twistking

*bump*

+1

I would also like to see other (civilian) POIs marked, not just tactical/strategical sites. Ideally those markings could be toggled in ME to prevent clutter.

that's cool! wonder how i could have missed that.

Wait...i can create a flightplan on the F10 map and it will show up in the jets (F-16 f.e.) avionics as waypoints???

judging only from videos, i also feel that the greens come out a bit too strong. related to that i found the normal maps a bit too strong where grass meets dirt. the strong normals make it look as if the mud areas were stenciled out from the grass areas. again... this is only from watching on youtube, which is not ideal for judging subtle texture details... but i think the map would look better with a slightly (!) desaturated and slightly (!) flatter (normals) look. ps: in general this seems to be a very nice looking map though!

It appears that you can always load your own custom DTC from a local file, which is nice. However there needs to be the option to only have certain aspects from it override the current DTC settings. For example you would want to keep the mission builders settings for Coms, but load your own CM settings...

I don't think there has ever been an effort...

It would be great if we could get markers/labels for those installations in mission editor. Otherwise it can take a lot of time to find those. Same goes for all other POI outside of big cities. Ideally we could toggle those POI markers in ME, but i guess this function would be up to ED to implement...

This is really much needed. Please make this a priority! By the way... can you tell me if those AI flight models are the responsibility of the 3rd party that developed the module or of ED?

I don't have a strong opinion on the way to correct the discrepancy. I think it would be good to have them a little bit dimmer on DIM, simply because on 1080p the warning panels are difficult to read, partly because of the strong contrast. A dimmer DIM setting would help a little bit, but that's a very practical approach and not necessarily realistic. The current disconnect between the brightness of the reflection and the brightness of the actual panels/indicator lights is so strong, that i would honestly hope that a trained artist would immediately know how to correct it. I'm a trained visual artist myself, but real time computer graphics are not my forte: I see that something is off, but one of ED talented artists would surely know immediately in which direction to correct it. I appreciate that you're trying to make the report as precise as possible, but i think it's best to let the professionals decide. They should have an idea of the reflective properties of the cockpit walls and they should at least have good assumptions about the brightness of the indicator lights and panels. From there they can surely eyeball it... ps: Remember that there were some undocumented changes to cockpit lighting in the latest patch (BRT/DIM did not work at all prior) so there is surely an aspect of WIP with all of this...

I'm not saying that things did not change for the worse, but that there must have been auto-exposure before. The only alternative would have been manual exposure and i don't remember having to constantly press buttons to adjust lighting...

You can use TACAN "yardstick" to help with finding your buddy, but as @razo+r pointed out already, just using a proper TACAN station is probably easier. Just do the rejoin at a set radial and distance.

If you disabled auto exposure you could see nothing most of the time. Everything would be either much too dark or much too bright with only very specific situations in which light levels would be just right.

What's going on with the bad photoshop in the OP?

Do you think that DCS streams data with more than 450MB/s??? A few years ago i ran DCS from an HDD at around 60MB/s and streaming seemed to hold up ok, only load times were terrible...

There will be, but i doubt that it would really matter a lot. My PC only has SATA II and i don't feel that it affects DCS apart from loading times being a bit longer... If DCS has to wait for the drive during runtime (which should not happen often), you'll get stutters no matter what bandwidth you have...

There are some problems with the LUU-2. Brightness and colour temperature The ingame flare is too bright. It's difficult to objectively say without an ingame light metre, but the real thing should illuminate a 500 metre circle at 5 lux. The ingame flare is orders of magnitudes brighter for sure. This would not be a huge issue, but since the flare does not create terrain shadows and is not affected by clouds (both very reasonable performance trade-offs), it can appear even brighter. With more realistic brightness values, the performance trade-offs wouldn't be that noticeable. Colour temperature is wrong. Ingame it burns with a slight green tint, while it should burn with near white with perhaps slightly warm tint. It's a magnesium/sodium-nitrate mix, that should definitely not produce a flame with green tint. Missing cockpit illumination The flare correctly illuminates the exterior of aircraft flying near it, which looks very cool. However the cockpit of aircraft is not affected, which spoils the otherwise cool effect. Since cockpits can be illuminated by external dynamic lights, i assume this is just a config error, that can be easily corrected (Tested with F-5 remaster module). Having cockpits illuminated by flares will probably make the extreme brightness of the flares even more noticeable (especially for people who don't run secondary shadows), so fixing the exaggerated brightness is paramount...

Good idea. Will check... I also assume it's an issue with all aircraft. I was however surprised that the external are lit up correctly by the flare (even when viewed from inside the cockpit). It looks glorious, but the missing cockpit illumination spoils it of course...

when you build missions yourself, use the mobile tacan unit to help with navigation...

I don't know if this is only on the F-5 or also with other modules, since it's difficult to test when the module can't deploy LUU-2 itself...