Tomas9970

Just an idea. Could you maybe take an approach similar to Steam's limited accounts? Let's say if your account has more than 30 dollars worth of purchases (aka you own a single full-fidelity plane or a single paid map), it will become verified and you will be able to start trials without needing extra authentification. The two-factor requirement would therefore only be used if the account is absolutely fresh. That would make having multiple accounts to run infinite trials (which I assume is what the restiction is about), pretty costly while having minimal impact on regular customers or even relatively new people.

I was just amazed by the weather patterns flying at 10000 feet and decided to take a few pics.

It's been so long since I looked into this but as far as I know, the original avionics is from the very end of 20th century so it can't be too bad in terms of data availability. Then there was the 2010 upgrade with large MFDs (JF-17 style) and encrypted communication capabilites, which wouldn't be simulated anyway. Anything beyond that is experimental and not really implemented at scale.

So in your opinion, DCS has a free to play aspect just so you can access the core regardless of what module you pay for? To simplify this. I think the SU-25T is the whole reason we are having this conversation. It has good capabilities as a plane (satisfactory for an intruduction) but none of it's weapons are something people would be immediately familiar with as opposed to western stuff.

In my opinion, the TF-51 is more important as an entry point into DCS not only because it's high-fidelity, but also because it's a trainer that you can use to learn the fundamentals before flying anything else. As for the SU-25T, I think it's just unlucky that it's an eastern plane and therefore nothing about it is exactly mainstream (despite having LGBs, TV-guided weapons and in general the things we demand from our new plane here). If ED really wanted to make a free western plane with modern weapons, I think it should either be some basic light attack plane (I'm sure we can at least find something AGM-65 capable) and/or something with a lot of off-the-shelf avionics where a lot of systems had already been researched in other projects. As for the 2 week trials, I think it's amazing if you want to evaluate a thing as a somewhat decided player but at least for me, it's hard to imagine having the first impression from a trial module as opposed to actual base game content.

On a deeper look, it seems like only guided weapons launched during trailers and showcases were GBU-10 and GBU-12 (Paveway II) so that's what I assume will be included on release. There is a GBU-31 drop at 1:30 in the Pre-Order trailer but the shot switches to an LGB impact so I wouldn't consider that.

JHMCS is promised at the end alongside the Sniper pod.

Some loadouts were shown on 10 Percent True if that's anything to go by. https://youtu.be/ZdC7wm02Frg?t=270 Lantirn is the first TGP with Litening and Sniper XR planned for later. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/97330-dcs-roadmap-unofficial-no-discussion-here/page/139/#comment-5152563 AGM-65 Mavericks were teased at some point but aren't shown in the loadouts. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/97330-dcs-roadmap-unofficial-no-discussion-here/page/137/#comment-5133366

It's been a while since i was interested in this but I still have 1:72 models of an A-10 in woodland camo, F-8 in US Navy livery (checkered rudder fin, don't know what that is) and F-104 in NASA testing livery. Looks like new 1:72 models cost 100 dollars or more regardless of if it's an F-35 or a U-2 so that will certainly keep me out of this as well.

Yeah, I'm basing my math on a reflector telescope but I also never heard about using any different formulas for different types of telescope. A quick google search of a Litening TGP head shows refractive lenses behind the front glass so maybe it is a very short refractor as everything has to fit inside the head. I agree that an SCT-like design would give longest focal length but a refractor has an undeniable advantage of not losing collimation with rough handling so that makes it an obvious choice. On a second look, there are photographic lenses with catadioptric internals, convex glass at the front and no visible secondary mirror. These obviously don't need regular collimation so that might be what is used in our pod (unless someone comes with official info).

It's simply 114 divided by lens diameter in mm and the result is in arc seconds. For example if you have a 76mm lens, that's 114/76 so objects with similar color have to be more than 1.5 arc seconds away from each other in order to not blend together. On that note, there is also a good amount of light amplification that comes from having a large lens so maybe night CCD image should be brighter than what you can see with a naked eye. The amount of amplification is simply a ratio between surface area of the lens and surface area of 7mm circle (fully expanded eye pupil). For a 76mm lens, this is around 4536,5/38,5 so around 118x more light.

Damn. Now you'll have to make it into a real thing :).

I wouldn't expect an underground base to have a full visual representation. More like that there's an overground entrance somewhere or it just generates a damage log if you hit it with a bunker buster.

Ok, so I renamed the folder in saved games and changed my shadow settings from flat to low (because it's faster now). This brought my framerates to acceptable ranges, even though still probably lower than in 2.7.6 (can't check). Also with texture settings, high feels smoother than medium and about equal to low in external view. At this point, it might actually be worth just checking individual settings to see if higher is faster. Specs: Ryzen 5 3600, 32GB RAM, RX 550 2GB, Western Digital blue 2TB Test mission: Caucasus F-86 free flight.

No. Just open the Windows command line and paste these two lines. That will switch your current install into Open Beta. cd "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\bin" DCS_updater.exe update @openbeta You may have to correct the directory if it doesn't work.

They said they want to release it in 3rd quarter of 2021 with latest date in Q4 2021. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter08012021-txeuwna3q8uxe2dqmg6xelf4w2tfy3ek.html

It happened to me as well. I decided to pay with a card instead and it went through on the first try.

I found that the picture on page 91 (Accelerometer indicator) isn't labeled properly. Some labels are pointing at obviously wrong items while other are missing entirely. Can you please fix that? Also page 91 is actually page 93 in the pdf. Not an issue but something to make this report a bit better.

Can we please get an option to make any ground-stabilized HMCS symbology (waypoints, airplanes, ground targets, etc.) visible anywhere on the screen instead of just that small area in the middle? My point is that when playing with a Tobii eye tracker, it's quite difficult to center something in the middle of the screen unless it's in boresight.

Disabling a module in the module manager won't remove it's files. I once had the Persian gulf map pre-loaded like that for a free weekend.

I suggest the Kbely aviation museum in Prague. Haven't been there in a while but they have some cool stuff.

I think that it would be a nice modern light attack aircraft and a great entry-level aircraft as well. It has a basic A/A and A/G radar and can carry Mavericks, Paveways, Litening TGP, Sidewinders and possibly AMRAAMs (not standard equipment as far as I'm aware). I already posted this in the general "DCS wishlist" sub-forum but decided to propose here as well because AvioDev seems to be the only third party focusing on fixed-wing aircrafts that doesn't have another project.

I think that it would be a nice modern light attack aircraft and a great entry-level aircraft as well. It has a basic A/A and A/G radar and can carry Mavericks, Paveways, Litening TGP, Sidewinders and possibly AMRAAMs (not standard equipment as far as I'm aware).

Here's an edit of what I think the TPOD image should look like. I just blured the image for somewhat realistic optical performance (based on these two T-90s) and scaled it to 171 pixels width (upscaled back with bicubic interpolation). Please excuse the noise around the text. It's because I did the whole thing in a very simple way. Also I noticed that the FLIR image looks pretty convincing so maybe they are also planning to do the same for the CCD image.

As for the optical limitations, it should be calculated as 114/[lens diameter in milimeters]. This should provide a recognition capability in arc-seconds. For example if the large lens diameter is 80mm (don't know this), the math is 114/80=1.425, which means that two equally bright objects with an angular distance of 1.425 arc-seconds or higher should be distinguishable (not appear as one). Otherwise they should appear as a single object (light from both objects should merge between them). This is basic astronomy math for direct observation but as far as I know, a camera with short shutter doesn't provide much of an improvement (if any). Of course the (blurry) image would then be stacked with previous three frames using median blend (as mentioned by a post above) to form the final image. Another thing that seems to be forgotten here is light amplification. Amount of light that the lens can capture is much higher compared to a human eye. This noticably increases contrast of the image. Amplification can be calculated simply as [lens surface area]/[pi*7*7] where the second value is surface area of fully expanded eye pupil. In the game, there seems to be an amplification of 1 for both lenses on the TPOD, which can't be true and results in low contrast in some cases. All of this math expects perfect optics and calculated data will unavoidably be slightly worse on a real optical instrument. I hope I didn't mess up this post in some way. I think I should also add that 1 arc-second is a distance of 1cm at a range of 2.1 km.