twistking

volumetric lighting

Sorry for misgendering! I just think that your specific issues could be more easily and more effectively solved by yourself through a custom software LUT or physical filtering that works well for your sensibilities. Even if functional visors would become a standardized feature, future changes to the DCS HDR tonemap or future generations of (brighter) VR headsets could make the issue worse for you again. It just seems like a crude and potentially unsustainable solution to your problem.

IRL pilots have to deal with brightness levels that don't even compare to computer graphics on an LCD. Brightness levels in DCS are tonemapped and merely an artistic representation of reality. The engine may utilize PBR, but the output is "arbitrarily" compressed to fit the tonal range of standard definition consumer hardware. There is NO comparison. Let's not get into a discussion for the sake of a discussion though. In the end we all DO agree that functional visors would be a cool feature.

Functioning visors would be a cool immersive features. We just should not treat them as an accessibility feature. Therefore accessibility is not a good argument for implementation of said feature. I'm not arguing against the feature by itself. There are better and more sustainable ways for the OP to deal with his accessibility problems.

I've done that. Is this about you flying in VR? That would make adjusting your room lighting a moot point, i agree. My argument still stands though, no?

You are mixing two unrelated things. Your problem is an accessibility problem that should be easily fixable by yourself by adjusting your display, your room lighting, your eye-wear or software LUT. Functional helmet visors would be a cool feature, but if you separate it from your accessibility problems, it becomes more of a gimmick (at least until DCS supports HDR).

what's wrong with the doors currently?

Exactly. ED, if you can't spare an engineer at the moment, at least throw an artist at the issue.

Yes, i was referring to the ground clutter visuals. Functionality has always been o.k. It was not my intention to suggest that promises were broken. The Mavericks were more of an example of something that would have pushed the upgrade to something that felt more like a labor of love (or passion in ED's terms) instead of a minimum viable product. Please consider putting resources into nicer radar visuals for the midterm. Of course a dynamically simulated ground clutter would be the gold standard, but for the short-term you could improve it a lot simply by tweaking the visuals a bit. There's already a user mod that improves the scope just by tweaking the colour values i believe... I'd guess that a talented technical artist could cook something up in an afternoon that would look more convincing than what is in the game now.

@BIGNEWY I would also love some clarification on the auto-fog. I assume it's developed with future dynamic weather in mind?!

That's unfortunately also the impression i got from reading the forums and watching youtube videos. The F-5 is such a simple aircraft (in comparison to most other modules), yet the fidelity of each system still seems lower. The lack of radar improvements are the biggest letdown imho. The radar scope visuals already felt "basic" when the module released. At least a visual overhaul would be needed. Lack of Mavericks is another disappointment: When the module originally released a Belsimtek dev wrote that they would "like" to add Mavericks if they can get hold of documentation. I cannot believe that getting hold of documentation for such an ubiquitous plane would be that hard... I will restrain from purchasing the upgrade until there's some confirmation that at least the radar will see future improvements. Better radar would make the upgrade worth the asking price, Mavericks would be the cherry on top and make the purchase a no-brainer (for me personally)...

Vegetation doesn't look Central European imho and the buildings to the right give of a bit of an South-East Asian vibe if you ask me...

Is this a new map?

Ok. thanks. I begin to understand. So on linear mode it would -for example- be technically impossible to get the virtual stick full forward when virtual stick (force) neutral is (trimmed) back... Is there an agreed on opinion on what setting is generally best for the average user with an average joystick?

O. I see. Thanks. I remember testing the two non-FFB options and ending up a little bit confused. Shouldn't physical Joystick in neutral always mean 0 force on the virtual stick? Why would neutral Joystick behave differently? I saw the stick behaving a bit differently, but it did not "click" for me, why the other option existed.

isn't there a setting in the special options that changes the stick response from being linear to considering control forces? i never played around with it, so i don't know if it does what i think.

good points. however with landing gear down flaps will also fully and permanently extend on thumb/auto setting, correct?

thanks!

Since i bought the F-5 i have mapped both the levers/switches for flap control. Now, i'm revisiting the keymap and i'm realising that i never used the (backup?) lever, but only use the throttle thumb switch. My question: Is there any usecase for having both mapped to the Hotas? I'm thinking of binding the lever (that i don't use) to the keyboard to free up Hotas real-estate. Is there anything i'm missing? In which situations would i need quick access to both flap control methods? Am i right that the lever is more of a backup thing and is not needed during normal operation? Am i missing something obvious when only ever using the throttle thumb switch?

@BIGNEWY The steam autumn sale will probably only run until the 4th of December, so this weeks newsletter might be last chance to push out some more details on the scope of the F-5e avionics "rework" for those who might want to get the module on sale. Currently there is too much uncertainty on what will be included: Why has the new 3d model the dorsal antennas associated with upgraded models? Will Mavericks (and/or additional SRAAM rails) finally make it to the Tiger?

Good point. The dorsal antennas that are clearly visible in the promotional material, would only make sense for the upgraded airframes.

I don't think you're understanding what GI really is. Direct illumination of the cockpit from artificial light sources is already in the game. It's not supported on some older maps though (Caucasus, Nevada), where the lights are not set up correctly yet. You are correct that GI is not supported for these artificial lights, but i don't think that's what you're actually missing, or is it?

@BIGNEWY would be cool, if we could get some more detailed info on the planned features before the (steam) autumn sale ends. i've got buddies who are mildly interested in getting the f-5 on sale and then upgrade, but i currently don't feel like recommending it, before we know more about the scope of the avionics rework. if the 7000 man hours are a realistic estimate, i would expect a bit more than just "fixes" and cosmetics, so some more info (potentially a trailer, or Wags video?) would be much appreciated.

With Mavericks and 4xAim-9 support, the paid upgrade would seem like a fair deal to me (subjectively). Without any additional features of significance it's simply not enough to rekindle my interest in the module.