Lace

Not tried strafing any helicopters, I'll give it a go later. It kills everything else just fine.

You are all massively overthinking this. All you need is to map LMB, and keep the mouse cursor locked to the VR cursor. Then just glance up, and click the option. Takes literally no time, no mouse interaction, no effort. I've been playing VR for 4+ years, and not once needed to use the mouse. The menu system works much better than Jester IMHO.

Has the HUD always been so difficult to read? I fly in VR so have to live with a bit of blurriness here and there, but it is readable in every other module, the A-10 just seems really bad. Is this normal or just me? Also the gun. I played through the easy IA mission last night to refamiliarise myself with the a/c and systems, and on the final waypoint with the convoy I made a couple of gun runs against the T-64s. According to Tacview I got over 80 hits on one of then (from a couple of different directions), without scoring a kill. Is this normal? I remember the gun being a bit more effective than that. It kills soft stuff fine, but has tank armour received any work lately, as 80+ seems a huge number of AP 30mm to just shrug off and return fire. Other than that, I'm really enjoying getting back in the 'Hog. There is just something calming to performing low speed, low level CAS/interdiction, having been spending so much time zooming around in the Viper lately.

I would say in my limited experience, the explosions in DCS are far more realistic than the video you posted. Big fiery 'Hollywood' explosions are pretty unlikely, unless you are bombing POL facilities. Ammunition causes more secondaries, which are already modelled, but could be bigger for some units.

It doesn't take long until you are <$1 per hour in the module. Fantastic value if you ask me.

It might only be 5 or 10 minutes, but for example, the latest Beta installed the new Mirage F1 EE, I already have assigned all the controls for the almost identical F1 CE, but I need to start again from scratch for the EE. There are a lot of modules which have different versions of the same aircraft, and that's even before you consider the commonality between all aircraft. If I install a new HOTAS, then that's 5-10 minutes for every module, which is easily hours of work. As suggested above, JoyPro might be the answer.

Yep, so many could be in a 'common' category. Eject, views, axes, basic flight controls, kneeboard, trim, etc. JoyPro looks good, but it would be nice if we didn't have to keep going to 3rd party solutions and workarounds.

Thanks. It's working just fine at the moment, so I'll just leave it alone.

As a Rift S user, this means I can biff off the Oculus App, right? My question is why? What is the benefit of using openXR over the Oculus App? (non-steam version).

Looks interesting, might give it a try. How use-friendly is it?

I wish DCS would allow common control assignments. I don't understand why when I allocate a control for 'Airbrake Extend', or 'Trim Nose Down' it can't then apply to all aircraft with that function. This is especially time consuming for multiple variants of the same aircraft (Why do the A-10C and A-10CII for example require different assignments?). Perhaps there could be an 'Override Common Assignment' next to a control if you want to deliberately allocate something different to a particular aircraft. Or a pop-up asking 'Apply change to all modules?' when you change an assignment. Obviously some aircraft have specific requirements, and that is fine, but there is a huge amount of commonality between modules, that it could be a great time saver for new installs, or HOTAS hardware changes.

There was a good idea on the F-15E thread suggesting an overhaul of the bort number system, to include colour flashes, Sqn badges etc, overlaid on a standard grey scheme could go a long way to improve things, particularly on the USAF a/c which are all very similar in appearance. It is nice to have variation in schemes, but the current system is a very inefficient way to store '50-shades-of-grey' liveries.

I think the main argument against hypotheticals, is not that it shouldn't be done, it's just that it by their nature, they are difficult to do right. Adding an untested or untried weapons system will mean applying guesswork, to a greater or lesser degree. The devs are unlikely to have any hard data on how that a/c performs with an untested load out. There is more to it than W&B and drag factors. Aerodynamics come into play, and without flight test data, then how can an accurate simulation be made? It may be as simple as a couple of lines of code, which will physically add the weapons in the game, but the aircraft will not be flying in a realistic manner (for all we know) for that particular loadout. And if we are saying we are happy with guesswork, then it is a slippery slope. It stops being a high-fidelity simulation. There is nothing 'hardcore' about wanting DCS to remain a simulator. There are other options out there for people who just want a more casual experience, and there is nothing wrong with that, and there are of course non-official mods which offer all kinds of untried and untested alternatives, if that is your particular cup of hot beverage. Let's just keep the official stuff accurate and legitimate, so as not to dilute the authenticity of DCS.

A bit off topic, but for anyone interested, this is over beautiful Northumberland. The reservoir is Fontburn https://goo.gl/maps/BsMCVFeA795UdkhV8, and Simonside Crags are in the background. I know that area well, and I am often dodging F-15s out of Lakenheath.

I don't think you understood the question... He's donating a module for any new users.

Long hold, a few seconds before, and continuing through the release cue. I believe at the moment, you need to be within 5 mils of the ASL for the weapons to release, so make sure you have correctly lined up the FPM with the ASL. Not sure if this behaviour is correct or likely to change again.

I don't like the 'Unlimited Fuel' and 'Unlimited Weapons' options for a number of reasons. Mostly, there is no real way of reducing the AUW of the aircraft as the mission progresses, and I feel it is an unrealistic application of a valid training method. I like that in theory it allows repetition of an attack in a training scenario, but I would much prefer if you could carry out the attack, expend the ordnance, egress and then pop up to F10, hang another couple of bombs and try again, until you are happy with the number of reps and then head home with a realistic weapons and fuel load (i.e. not full like at take-off). The unlimited fuel means that you don't need to be as judicious with your AB usage, because you don't burn any fuel. With this option, you would still burn fuel, but with the option of a quick couple of thousand lbs top up if you want to go round again for another run, so you are still getting some fuel management value from the training. I am coming at this from a SP or PVE strict training PoV, and not advocating it for any sort of competitive edge.

I will only endorse hypothetical or fictional units once every real-world, in-service, sea, land, and air unit is represented in game. We have some glaring gaps in the DCS OOB, filling those should be the priority.

That's exactly how I do it. No mouse interaction required. Didn't know you could 'turn it off' though.

Mine is always centred. In fact, I can't move the pointer away from centre. How are you guys doing that? (not that I want to, I like look-click).

Haha, yes, I probably could have worded that better! What I meant was that while almost anything is technically 'possible', that does not make it a realistic outcome.

Well aware thank you, but it is 'possible', just untested and unfielded, so by your logic, why not?

But possible is not realistic, almost anything is 'possible' given enough time, money and resources, but that doesn't mean it is realistic. It would be 'possible' to mount just about anything to a KW (why not AGM-65? Why not 40mm grenade launchers? Pretty much anything could be made to work given the necessary operational requirements), but just look at the fuss kicked up when APKWS was requested for the Viper. Very much possible, plausible, and realistic IRL, but still knocked back by ED. I know PC get to make their own decisions, but they have limited resources and this project has already dragged on for literally years. IMHO they should just focus on what is fitted IRL by KW operators and finish the product, without wasting effort on experimental loadouts which very few would actually use. Quad Hellfires? Would you like any fuel to go with your helo? Why not eight Hellfires and get a Chinook to sling load you to the fight? The KW is in essence a light-weight recce platform with some self-defence or CAS capability, not an attack helicopter. I suggest the Apache might be more up your street if that is the experience you are looking for.

Remember many of the 'Instant Action' missions are meant training purposes, and do not have any expressed objectives or desired outcomes. It is just a way to practice your HARM delivery against different emitter types.

You need a structured approach. The reason you were better with the older sims, was simply that they did not have the depth of realism found in DCS. You could just jump in and out and figure it out. All of the modern modules are complex aircraft, you can't expect to just learn them on the fly (pun intended). Being combat effective and safe in these aircraft is a full-time job IRL, they don't just give the pilot a 'Chuck's Guide', toss them the keys and expect them to get on with it. Most modules need not only time, but targeted and meaningful training with specified learning outcomes if you want to progress. I think what you need to do is master the basics first. I've posted this before, but start small. Learn to start it, fly, navigate, and land. Learn the gun, then unguided rockets. Learn dumb bombs. Learn the TGP and guided rockets & PGM. Learn mavericks and sidewinders. Learn tactics and enemy capabilities. Learn IFR, AAR and night ops. Don't try to be combat proficient in one or two flights. If the Harrier is too much of a challenge, then go for the F-5 or the excellent new MB-339. The systems are much simpler, and they can be started with a minimum of fuss. The manual bombing and gunnery will force you to be disciplined in flying your attack profiles accurately and 'by the numbers'. Practice cold starts, until you can do it without the checklists. Get used to configuring the aircraft on the ground to reduce your workload in the air. Build some training missions to practice simple navigation routes, with altitude changes, fuel planning and strict ETAs/TOTs. Small, incremental steps. Slowly building competence and confidence. How do you eat an elephant? - One bite at a time. Don't worry about the hardware. I do most of my DCS flying away from home with an Xbox controller, and it still works just fine. A HOTAS will improve things but it is far from essential. Also, don't worry about slowing reflexes as you get older. If you are relying on your reflexes to save you, then you need to do better at planning. The astronaut (and pilot) Frank Borman said "A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill." Training also helps. Have contingency plans and practice them. The memory thing is age related, fortunately, something like DCS (and other mentally challenging activities) can help slow cognitive decline. As do green leafy veg. Eat kale, cabbage, broccoli etc. Get fresh air and exercise regularly.