Hippo

+1. especially for the route lines and waypoints. Blue against a blue sea background doesn't make for easy visibility.

These are the actions that should be carried out wrt the deck crew signalling: unfold wings, extend launch bar, retract launch bar, salute. I add to the other answers since you mentioned you've already tried saluting. You also need to go to full military power or AB on the throttle before the salute. The procedure hasn't changed.

A quick test, then: Image 1: (1920 x 1200, windowed) I move and rezoom the map and save it thus It seems to me that this is how the map should appear whenever the mission is reloaded into the ME and the planner. Not necessarily in the F10 map. It shouldn't change if the resolution changes. If the aspect ratio changes then a choice has to be made as the whether the vertical or horizontal extent is saved, and the same centre point should be used. That would be my wish to add to the wish list. Image 2: I click on the "Fly Mission" icon (green up arrow) and go into the mission planner. The view has changed, and now appears to have recentred on the only unit in the mission. Why? As the mission creator, I didn't want or ask for this. Image 3: I return to the ME. Now it looks like it did in the planner, not as I had originally left it. Image 4: I reload the mission in the ME. It's back to how I saved it. Good. Image 5: I run the mission and open the F10 map. It makes sense that the player's unit should be centred in this view and it is. The zoom level is different, and probably should be the same I include this view because "MAXsenna" brought it up, although I didn't mention it in my OP. Images 6, 7: I reopen the mission in full screen at a higher res (4k), in the ME and MP. A much larger area of the map is presented. I would argue that this is not how it should work. When the mission designer saves the view, the intention is usually to include the area of the map that they wish to present to the player, as e.g. the extent of the player's route. This should not change, no matter what resolution the player is using (except, of course, when the aspect ratio changes as mentioned above).

The kneeboard is extremely useful, especially in VR. However, having a bright white (day) kneeboard during a night mission can be quite distracting and uncomfortable. For the mission-specific kneeboard, no problem: when I create a night mission, I just create a version with red text on a black background and insert that into the mission file. For the general kneeboard at %userprofile%\Saved Games\DCS\Kneeboard\FA-18C_hornet, it's not quite so simple Please would you consider implementing a system where the user could place day and night versions of their kneeboards in that folder, the night versions could be named in a specific way, or placed in a subfolder for that purpose. DCS would then be able to distiguish between them and automatically load the appropriate kneeboard dependent on mission time. Thank you for listening.

Well, it's how many of the paid and included campaigns work. But you're right, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. Unless I'm missing something, this functionality could have been enabled if they'd provided a range of scores for a "draw" and not just 50. Even so, the tool would still remain tragically basic and inadequate, when it should've been so much more.

I haven't checked the campaign (yet), and I understand all of the above. What I would like is, that if you fail a mission, you stay in the same stage and get the same mission you just failed. Are you sure it does that? According to the manual, and my limited testing, that is incorrect. If you get 50 points (exactly) you stay in the same stage (what I want). If there is more than one mission, you could get any of them (what I don't: I would like the player to get the same mission they just failed). Thank you for replying. I don't believe it is (easily) possible using the Campaign Builder, and have decided to restructure my campaign in a different way.

Thank you both for your replies, but it really, really shouldn't be this way.

Some may find it unusual that after (many, many) years of DCS enjoyment, I only tried using the Campaign Builder for the first time a few days ago. What I found was very disappointing. I wish to complain regarding the sheer inadequacy of this tool. That the replies I received to a recent forum question about what should be a trivial campaign creation issue involved user-created APIs and delving into the minutae of 3rd party campaign missions just says it all. I won't turn this into an essay about persistent campaign-wide variables and unit status tracking, proper branching support and other essential features for a tool of this nature. Instead I will just point you to what was available in a twenty-six year old product, for an idea of what the functionality a tool of this kind should provide; I'm sure Matt Wagner will be able to provide further details if required. Of course, now it's plainly obvious why all* third party campaigns are, structurally, trivial linear affairs rather than complex, branching and endlessly replayable experiences that, in the hands of talented creators, can rival any dynamic campaign. I think the development effort in creating such a tool would be relatively minor in relation to the enormous benefit it would return in the long run. Certainly I would've put it way ahead of, e.g., the recent very pretty but mostly unnecessary laucher app, in a priority list. * No, not all, but those that aren't involve players writing down codes and jumping through other hoops. And I am continually in awe at what the pro campaign creators produce, especially considering how lacking are the tools at their disposal. Think of what they could achieve with a tool like the one linked to above.

I finally managed to get the superbright supercarrier (yay!) The bad news is that I did it by using Virtual Desktop. I (almost) never use VD with DCS, as I am happy using the Meta Quest Link App with a Link cable. I am using the non-Steam version of DCS (with the Oculus runtime). So, for anyone on Oculus (Meta), using VD, try the Link software instead. For anyone else, idk. I'm really, really not trying to annoy anyone, promise.

Great, thanks. Will test again after update and report here.

I attach three tracks for your perusal. Track 01 : the behaviour I intended to report. Things go very wrong at around 1017 as the missile plunges to its demise. Track 01a: I unintentionally left the fuse set to OFF and I got a different (and unexpected) result; even with the fusing incorrectly set should it do this? Around 1017 the missile doesn't make its last turn towards the target and gradually descends until it crashes into the sea. Track 02: I amended the mission so that the target was nearer and this time it worked as expected. I created this mission years ago, and this didn't happen at the time. Maybe it's something to do with the range or that the missile is (mostly) flying into wind; but surely an in-range indication shouldn't appear if the FP to the target is outside of the missile's range. Please ignore any mission failure, etc, messages, they are informational only. Searching I found this post, from January(!), which seems very similar. If it's the same issue, consider this a bump and an offer of additional information in the hope of encouraging a swift resolution. track_01a.trk track_01.trk track_02.trk

Not a big deal, but to aid organisation and readability for the mission designer, and for the sake of interface consistency could you please add the ordering arrows as is common elsewhere in the ME? Thank you for your understanding and patience. (If I want "mis_start_B" to follow "mis_start_A" (below), which would be my preference, I have to delete the last three goals and recreate them again in the order I want. I hope you can appreciate that some might consider this to be sub-optimal.) P.S. Will a much needed undo function ever see the light of day? (interface design suggestion - keystroke "Ctrl-Z", not "U").

Is the following possible? (I'm getting a sinking feeling that the answer is, incredibly, no) A campaign with multiple stages, with (say) four different missions in each. As you get to a stage you are assigned a mission at random, if the mission is a success you advance to the next stage where you are assigned a mission at random, but if the mission is not a success you stay in the same stage and have to refly the same mission. The player never goes back a stage, they have to refly the same mission in a stage until it is completed successfully, they can then move on to the next stage. I understand that a score of 50 keeps you in the same stage, but I presume one of the four missions would be randomly assigned, which is not what I'm after. Grateful for any suggestions. My first impression of this tool is that it is somewhat lacking.

Sorry if I've missed something here, but does anyone know how the saving of the visible area of the map works? It seems that whenever you click save, the area that is visible is what comes up when the mission is loaded into the ME the next time. But what if you subsquently work in another resolution or aspect ratio? Then it doesn't appear to be. Wouldn't it be preferable for either the selected vertical or horizontal extent to be saved and then presented no matter in which res or ar the mission is reloaded? And what about what is presented in the mission planner to the player when they load the mission? I can't see any logic to that at all. Surely this should be definable by the mission creator? I find that I can be working in the ME, click the launch mission icon, go into the mission planner, find that the extents are different, and then if I exit back into the ME, the extents have now changed to be the same as what I saw in the planner. Why?

DCS: R&R? DCS: Retired Aviator?

Widely available at all FTOs near you. Only kidding. I was going for something more ab initio. And western. Well, they'd get my money. Which they haven't for quite some time as they keep producing stuff I don't want.

Two reasons 1. I'd love to have a small, typical, GA aircraft so I can practise that type of flying without having to go to the hassle of installing and configuring that civil simulator. 2. Just to see what the result would be if the bods at ED produced an aircraft of this type, esp the flight model.

Good day, fellow Supercarrier lovers! So I've been away from DCS for around six months and now I'm back with a new mobo, cpu, gpu, new W11 + DCS installation and thought I'd come and see how this is going. It really is not my intention to annoy anyone; but, again, on my system I am unable to reproduce this issue. If anything, I have to ask whether something has changed, as the lighting seems to have improved. All carrier lights are easily visible (bearing in mind the resolution constraints of my Quest Pro) from a very long distance away. I'd say it's back to how it used to be years ago, perhaps unrealistically bright, but great imho for vr flight simming. I include my settings in case they help anyone. I am using Link with a cable for the connection and QuadViews Foveated. Again, I'm sorry if this annoys anyone, it really isn't my intention, I'm just intrigued as to why I have never seem the overbright carrier you are (were?) all seeing. Incidentally, after touching down, the landing lights unfortunately seem to cause the foveated area to ocassionally flash so I see a bright yellow square (not shown below), but that's a matter for another topic.

Thanks. Also, "after you interact with kneeboard with the mouse" is rather important to mention. Have updated OP accordingly. Thanks again. I could very easily work around the issue, but I think it must've been introduced relatively recently (I've been away from DCS for six months) as I've never encountered it before. And I do believe it is an issue, and that it needs resolving.

Thank you for letting me know that it appears we disagree on how we prefer to set up or HOTASes. Which is fine as there is no "right" way. Different strokes, live and let live, etc. Let me, however, try to explain the issue I am reporting in a different way, so you can perhaps appreciate that there is a tangible problem, even if it doesn't affect you. If the default keyboard binding for the F-18 TDC - Depress function is ENT, which IIRC it is, then the ENT key should NOT also cause the kneeboard pages to switch. This kneeboard functionality also appears to be hard coded, which is probably a bad idea in and of itselt.

Not sure if it's every a/c, I've only tested with the F-18. When I have the kneeboard open, and after I've clicked on one of the tabs with the mouse, if I subsequently have a page in view that is not one marked by the tabs/bookmarks, then I am taken to one that is marked by a tab (I think the last one I selected) if I press the SPACE or ENTER keys (which I have assigned to my HOTAS using its software). Is this behaviour intentional? It is causing me an issue because I have those keys assigned to other functions and my kneeboard pages are switched when I use those other functions (i.e. there is a bindings clash). Sorry if not a bug. I have checked all the bindings for the kneeboard and don't see why using the SPACE or ENTER keys should cause this behaviour as they don't appear to be assigned to any kneeboard function.

I posted the following as a new post, without realising this post already existed so reposting my own doubts and query here. On paper, the Super with its panels, lenses, eye tracking and audio seems like the ideal headset for Sim VR. I would probably have ordered one were it not for Pimax's poor historical QC record, and the ridiculous order wait time. My other concern is performance. Many YT videos are out stating that the CS can run very well at 72 fps if tweaked e.g. I am currently running my QP, with QV DFR, and am happy that I can finally hold 72 fps at what I consider to be high graphical settings in quite intensive situations (flying low over cities). Forgive me for being sceptical, but I don't believe that setting a 5% peripheral resolution (as stated @ 10:28 in the video) can possibly provide an acceptable visual experience. If my numbers are correct, at the Pimax quality setting (5100 x 4312 per eye), this results in a resolution per eye of 255 x 216 (equiv to running 5% over the entire panel). I am running my Quest Pro at 2704 x 2752 per eye and if I use less that 40% (equivalent 1082 x 1100), the shimmering in the peripheral area becomes too distracting. Even at the said 40% the shimmering from the F-18's engine gauge in the PA, which seems impossible to remove, irks me. I am also very happy with not having to use a face gasket with the QP, and am quite reluctant to go back to the discomfort of using one. So, has anyone out there gone from Quest Pro -> Crystal Super? What's been your experience? Can you run most scenerios at the Pimax quality setting without having to drop to reprojection? No regrets?

I recommend that you, and anyone else who is annoyed by this, bump the hell out of the following (and similar posts) as often as possible.

My "mission" would be to try and help to identify what might be causing the issue. My secondary objective would be to inform whoever is looking into it that it isn't happening to everyone. I am certainly not engaged in a campaign to annoy anyone. Over and out.

Thanks. I don't doubt it's happening to you and to others, but it's certainly not happening to me. Perhaps you could post your DCS settings and I can try them on my system (although I won't be able to for at least two weeks, as I'm away)?