only people with real experience would know. But you're not making a great argument for it here.

These missions are cutting it real close. I try to fly conservatively in transit, but in combat, I give it my all. Whether I can make it back to Biggin really depends on the length of combat for me. Most of the time I'm not able to make it back all the way, so I land at Lympe or Hawking with a few gallons to spare. They are also really easy to find right off the coast as a bonus. I'm too lazy to transit back to Biggin, but I imagine my guy is doing that off-screen after borrowing some fuel. This seems more realistic/reasonable to me than limiting your power in combat. Is this sort of hop realistic? BTW, the manual gives you settings for maximum distance: 3k ft, 190 mph, 1800 RPM. If you really stick to this right at the French coast, I think you should be able to just about make it. However, you flight travels faster.

Guns switch (near ammo counters) up Safety off Wing cannons off To charge cannons, HOLD the charge button for 2-3 seconds, not just press

Thanks anyway, I don't think I've had this error before. I've now increased my pagefile size, maybe it will help with something.

No, although I have it installed. I was flying the P-51 in the Debden campaign.

Any ideas? Thanks. dcs.log dcs.log-20240328-022738.zip

What a nice trick. I have no knowledge of the way it's supposed to work, but having to trim all the way down seems wrong/concerning. I will try this out.

It actually works, I must have fiddled with the switch in the intermediate altitude region. It pops back to low, not auto, when you come back from high, and the switch looks like it's down, even though it is low, even with the cover down.

I have also noticed that when I made a Spitfire bomb training mission for myself, the bombs wouldn't explode. However they work fin in campaigns and such. It might be some bug with fusing.

You need to find out where the clunk is coming from. It would have to either be at the extension attach points, or at the cams. Move the joystick with the base removed and inspect the cam motion? Make sure all screws inside are tight. Alternatively, there is a moon clip below the collar that is loose by design. It can make a noise when you shake the stick or move it abruptly, and that's normal.

Thanks, that's interesting. It would be good for someone to collect more technical evidence on the Mig-21 FM issues, and make a case for ED to nerf it. I think that the F-5 also overperforms.

Such a hard crash indicates a hardware problem, it really could be almost anything. You can try this: -Burnin test in FurMark for a few minutes. -Prime95 for CPU/memory test (run for a few hours) -Memtest86 for memory test (run until completed) Any failures here will indicate a problem with less or more specific component, respectively. It could also be your PSU failing to deliver power, although if it is 1000W then it's really unlikely. I also second to disable RAM XMP.

Regional pricing makes sense from a profit maximization perspective. Because the cost of giving a costumer a license is zero, if by decreasing the price in a poor country, you can increase the number of people willing to buy it by more than the lost income per copy, then it makes sense to do. You just need to prevent people exploiting this pricing, which may be impossible. Ultimately it is the dev's choice, and life isn't fair, and discriminates at every step. I myself am not really interested in the training aircraft, as they are not very performant/useful in MP, and SP content is chronically lacking in DCS. I would need a really long and detailed qualification campaign to be tempted. But I am sure other people like them for their reasons.

Yep, I hope that the announced raytracing will change how lighting works. Although I can't imagine anyone having spare performance to run RT in VR, but that's another matter, I hope I'm wrong about that.

To throw in my 2 cents on this... Using Pimax Crystal at max gamma, I have almost no visibility. The DCS night lighting simply doesn't work well. I managed to complete the mission, so it's not really a skill issue, but only thanks to dot labels. However, it was pretty frustrating, as the comms and targets to spot are not in accordance with visibility. They spot a train from 2-3 miles? No way. I could see it from maybe 200 meters if I zoomed in, only the very front of the locomotive because if the light, and could only know the general direction thanks to labels. Airport calls out visibility 10 miles? A cruel joke. I could only see maybe 50 meters in front of me thanks to the landing light. The airport itself has zero lighting, and the flares they fire don't really illuminate anything. You can technically fly blind on instruments, but if the visibility was like this in real life, this mission would be pointless to fly, as it would be absolutely impossible to spot any ground or air targets. I get that it was dark in real life, but this level of visibility is not really credulous to me. I don't blame Reflected for this, as he's obviously recreating real events in this campaign, which is great. If it happened at night then that's it. But DCS night lighting is obviously flawed, and makes these missions frustrating. You can get away with this in modern setting with NVG and sensors, but not really in WWII.

The AI is not capable of coordination or communication, so don't try to hang on to the lead at all costs. He's doing his thing, you do yours. There is obviously some chance involved in large air battles, but the Spit is a superior turn fighter compared to the FW, so just turn hard if they're on you, and you should be ok most of the time. And don't be afraid to push to emergency power (3000 RPM / 18 psi).

I don't think that's reasonable or fair. They have released the "experimental" spotting dots in October. They are not perfect, but improve visibility for some people, and show that the matter was considered recently. They do not work well on my setup, so I'm giving feedback about it. All we need now is some incremental fine-tuning. I do not think that it is eternally broken based on this.

Let me assure you that in high resolution VR the new spotting dots are not the same as dot labels. They are an order of magnitude smaller. You must be talking about either a 2D screen or a lower resolution VR headset. For me in VR the spotting dots are tiny, comparable to a single pixel. For both new and old settings. That is the problem that I'm describing - the size is very dependent on resolution, and the scaling of the size with resolution is flawed. I accept that the system is flawed and exploitable, but I argue that it can be improved significantly by changing the dot scaling with resolution to make the dots somewhat smaller at low res and somewhat bigger at high res.

Yes, that's exactly what it is. I think they way they scale it causes the dots to be too big on lower res headsets, and too small on higher res ones. I've tried turning the improved dots on and off, and honestly I can barely tell the difference.

Therefore I'd like ED staff to take a look at the tracks and flag it as a bug to be fixed.

It really depends on what VR set they're using. When I had Quest 2 and Pico 4, the dots were huge. On Crystal, they almost don't exist. The way they scale it with headset resolution needs tuning.

I don't have the DLAA option because I'm on an AMD gpu. TAA is best in the sense that it makes everything else except small distant targets look way better than MSAA. The game is simply more enjoyable to look at, but I have serious issues with keeping track of targets. You might be right about the difference between 2D and VR, and so it is difficult for me to provide examples of how these settings look in the VR headset. The point is that every available option has serious drawbacks. Not sure it can be helped by ED to be fair.