Raven (Elysian Angel)

I don’t remember it being covered in Wags’ video, but I’d imagine simply flipping the switch back down again will allow you to resume manual target selection instead of letting the WCS take care of that. How did you determine that? By the target box still being around the initial radar contact, or by not being able to move the target box (TDC) around manually?

It’s track-while-fly (TWF), not track-while-scan (TWS). It’s basically just the equivalent of an L&S target, or a track file that the WCS generates based on which contact it seems most urgent (based on closure speed and angle-off, I bet).

Yes, but in my case I don’t think the sensitivity is the problem per se, but the fact that it’s too easy to accidentally activate pitch and roll trim simultaneously. I had to adjust the angle at which I mounted my grip in order to reduce the occurrence of this happening, and it’s never been an issue in other aircraft.

So it seems, but it was with the resolution set to 1024 (personal preference: I’d rather have no mirrors than pixelated ones). Before the restart of DCS that was apparently needed for the new mirror options to work properly, turning on mirrors cost me 1fps. When I tried yesterday, they cost me 10fps, the sequential rendering didn’t change anything. So I turned them off again. They did look good at first glance, but the performance penalty wasn’t worth it for me. I hope that when we get Vulkan (if I’m still alive by then) there will be enough performance headroom to enable them again

I did not. It crossed my mind, but I looked for the file and my foggy head couldn’t find it. Then I realised I don’t mind it gets reset so I just deleted the folder anyway.

Game crash or black screen? I had serious black screen problems, but deleting the Mission Editor folder in Saved Games and running a repair fixed that. It might be worth a try.

Yes I just tested the new options and the mirrors do indeed work properly now. As in, fluid movement and fairly high resolution but they still cost me 20% of my framerate and the sequential option does nothing (on my system) to improve their performance.

The "4th generation" nomenclature is more of a Western PR move anyway, but if you follow that logic you could make an argument about 9-12A being more of a 3.5gen fighter. Think of it as a stepping stone, an F-4 on steroids basically more in line with an F-14 (or early F-15A) than F-15C/16/18. This and a FFD Su-27 are probably my most anticipated modules (fixed wing anyway) of all time, and I am elated we have one in DCS atm.

And Mi-8, Mi-24, UH-1, AH-64, etc etc

Oh? so far I haven't been able to get the new settings to work. It is indeed a horrible experience in VR. In fact, the new "sequential rendering" which is supposed to improve performance, reduced my framerate even further. I'll try turning them on again later then.

Yes it is, as long as you select the medium cockpit textures in the special options. On the other hand I'd recommend not using AI CH-47s in your missions as there don't seem to be any LoD models available: getting close to an AI CH-47 tanks the framerate.

2 posts under yours:

Hello, This is obviously a very low-priority item, but today I did some aerobatics when my right engine decided to quit, and in fly-by view (F3) I noticed 2 very distinct smoke trails, instead of one. This happened after a fairly long test flight, so the track is also long (1 hour) and too large to share directly. Hence this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fFcCKIh-nblDFK6W6Lv8kzYZNnflfsoe/view?usp=sharing Thanks.

As stated in my signature, I fly in VR using a Varjo Aero. The default pilot position unpaused can be seen in this screenshot. The shoulder strap clips through the ejection seat. I specified "unpaused" earlier, because when paused (for example using the ESC menu), the pilot model flips into place again becoming unclipped. This is immediately obvious when looking over your shoulder in VR and pressing ESC a few times.

Hello, In the most recent patch notes there is a line for: 3D models enhancements in progress: Improved pilot model. But does that include the default seating position of the pilot? Because when you look down, it becomes apparent that the default F1 viewpoint is too much forward, and when looking behind you the pilot's shoulders clip through the ejection seat. The former issue can be fixed by editing the default camera position (with the included Camera Cockpit keybinds), but the latter requires ED intervention. For now I put the new default F1 view in-between the current default position, and where it would be if I align my head with the in-game pilot's head, but what can we expect in the (near) future? Are the upcoming improvements to the pilot model going to address both of these issues? Thanks!

For a lot of people, I bet that's true - not for me though. For me, cold starts are important for immersion and mental preparation for what lies ahead. I'd probably use the "climb into the cockpit"-feature more than the average DCS pilot too, but then again ED doesn't make DCS for people like me. Remember Jetfighter III, where you had (pre-rendered) animations of walking from your cabin to the briefing room and then to the flight deck, where you would jump in your F-22 and take off for a mission? I did that every time as well (even though there was a way to skip it), and I loved it!

Yes: it will be all the rage for a little while and then people will skip it for the sake of saving time. The vast majority of the playerbase doesn't even want to do a (manual) cold start, and you think they'll be doing external pre-flights? Oh you sweet summer child... It's a great feature on paper, but very few people will fully appreciate it - aka the hardcore milsim crowd. Is it worth the development cost? Likely not, I'd say.

Hopefully the latter! Visors are meant to *improve* visibility, not make it worse.

Really? When I take off and climb to 10km using reheat, and then switch to a more reasonable cruise setting, the fuel gauge still gives me 1100km+ range (with a centreline tank). I don't think "low fuel" is the problem, more so the fuel efficiency at military power and reheat. But gamers will be gamers and fly in reheat constantly (you can see that on YT) and then complain about low range (F-16 forum has threads about it as well) Obviously flying intercept profiles will be different but in such cases MiG-29 does what it's designed for and nothing more.

MiG-29 and other Soviet aircraft were of course designed to deal with rough surfaces (this likely will be irrelevant in the DCS environment), but obviously trying to taxi on grass won't end well: That being said, a lot of people complain about "soft" landing gear in DCS where they are simply using poor technique: the Hornet forum had a long thread about it as well.

Sure, but I think it's best to keep things consistent instead of everyone trying to re-invent the wheel. Other developers already implemented Special Options, so why not simply keep doing that? A universal solution - like the one ED seemed to have in development - seems great on paper but may not work properly in all cases (for all modules).

Thank you!

Originally posted in Bugs and Problems, because it is a bug and a problem: Yes that was the first thing I tried, and it doesn't change anything. Besides, there shouldn't be ANY reflections at all, since that's not how visors work. The one(s) who made this, has obviously never worn sunglasses or a motorcycle helmet with dark visor or lowered sunshield. I have a Varjo Aero, as shown in my signature.

That was the first thing I tried. I don't like binding reset trim for various reasons, unless I need it for testing purposes. It changed nothing.

It will probably have some refinements here and there, but the PFM is relatively recent: it was the last FC3 plane (ignoring the Su-25) to get a PFM. That being said, the landing physics are vastly improved over the FC3 version, that much is clear.