Raven (Elysian Angel)

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

And for many others, how "competitive" a new module is has zero impact on our purchase decision. I for one find Soviet aviation incredibly fascinating: what's going on in the designers' minds is so completely different from Western designs it leads to completely different solutions to sometimes the same sometimes different problems because of completely different doctrines. I think it's very promising how active people are in this subforum since "pre-purchase" dropped and I hope it will sell so well ED will have $-signs in their eyes and make many more RedFor modules!

If it was that easy, people wouldn't have so many problems trying to reproduce it with the problem appearing one moment and then disappearing the next I myself for the longest time didn't have the problem, then I did, and now I can no longer reproduce it. As with many performance issues in DCS, the cause is likely a very obscure combination of hardware, bios settings, dcs settings and perhaps even windows version and drivers... If I were to hazard a guess, the issue is somewhere in BIOS but I could be completely wrong...

The same animations exist already in other ED modules, but yes the fact that they chose to emphasise it in the trailer is hopefully a sign we'll finally get one…

Agree to disagree. You can get better/on par cockpit textures for free from the User Files. The only thing the free ones don't have is the improved canopy glass. Nothing changed in the cockpit except for textures. No corrected proportions for VR (even with in-game IPD at 75 it's still too large), no improved resolution mesh. And as I said before, I have watched the new and old external model side by side and I can't tell the difference (except for the textures, but I'm talking about the model itself). I personally don't care about the ability to open the gun bay doors on the ground ED clearly stated it's not a purely cosmetic upgrade, while that is clearly a lie...

Well, you can't really turn off data-link, can you? To be fair I haven't tested the extent to which "historic filter" removes all that modern nonsense, but even if it worked perfectly then you'd still have an APG-73 instead of -65. You'd have none of the older TGPs, and you'd still be able to ask the ground crew to equip the JHMCS, no? Also, you'd still have the more powerful engines... Note to self: I should really test that at some point...

Not by Heatblur, but Cobra announced 2+ years ago it’s coming for all of their modules. ED has been either ignoring those requests or playing a “yes it’s coming - haha tricked you it isn’t! - we might do it at some point - we know it’s important so we requested it” game for the last 8 years. Many other developers did include it, and the upcoming Bo-105 will also have one

I've also seen the same "two weeks" joke in the AppleTV show "For all mankind", which depicts an alternate 1960s-1970s where the Soviets beat the US in the "first man on the moon" PR race. I don't know where the producers got that joke, but perhaps it dates back even further than we thought?

Yes it is, hence the amount of people asking developers to implement working helmet visors. That takes care of that problem

“A” doesn’t exist really, other than an obscure pre-production prototype. But it tends to refer to the initial production version (called “Fulcrum-A”) by NATO and in this case it’s a “Project 9.12A” which is the slightly downgraded version for Warsaw-pact. As such there is no such thing as “MiG-29A”, there is only “MiG-29” with subversions (not using the NATO A-B-C version numbers). The correct name for the one we get in DCS should thus be “MiG-29 9.12A”. ”S” is the first upgrade since that initial production version, or 9.13 with the enlarged dorsal spine for extra internal fuel. These are aircraft produced since 1986. Then there is a 9.13S with further upgrades such as internal ECM, better radar, refinements to flight control, +2 degrees extra max AoA, and provision for 2 external wing tanks. but very few of those exist apparently. So when people talk about “MiG-29S” they tend to refer to “MiG-29 9.13S” since that’s the one we have in FC3.

It won’t, at least according to Chizh: no ASW helo will be made by ED since the development cost would exceed the profits from sales.

I’m sure the MiG-29”A” will live long and prosper

In my pocket, obviously!

I'd be seriously concerned if it wasn't, since it's ED's first one based on 3D laser scanning and photogrammetry, and it's the most recent module.

Apparently reading is hard:

In an appropriate setting (aka with the Hornet limited to AIM-9L/M and AIM-7F/M), yes actually

Those were actually very few aircraft: the ones in the most "elite" squadrons were rushed to get to upgrades, while the others - such as the USAFE birds deployed at Soesterberg were all pre-MSIP.