Gary

I'm flattered you think I personally have so much influence!! Anyone who is involved in DCS on a number of platforms will have read what is out there and formed their own adult opinion I'm sure - rather than be spooked by what "Gary" thought on the DCS forum.

For the avoidance of any doubt - I wasn't taking side or painting either party as the culprit. As has been said a number of times we simply don't know the details to even form an opinion. What I was doing and seems ligitamate to do so was considering best and worse case outcomes.

Can anyone please confirm my understanding below? If I recall correctly, when the Hawk development "broke" with another developer - I seem to recall ED saying they had changed some terms and conditions in relation to working with 3rd parties and that it was a requirement of said 3rd parties to effectively hand over the source code should the developer remove themselves from the DCS platform. Did I dream that or is the above basically correct? Obviously if it is true -and Razbam withdraw from the DCS platform maybe ED can continue with the Razbam modules development? Razbam are in a relatively weak position I would argue if the above is correct.

I'd love to see this too - please.

Thank you!

Hi, Is there a formal update from ED on this request please? Gary

I'm sorry draconus - in what capacity do you work for ED that enables you to mark your comment as the solution? Is this ED's formal answer to my question or just your opinion?

Hi, This topic closed at the end of August 2023 but I've not seen the questions answer thread as yet. Do you know roughly when we might see this please? Kind Regards, Gary

Save game is big but I welcome a very rare mention of ATC improvements - although the article is not clear if we will recieve any changes this coming or not? Anyone able to clarify at ED please? (everything subject to change of course) Regards, Gary

The link between the sensation of speed and FOV is obviously linked. I find the whole FOV topic very interesting. I've been down the FOV rabbit hole several times before in the hope of trying to get a somewhat "realistic" cockpit perspective. It seems important to me to establish the base FOV. I've researched the calculators but as noted these refer to racing sims in the main. With my set up (Curved screen size and distance from my eyes in the main) I've concluded a FOV of around 90 degrees seems as accurate as I can calculate but definately interested in others pancake calulations and settings? (mainly because I've never established anything definative accepting everyones individual set up makes a differenace too of course) As also noted - in sim I often use the zoom in function but at I do obviously return to my base value once I've completed what I'm doing. Kind Regards, Gary

Chris, Thanks for the reply - I really appreciate you taking the time to do so. I enjoyed the Cerberus North implementation so I guess something similar to that hopefully. Kind regards, Gary

Can you share any details of the "all new ATC system" at all please? Kind regards, Gary

Posted 22 minutes ago It's a throttle controller you can buy, that's all. Thank you - I know that, I have one myself. Although It maps easily in DCS I was just curious what the changelog description meant and does? Regards, Gary

Changelog mentions TQS mission pack template. Can someone explain this please? - looked all over and cannot find how you use it or what it does? Regards, Gary

I'm sorry but this is absoltuely not true. ED have openly and deomstratably been talking about an update to the ATC functions for over 8.... yes 8 years!! Im in my late 50's and seriously wonder if I'll ever see it to be honest!! (but i desperately do because I do belive you will do it properly and well) Every mention of ATC since has been met with either a push to the "wish list" section, silence or "yeap, in train but hard to do"....and of course I understand that... but please.........just be honest and realistic with us "customers" I got a year long ban from this very forum for repeatedly asking about ATC when the Nevada map was launched...please do go back and check your promotional material if necessary...yet here we are many years later with very scant detail...or any programme of progression.....and very, very rarely any mention at all. (and again, I do understand every single user has their own wish list and priorities - this just happens to be mine!) To be clear.... this is not a swipe or whinge at ED..........but please do not tell me that you keep us all updated as to progress.....the fact is you tell us what YOU want to tell us WHEN you want to tell us!!......and that's your choice obviously...but please don't preach about transparency and openness.

So what next SharpeXB - force everyone onto the same resolution - or everyone into the same VR headset if you want to play? How do we penalise the youngstgers online so they have to suffer the same vision restrictions older people might have - you know, just so it can be fair and the same for everyone. Your arguement is seriously flawed - sorry!

I'm now in the same boat you were last March. H2 or H3? I prefer the fast jets personally (so assume yaw not needed too) but wondered if you did take the plunge and any feedback you can offer me? Regards, Gary

Dear Ed, Congratulations on the 2023 video and wishing all the staff there at ED a very happy and healthy New Year! I appreciate the 2023 video focused on modules whilst also mentioning the DLSS and MT implementation - and the recent newsletter provided us with an update on the Dynamic Campaign progress, but could I ask please for an update regarding the ATC workstream? Would I be correct in thinking the DC will require some improvements in this area to be viable, or is it likely to follow the DC beta roll out? Kind Regards, Gary

Rudel, You sir are a gentleman - thank you. Having been around here for a while I must say I'm yet to see a post from you which was anything but helpful! Thanks again - I'll jump on DCS tomorrow and start checking. Kind regards, Gary

I "might" be able to provide access to a SME (current RAF pilot who flew Jags extensively before transitioning onto the Typoon) Not discussed his interest in helping but could do so if needed? Regards, Gary

Thank you to all that have replied. I appreciate your time in doing so. Ok - so I guess my starting point is to confirm my Beta install is as it should be and go from there. Is there listed anywhere the default kneeboards by map and airframe? I have the F16 - F18 and Harrier plus all the maps so these will be my starting checks. If there is a list of the defaults somewhere as I would like to check I have these first and foremost and go from there. Hope that makes sense? (I've completed a full repair and no mods at all) Regards, Gary

Apologies if this is a silly question! Do DCS modules come with default kneeboards or do you have to download the ones you might want from the user files? I've seen a number of tutorials on how to import mark points or target points for the Harrier (all using the same kneeboard) but my install doesnt have any kneeboards at all by default - not for any airframe? - is this correct as is (tried a slow repair) and I need to install kneeboards myself? Regards, Gary

Just to say I raised a ticket and my purchase has now been reduced to include the discount. Thank you ED for sorting for me. Appreciated.

Same - raised a ticket and on standalone. Gary

This might be of some small help or contain bits of what you are looking for? (from 13 min mark onwards) Regards, Gary