Raven (Elysian Angel)

Not according to "Muddy" Watrous, who flew Soesterberg birds out of Incirlik.

As I said, if you do that you can no longer see the top half of the HUD.

WTB pedal trim special options, PST!

Yes it’s not an absolute limit, but the documents say you need at least a few seconds for the missile seeker to lock on to the target, which should be done from 6 o’clock low within 30 degrees angles-off-tail. And it says that if you fire while pulling more than 2G this implies that you’re likely not in the envelope for the seeker to have obtained a valid lock. So you could technically fire the missile at higher G, it will most likely not guide. The question is if DCS keeps all that into account. I doubt it, since IRL the seeker got confused by reflections from the ground for example - IR seeker modelling in DCS seems extremely simplistic to me. There are other documents that have pictures of the launch envelopes in them. I just picked a declassified source that specifically talks about the 2G-rule.

That was in the previous patch (2.9.15.9408) But yes, the F-4 feels a lot more docile and precise now when taking off and landing, and while doing landing circuits. It is a very noticeable improvement!

As of today's patch 2.9.16.10523 this is still happening

That's the question, isn't it? Personally I'd love to see early heatseakers behave more like they did in reality, though. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been hit in the face by an R-3S while I'm manoeuvring and pumping flares in my F-4 - and that's just preposterous.

The "2G rule" is well documented for the AIM-9B and every single pilot interview that talks about the missile says the exact same thing: you shouldn't fire when you're pulling more than 2G. I'll send you a link to NAVWEPS OP 2309 Vol. 1 third revision: AIM-9B GUIDED MISSILE (FORMERLY SIDEWINDER 1A) DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION (U) Appendix B talks about the 2G rule. It says: "The rule was developed when the firing envelopes for this missile were determined (see NAVWEPS OD 12663)".

Seems to: TechPowerUp lists it as the most recent version. The real-life limit for AIM-9B was 2 (two) G. Why not stick to that limit to make that weapon more interesting and realistic?

No, I'm not going to create yet another thread about a bug that's been around for years and discussed plenty already.

Off-topic here but does that also include the bug that causes the F-14 FFB to not work if it's not the first module you fly in the current DCS session? That one is also quite annoying - and has been around forever.

Someone didn't read the FAQ

I was referring to the fact that the DCS website/store uses the wrong unit, everywhere. Either you keep the unit, but then all the numbers are 8x too low, or the numbers are correct, but then it's MB and GB instead of Mb and Gb. And yes, it matters.

Except it’s megabyte and not megabit

Yes, it’s tricky. Thanks for checking my track despite its length. This is how this issue presents itself to me these days: I used to be able to see it instantly after spawning in, but now it only happens after a long(ish) flight. I’ve had it happen again in helicopters yesterday but only after flying for 30+ minutes and then coming in to land. Perhaps, but it’s a different issue then. I make regular long flights and for me it only happens in the SA map. I haven’t seen it anywhere else (I world have mentioned it if I did).

Alignment after startup takes significantly longer when the mission date is set at a pre-GPS year, that would indicate it is not active

How is that a surprise?

No more mention of "certain issues with closed-loop system stability will be corrected", then as per announcement post here ?

That's indeed how it works. The difference between DLSS4 and the default DLSS3 (and an older version of it at that) is VERY obvious, so you can tell immediately if it worked correctly.

Just as a side note: you can use W11 perfectly fine without M$ account: I have an offline account for my W11 and have done so since it launched. Sure, M$ makes it harder with every major patch they release but there will always be backdoors.

The video where Wags talks about that is linked on the previous page.

Oh and here’s me with specific profiles for: - warbirds; - up to 3rd gen fixed wing; - 4th gen fixed wing non-FBW; - FBW jets; - light helicopters; - heavy helicopters; - and a default profile I use as baseline. I wanted to simplify my profiles too but in the end I decided using these 7 profiles works best for me. I am quite happy with that, but as you said it depends on many factors such as grip weight, extension weight, total weight distribution of extension + grip; mounting points, … Yes but as Hiob said be careful, especially with friction and inertia: I’ve had very weird interactions causing oscillations. DCS only uses the spring force and by default overwrites any software setting. I keep friction and inertia to an absolute minimum and instead put damping to what feels natural and doesn’t interfere with trimming. Oh and I also use the default 100% on both pitch and roll for the F-4.

Or you can install nvidia profile inspector and you’ll automatically have the latest DLSS, and you only have to do that once per driver install, not every DCS patch.

Frame generation (the way it is interpreted here) is incompatible with VR, so that’s one problem. You also need to be CPU limited for it to be worth it, and with Vulkan incoming the chances of that happening reduce drastically. In VR we have asynchronous space warp / motion reprojection or whatever you want to call it, but it’s not that great and I personally never use it.

Nevermind: I just had it happen again... At the end of a pretty long flight (the F-15E IA take-off mission), so I took off again after landing (I had plenty of fuel remaining) so I flew around the area dipping below and above the 900ft mark to make some screenshots. I'm not sure how useful the track is, since it only happens at the very end but I'll share it anyway: First screenshot is while flying slightly above 900ft; 2nd one slightly below it. Behold the difference: Malvinas 900ft performance problem 20250518.trk