MRSHADO

I fly in the evenings - night time sorties only - in VR - while wearing sunglasses - in a dark room. I wasn't even aware Eagle Dynamics replicated the sun in DCS. But if I did, I would have decreased the monitor's contrast or turned off deferred shading if it was blinding.

"....cause Ironhand's my thing." +1

1. Maybe because it's prior to Early Release. 2. Maybe it has already been reported from the those lucky few that get to test fly it. 3. Maybe they are using different graphic settings than you would use. 4. Maybe they are using 'requested' graphic settings for testing. 5. Maybe the carrier is still in a developmental (DT) phase. It's a really valid question, but one that's probably more appropriate when you experience "really dim" IFLOLS on your own system. As an old Chief used to say, "there's a difference between b!tc4in and whining." One is fine, the other isn't. The better solution? 6. Simple ask one of those lucky dudes (Wags excluded), "Say, what do you think of the IFLOLS brightness because it looks really dim from back here in the cheap seats."

....and I remember my computer trying to run a big mission on Flaming Ifs. It IS amazing how far its come!

My Guess: They're aware and a review of most of the +1's only confirm (vs report) what they already know or guessed. The whack-a-mole process of improvement continues. But, +1 for me.

Seriously, who cares what it’s called? IPD; World Scale; the box with the numbers that changes how big or small the world looks. Twenty-One pages of chasing terminology. Seriously, who cares what it’s called? Someone please close this thread.

I read this whole thread, very fast so I might have missed something. Q: Is there a way to set a DEFAULT IPD outside of the sim? Mine defaults to 63.5 but 65.5 looks/feels better in the cockpit. Except when the IPD box is checked with either the default value, or my new own, other GUI windows seem a little weird. Which is fine. I would like to see what things feel like when the IPD box is unchecked, but with 65.5 is set in the IPD window. Does any of that make sense?

Couldn't agree more. Better BFM, different look, same AI, though I enjoyed the F-5 BFM & ACM also. The only change I would like is not having to fly up there and back each sortie - 'cause I'm lazy. It was kinda nice seeing the same thing, but with the ability to initiate a vertical fight (vs respond to one) was a welcomed change. My only critique is a question, not a criticism. BFM10: 1v1 GO, F-15E? Couldn't read ahead, so I thought, "Uh oh, here comes a Su-[fill in the blank]. Nope, >> Strike Eagle. Can that be changed? Again, thanks for a great campaign.

Woogey, Get cracking on the Gulf of Sidra VF-41 Fast Eagles, would you please? We're almost there...! BuNo's 160403 & 160390

Hmm. I kinda always thought any new carrier - or upgrade of the available CVNs we have now - would be a part of the DCS World update process. Isn't that what Silver Dragon is saying, or am I reading that wrong?

You know what - that means I'm NOT crazy! (I borrow the F-5E ACM kneeboard and gouge until then) Thanks Sabre. :thumbup:

MX Delay Hi Gents, Can you guys help me brainstorm here? I simply can't get Docs in the F-15C Aggressors Campaign folder. 1. I have NTTR of course 2. I have 2.5.1 Open Beta 3. I tried uninstalling / reinstalling campaign 4. I deleted the folder and reinstalled Just can't get my hands on the SPINS, IFGs, and Charts without Docs installing itself. Any ideas?

I've gotten used to programming 'Cockpit Camera Move Forward/ Backward' and 'Seat Adjustment Up/ Down' while in VR in every. single. sortie. Most everyone else (Track IR or not) were fine with the viewpoint. Some made minor adjustments to snapviews, lua, etc. I'm enjoying the new adjustment for those in VR! I still use the 'Seat Adjustment Up/ Down' switch between takeoff (up), cruise (middle), and refueling (down). But the default view is just right for me.

Yeah, I seen this setting in FlyInside and its quite useful! I've gotten a cockpit so small it felt like being inside a model airplane. I'm not sure how it will relate to the outside-the-cockpit world like troops and stuff, but it would be nice to shrink the A-10C cockpit down a notch in VR just to see how it fits. Either way, these are great upcoming options for the VR community!

You know what? I dunno. I'm gonna check right now.

Thank You.

:gun_rifle:Waaay too much public math in this thread. I tried to follow, but [in English] are you talking about the spread at a certain distance... ... or the boresight/ pipper correlation?

Sith, thanks for the link - those trees look great. ....but can someone explain to me (like I'm a 4 year old) what Speedtrees actually are? Are they just really nice looking trees that you have to meticulously add in (I know, TBD) and if so, what does that mean as far as a load on GPUs? - In a general sense of course.

+1 I'm in VR, so for me the chat window is usually on the port canopy bow - it's out the way certainly - but blue text sometimes blend into the sky of ground and becomes illegible. I don't know that a different background color or contour would help me, but changing it to a lighter/darker blue just might.

Absolutely, positively, NO. (by the way - if you got 1,000,000 signatures do we become shareholders of Eagle Dynamics or something?)

+1000 to this. I think the probe and drogue method has the furthest to go with improvement. I would love to see TACAN with other tankers. Speaking of A/A TACAN - the normal 63 channel offset would be welcome as well. (ex. in real life - if the Tanker has 29Y set, any receiver would need 92Y to get bearing and distance; 92-63=29). Eagle Dynamic Digital Combat Simulator should be the FIRST to implement that. :thumbup: I also want pre-contact dual drogue, appropriate hose markings, reel response and associated lights on Sargent Fletcher Pods for the KC-130s. A KC-10 would be nice also. Is that a lot?

+1 to that statement - since there IS a Red Flag-ALASKA exercise - which extends from Eielson to Elmendorf and covers the western portions of the AL-CAN border.

Just want a few details... MC-130E/H/P and HC-130P (excludes J-model 2007) https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/943A581B_1143_EC82_2E6BF66FB618A3A3.pdf USN/USMC AAR operations (non-NATOPS) https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/8158c49c_1143_ec82_2e6260d6f772084d.pdf

These are awesome, thanks! From the Beggars & Choosers Dept. - Any chance of doing an MC-130 skin?

Hi ED Request: (1) Is it possible to have every KC-130 to trail both (port and starboard) refueling hoses from their respective pods? (2) Paint appropriate marking on hoses? Issue: (1) Currently, when contacting the tanker and declaring pre-contact (or observation position), only the port hose is released. If another aircraft joins, the tanker will trail the starboard hose as well. In reality, single hose operations creates quite a bit of adverse yaw for the -130. Another reason is visual station keeping - Army/ Marine helo's and Harriers prefer right hose to keep the probe and tanker in sight. F/A-18s and CV-22 prefer the left hose for the sames reasons. (2) Currently, no visible markings on the hose details the receiver's refueling range, which makes holding contact at the proper range more challenging than necessary. Solution: Trail both hoses at pre-contact. Add markings to hoses IAW ATP-56(B) Part 5 Annex ZD (which is part of larger NATO standard). I would add a page from the -1, but I don't think I'm allowed to do that. :( Thanks for the time! I love this sim. -SHADO