Raven (Elysian Angel)

Fixed it for you

This goes quite a bit over my head, but the amount of work and attention for detail won't go unnoticed, I'm sure!

I do, yes - but I can't test it myself now and for the next few days because of renovation works in my house. I'll follow this thread, and test it myself as soon as I can.

While I agree with you on the state of EA of ED modules, let me play a bit of devil's advocate here, since I think a part of the community has some blame here too. When the F-18 launched in EA, ED's plan (as per Wags - and I'm going off memory here so I'll be paraphrasing) for Early Access was to release a module with the basics functioning, at a point where everything that would be needed for a RL young pilot to start training on the type would be there, and then develop weapon systems and advanced avionics as time progresses - in the order it would be presented to a new RL pilot. But then came the community and they complained they couldn't blow stuff up... My personal priority for early access would be 'aviate-navigate-communicate': have a good flight model at EA launch that only needs minor adjustments, have all the navigation tools working (at least TACAN, ADF, manual waypoint/flightplan creation, etc), and have the radios in working order. I really don't care about weapon systems at that stage: I want to practice take-off and landings, fly the pattern, get used to the in-flight behaviour, do some in-flight refuelling (if available in that model), do some basic navigation and free flights. There are plenty of other modules available to please those who want to "blow stuff up" in the meantime (though that was less so when the F-18 first launched). Part of the community wants everything to work properly on day 1 so they can do their Rambo-style "you and what army?" scenarios immediately. And as a result you have the module released in a half-baked state with a lot of systems sort-of working, sometimes, on a good day unless there's a full moon and Mercury is in retrograde - and the community starts complaining again... That, and a lot of people expect every module to be as detailed and in-depth as the A-10, and for some reason only ED knows, that is not the case (not possible?). While ED claims to have a "standard" for EA and post-EA, when every module has a different "standard", clearly the word "standard" means something different for ED than it does for a lot of the community. So here we are... And the more modules there are in EA at any one time, the larger this problem becomes as it becomes a juggling exercise for ED... Do I like this? Nope, but I'm part of an old-school minority and I suppose from a business point of view you can't blame ED for trying to please a larger part of the community so they can keep their finances in order...

Yes, ideally it would be like that in every fixed wing module, as that’s how it works IRL: there’s a lot more positive pitch travel than negative pitch - for pretty obvious reasons. Depends on your setup. Mine accounts for that, as it’s one of the things that gives added value to using a FFB stick.

Time lord technology

Luckily we have a cold-war version of the Bo-105 incoming

I really like this idea!

There's a lot riding on this one, so let's hope ED fully realise that and deliver a solid release for a change

Does this happen with other helicopters too? Open the Game Controller window from the legacy Control Panel and check if you see the same behaviour there as well. Have you tried recalibrating? *edit* Also, did you check for double bindings or any other controller conflict? DCS can mess up bindings by itself and is notorious for assigning axes even when they don’t physically exist.

The only occurrences of weird forum behaviour like that - that I have noticed - is when ED deletes (or “hides” as they call it) certain posts. If there’s a lot of moderation going on, that function doesn’t seem to work properly. Other than that, I haven’t seen an issue with it…

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1155-flyabledrivable-mods-for-dcs-world/

Notifications about your posts being liked, or notifications about new content being posted in threads you are subscribed to? Yes, here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/61-forum-and-site-issues/

That’s false. ED have stated multiple times DCS is stuck with FSR1 for now because of technical reasons. They’ll update it to a later version once we have Vulkan.

Yes: log in

You'd better wait until we have the final flight model (rotor model) before attempting such shenanigans.

That's a very valid source, as long as it's your Higher Self who was talking to you, and not someone/something pretending to be your Higher Self. How good is your discernment?

Why not? A 9800X3D is not that power hungry, and a 7900XTX isn't either. You can stuff a 5080 in there and 850W will still be plenty. I prefer 1000W and I have used one for ages, but that doesn't mean it isn't overkill. 850W isn't enough for a 4090 or 5090, but anything else should be fine as long as you don't put a dozen harddrives in there as well.

Your previous post. While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, it wasn't conveyed in the most tactful of ways.

Things are not as simple as that. In Vietnam many missiles failed because of wrong maintenance procedures, faulty wiring or simply the pilots not being trained enough on the limitations so they fired outside of the missile’s parameters (no tone, out of range, too high angle-off, etc). But other than that, yes deploying countermeasures in DCS is a simple dice roll.

For a new build, I’d go for 64GB at a minimum. 96 or 128 if you want to be safe for the next 5-10 years. And yes, a 9800X3D is significantly better than a 7800X3D. But it depends on availability/price in your region.

Buy me a drink, and we can see if we can work something out

The term "AI" is so overused these days, it lost all meaning: everyone seems to mean something else...