Repth

From what I understand: Pilot: Aircraft and engine/hydraulic/flight systems control; flying, starting and shutting down engines, and overall decision maker. Can fire/release all weapons on board. Rio: AWG-9 operations, navigation, target identification, and radios. Can fire AIM-54 Phoenix (and possibly AIM-7?). Targeting pod control (possibly TARPS pod?). I'm sure it goes way more in depth than that, but that is the gist of it.

There is no set time frame for when an aircraft leaves early access. It will leave early access when the developers determine that the aircraft is feature complete. Even then, there are those that would argue and still say that some aircraft aren't "complete" by their standards. It could take a year or it could take more time. It could take less time depending on the state of the aircraft when it entered the early access period. The Yak was in development by another team within ED for a 3rd party that paid for the module to be made. ED just made sure that we could have access to it as well. So, you shouldn't base anything on that. The only advice that I could give you to avoid any unnecessary grief is that if you want a complete module, don't buy into early access. These questions tend to bring out the worst in the community on the forums here.

If done right, this whole situation should be mitigated by the release of dedicated servers hopefully sometime in the fall. With that we should have servers in each branch that people can fly in based on their preference. In the mean time; If your main frustration is the lack of MP servers for the Stable release vs. the Open beta, then you should address these concerns with the owners and operators of (insert your server of choice here). They are the ones that choose which version of DCS to run on their servers and not ED. I'm sure cost and man hours are more than likely why they don't support a server for both versions of the sim. Not to mention that most people (not all) who fly online want the shiny new features compared to those who are willing to wait. As far as multiple development branches; That is becoming more and more prevalent in the PC world especially in Sandbox and MMO style games or games/sims that are in active or constant development.

In the mission editor when placing the AI unit select start from runway or start from runway hot. Next to that area you will see a small box that says PRK with a number associated with it (1-4) that is the catapult position in this case and you can change that to use the desired catapult for launch. If you select start from ramp the carrier still places aircraft automatically regardless if, client, player, or AI. I fly using only the open beta so I'm not sure if you will get the same results in stable.

:doh: flew over my head at over 400 knots.

Have you tried unchecking the enable VR headset in the VR options tab? That usually does it for me.

That's correct. In fact; that's exactly what RAT stands for. Ram. Air. Turbine. :)

With those specs it will be a struggle for your rig Airmage. Here are the minimum requirements for 2.5 and the F-18C. Minimum system requirements (LOW graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 7/8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Intel Core i3 at 2.8 GHz or AMD FX; RAM: 8 GB (16 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 60 GB; Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 / AMD R9 280X or better your CPU should be good (depending on the GHz and OC) but you will probably want to upgrade your RAM and GPU. and replace the HDD with a SSD.

One day we will see this idea come to fruition, maybe in two weeks time? Until the prophesied two weeks time we shall have to wait... two weeks more.

Little Caesar's, $5.00 hot and ready.:D

There was never any official word from anyone on it being a one time purchase for all aircraft. After perusing the original thread (all 29 pages) it seems that the community came to its own consensus that BST simply wouldn't do that to them and that $15 was justifiable for integration into all aircraft that would support it. Add to that the hiccup of it being available in the L-39 and then removed as an error. Some of the word choices in the news release and on the store page are a little ambiguous. Phrases like "starting with" a particular module can be taken several ways by different people and different cultures etc.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=34062 for a listing of all squadrons that have or are flying in DCS together. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=205231 For a list of active Navy squadrons

No need to look elsewhere. I keep my PD to 1.6 and msaa off and I can see the ball just fine about a mile from the Stennis. It's not super crisp but enough so that I can tell it apart from the datum lights. Most of my other settings are maxed. View distance is set to High.

Awesome Flying! The 800ft./350kts Case 1 recovery is the standard used by the Navy under good conditions. The Carrier Break is sometimes used by experienced pilots (approaching the carrier at 500ft/500kts.) from what I understand, to show their skill. I've also heard though that if you attempt the carrier break pattern and mess it up you are ridiculed relentlessly :). There are different approaches for different weather conditions.

To a certain extent, above a certain weight afterburners are used. Below that weight MIL is used.

There is never a guarantee that you will catch a wire when landing on a carrier. Much like firing a gun, the BANG, or in this case the TRAP, should always come as a surprise. That is one of the many reasons why Naval Aviators are taught to bring the throttles to MIL power upon touchdown. Everything that you do in the landing process is designed to maximize your chances of trapping a wire successfully, but there are so many variables that there is never a 100% chance. As far as touching down in the arresting area, remember that it isn't so much where your wheels are, but where the hook is. Hook skip is modeled in DCS so if it touches down too early or even if its in the arresting wires there is still a chance it could skip and cause you to bolter. Don't feel discouraged though, even the guys and gals that do this for a living still bolter occasionally. :) As Wags would say; 'PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE!'

I agree, but to be honest I'm sure it's a template designed to let people know what specs are required for VR for DCS as a whole, not just one particular module. But you are correct, they should add a caveat to the store page description and let people know it's not currently VR compatible. When it becomes VR compatible I might buy it (part of the reason I read your post is because I was looking into it), as I use VR for DCS exclusively. I just see a lot of posts that, whether it's intended to or not, "rouse the rabble" so to speak lately and it bugs me. Respectfully, Edit: And thank you for the warning :)

\ While that may be true for the time being, the title of this post is misleading and not ED's response. I agree that ED's response is vague in this case, but, maybe instead of "DCS Combined Arms will not be VR compatible" which you state as a point of fact in this context meaning it never will be (which you don't know if that is the case or not), you should change it or have it changed to "DCS Combined Arms is not currently VR Compatible". It still serves as a warning which was your intent and it doesn't mislead people into thinking that it never will be. Just my two cents.

"Not at this time" does NOT mean it won't happen. This is a very misleading post.

Is there anyway to fix it? I'm fairly new to skinning.

In the special options tab for the f-18 there is a checkbox that controls how the afterburners are triggered. You need to uncheck that to disable the finger lifts to engage burners. If you leave it checked you will need to map a button to allow you to lift them over the gate to get to the burners.

Is anyone else getting this weird texture glitch on their skins? I haven't tried comparing the defaults yet to see if its the same but it seems to keep popping up for me. I have deleted my fxo and metashaders folders and ran a repair. It seems to be from where the cockpit tub integrates with the rest of the model. It's only visible from inside the cockpit. External views look normal.

The functionality is there as far as I have seen, but the sensor systems required are limited as they haven't been implemented yet. currently target designation on the HUD is the only one that I've noticed being available. The next time you use auto to drop bombs, use sensor select forward to make the HUD your sensor of interest and you can slew the diamond around to mark your target point using the TDC controls.

Best guided weapon in the REDFOR arsenal, according to dash cam err, uuh, ahem "HUD" videos anyway..... almost a 100% impact rate, and the shrapnel it produces is substantial.

Simply put, in A/G mode the switch selects your primary sensor on the display's. Atlfir, Radar, and others. Left: left DDI Right: Right DDI FWD: Hud AFT: MCPD in A/A Mode it selects your acquisition type Left: WACQ right: AACQ FWD: Bore sight AFT: VAQC