frostycab

Go to the channel you want to block, and then click on "ABOUT" On the right side, click the flag icon, and select "Block" I do still get the odd video pop up when doing searches, but not many, and it makes it much easier to find content that's actually helpful.

Fair do's. I just don't watch their stuff anymore.

GR attempts to do many things. LOL I'm afraid I've actually blocked them from showing in my YouTube search results because many of their videos simply show the wrong way to do things.

I'd love to see German V1 rockets in the sim, especially for use on the Channel map. It would be so much fun to try to recreate the wing-tipping tactics they used to send them off course.

God, YES!!! I find them quite hard to see properly on a monitor, and in VR they are virtually invisible. They're almost as hard to see as the meatball on the carrier. (Thank you for adding the IFLOLS popup!)

I'd like to see more audio recorded in different accents, particularly for the WW2 theatre aircraft. I was just watching a video on YouTube, and hearing the player's wingman say "2, ejecting" in an American accent (no offence!) when they bailed out of their Spitfire struck a nerve. It would be great to hear a bit more regional variation, and especially to hear more appropriate radio calls from the warbirds.

I've been wishing for an ASW aspect to DCS for ages. Sonobouys, dipping sonar, MAD gear.... I love the old Tom Clancy novels and the excitement/boredom of hunting and prosecuting a submarine. Setting up picket lines and trying to keep a carrier taskforce safe seems like it could be so much fun, and there are some great helicopters for it that I'd love to see in the sim; Lynx/Wildcat, Sea King, MH-60, Ka-27... Sadly, I can imagine that it would be a massive task to incorporate all the aspects of ASW operations that would be required to make it realistic. It would require detailed information about the submarines themselves, and that stuff seems to stay classified longer than almost anything else. Then there would be underwater topography, temperature modelling including the thermocline layer, currents.... It's a mammoth undertaking, and almost warrants its own sim, but I'd still jump for joy if we get it one day.

That looks great! I'll have to try it!

I'm not overly fussed about some of those, but a record of all your carrier traps with notes and scores would be great.

I think we are all completely clear on your views on this matter. Thank you for contributing in such an eloquent, polite and welcoming fashion. I agree that it may not be as easy as one might hope. I have no knowledge of such things. Perhaps, but I do run into many people that do need a lot of handholding. No doubt they'll get there in the end. I'm just saying that such a system could help them to get to the point where they can enjoy the sim sooner rather than later and then progress on their own. I guess it comes down to who you actually run into and what their issues are. I have absolutely no issue with this path of reasoning. We all constantly want it to be better. I would never expect it to be a major project, just something that could be slowly examined and looked at if a spare dev has a little bit of free time. (The only thing I could possibly counter that with is to ask if they needed to spend time adding cows. LOL) You know, seeing just how divisive this thread has been I'm seriously having second-thoughts about asking for an ASW aspect to the sim in the future....

You're partially right. You can watch the student's screen using streaming software, but there's a delay. Might only be a small one for some people, but I get a good 5 or 6 second lag when I view content streamed like that. Also, not all of us are fortunate enough to have a good internet connection. Ther's still no fibre where I live, and while I can happily play games online, video streaming is another matter. Constant dropouts and lag build up over time and I can find anything I say or type can lag by up to 20 seconds after a stream runs for a while. Even with such poor internet speeds it's possible to fly together in MP aircraft without sync issues as the amount of data being sent/received is drastically smaller than that used by video streams. Allowing us to view another pilot's cockpit as if we were there, along with all the synchronised switches and displays, shouldn't present any more drain that any of the existing MP aircraft. Does ED really need to model anything extra? Both pilots would obviously need to own the module, so you've got all the models you need. This is nothing more than requesting that they effectively create a new viewpoint in the cockpit for an observer/instructor to use. Everything exists already in aircraft like the Huey. You ask to join another person's aircraft, and they allow you into the instructor position. You don't need any more than that. With all due respect to some of the people that seem vehemently opposed to this whole idea, I'd like to remind you that this is a WISHLIST area of the forum. People come here to let ED know about things that they would like to see in DCS. It's not here for people to shoot ideas down because it's something they wouldn't use. I could go and say how much I hate the idea of every suggestion for the planes I don't fly, but I don't because it doesn't matter to me. If ED decide that something is or isn't worth including then that's up to them. Many thanks to those who have contributed with helpful alternatives and or support for the idea. To others, some of whom seem to think that we should be certified instructors before being allowed to help people learn how to get the most out of DCS, well, good luck with your elitist attitudes. I thought we had a community here where people help each other out. Apparently some of you are too good for the rest of us.

If you want you can just use LeftCtrl+F11 and then use mouse and mousewheel to position the camera anywhere you like. Hitting F11 again from another view will snap back to where you last left it.

As usual, apologies if this has been asked for and answered before, but its a big forum and I couldn't find this specifically. I would love to see more special and abstract binding options for all aircraft, in particular more "If...Else" type bindings. The current bindings seem to work very nicely with controllers that have momentary throw switches, but controllers like my TM Warthog have a bit of a disadvantage. Some examples in different aircraft: Mi-24P: Let's say I want ot use my throttle's EAC switch to toggle the B2 Observe switch in the operator's seat. I can bind it ok, and flipping the switch up will toggle the cockpit switch. In order to turn it off again, I need to move my switch down and then up again to trigger the event, whereas it would be much better to simply move it down and have the cockpit switch reflect this. KA-50: Same thing applies to switches like the Master Arm and gear lever. Also, having 3-position options would be great for things like the cannon rate of fire switch The Harrier got the 3-position switches just right. I use my flap switch for the flaps (duh!) and the LASTE switch for the H2O, and it works beautifully with the cockpit switches matching my controller at all times. If all aircraft could be set up this way it would really help with the immersion. I hope its not something that would be difficult to implement.

+1 I came on here to say exactly that.

Haven't tried it yet, but as a workaround I suppose you could use the TGP to find target coordinates, and then manually add steerpoints using those coordinates as target points. Obviously it'll be a slow process, and not ideal if it means loitering in unfriendly airspace while you get it all set up, but I don't see another way to accurately drop right now.

As a sort of middle-ground to repairing the entire trackfile system, perhaps there might be some way of giving us the ability to import data from TACView files to replay within DCS? While I appreciate that none of the cockpit switches, displays or sensors are stored in TACView files, the basic flight and weapon parameters seems to be reliable, and would enable video creators to capture the multiple external shots even if the internal trackfile became corrupted. Probably never happen, but it's something to hope for if the internal system can't be corrected.

I see. So they are capable of defending themselves against air attacks from players, but lack the ability to be used offensively against other ships and ground units using artillery? That's a shame, but I'm glad someone put in the time and effort to make them as functional as they are.

If it made it possible for idiots like me to produce good quality videos then I would certainly be happy to see a proper track file player sold as an add-on module. I'd definitely drop some cash on that. (Assuming, of course, that they can iron out the kinks that currently plague the track files as described in Snodden's original post.)

I saw this crop up on YouTube a couple of days ago. It sound like its just what you're looking for, though I haven't tested them to see if they're capable of combat or just there for show. I'm a little bit disappointed not to see any Royal Navy assets though. WWII Pacific Allied Assets - Mods and Apps - ED Forums (eagle.ru) WWII Axis Naval Assets - Mods and Apps - ED Forums (eagle.ru)

Making some sort of attempt to address the actual topic of this thread, I don't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be a thing. The Russian birds and the German warbirds have instruments marked in metric, so it could be beneficial to them. After all, I'm sure that the charts that real-world pilots of those planes use(d) would have been marked with the relevant scales, so being able to reflect that in the F10 map would be nice. Regarding having an option to actually switch the instrumentation in the planes between metric and imperial, I'd say it's not something I'd ever use, but if enough people want it and it could be done easily then I don't see why it shouldn't be a thing. I do think it would detract from the realism for the pilot of that aircraft, as DCS strives to be as realistic as possible, so changing the aircraft because you don't like a bit of mental maths is a bit of a cop-out, but that's a choice people can make. I don't think its too different from having the option fly with realistic or simple controls. It's a little bit disheartening that a common theme in this particular area of the forum is people shooting down wishlist ideas because it might not be something that they personally wouldn't use. I've never once used the LSO view on the Supercarrier, but I've also never objected to ED implementing it. People need to remember that DCS is made for all of us, not you personally. If there's something you don't want, but isn't going to impact on your experience even if they do include it, then why object? What really does irk me though is how many times threads like this descend into arguments about off-topic crap. Fighting about which system is better (or who speaks better English, or what side of the road people should drive on) doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Some of the replies in here are quite toxic and, speaking for myself, I think it's a bit selfish, childish and inhibits the community. If people want to get personal and fight then personally I'd rather they just took it to PM or Discord. Honestly, I have no idea why people on the internet can't just be civil to each other.

You don't have to put them anywhere. Just double click the profile file once its downloaded and it will install into the streamdeck software. Its worth keeping the original file somewhere if you like it though, because if you're like me and reinstall Windows without remembering to backup first then you'll be hunting the web to find the profile again. LOL I started building an F-18 profile a while ago but got distracted by other things so its only got a couple of pages so far. Best thing to do is think about your whole setup and desktop layout, and consider what you actually want on the 'deck. I usually start building a complete profile, but it can start to get a bit clunky if you end up with too many pages and folders, so consider keeping it a bit slimmer and only including stuff you'll actually use. For example, my Harrier profile has an entire page just for the left switch panel with pretty much everything on it, but in practice I rarely use most of it, so I'm building a condensed version which amalgamates things I do actually use from several panels and keeps the profile and layout much simpler. You'll probably also find that some things just feel more natural if you still use the mouse for them, at least at first. The biggest thing I use it for is for the UFC in various planes, so that's a good place to start if you want to work out what you're doing.

You'll find a load in the User files section of the DCS website, though occasionally you might trip over one somewhere else. Some people share them onto Discord servers too. Can also just search for "streamdeck profile" in the forum and you'll find a few randomly scattered around. I did read something about the author looking into the possibility of setting up a repository for profiles, but I don't think he's done it yet. User Files (digitalcombatsimulator.com) STREAM DECK PROFILES LIBRARY - Input and Output - ED Forums (eagle.ru) What aircraft do you want them for, and which streamdeck do you have? Make sure you download the right ones for your streamdeck. If you only have the original as opposed to the XL version then obviously you won't be able to see most of the buttons. I've got a couple of profiles for the XL if you need them. One is for the KA-50, and the other is for the Harrier. There's no substitute for creating your own eventually though, as its nice to customise them just the way you like.

Glad you managed to get it loaded. The profiles install separately. Once you've downloaded one, just double click the file and it should load into the profile list on your Streamdeck software. The files have the ".streamDeckProfile" file extension on them.

This has nothing to do with being certified. As for Youtube, I think most people hate having to constantly tab out of the sim to keep checking videos. As I said before, DCS has an extremely steep learning curve which can put off new players. When I first dipped my toe into it after many years flying complex airliners in FSX I didn't have the patience to learn it on my own, and online resources at the time were few and far between. As a result I walked away from it for about 2 years before I gritted my teeth and tried again. I'm not a programmer. I have no idea if this is something that would be easy or hard to implement. I confess, in my mind I kind of thought all they'd need to do would be to reuse part of the code from the existing MP aircraft, but I know its not that simple. Yes, streaming your game is an option, but as daft as is it sounds there are a lot of people who simply don't have the bandwidth to stream or screen-share, myself included. It seems like this is a really divisive subject, and it disappoints me that even floating an idea for a new tool that could help new players could meet with opposition not from ED but from experienced players. Honestly, I'm not looking for an argument. I just know that its something that friends and I have constantly discussed when doing training flights with newbies.

I'm just off to bed, but if you check back tomorrow I'll see if I can work out what's wrong. Might be you're just clicking a dead link.