Lace

Hey Ziptie, may I ask why as a VR user you need a trackpad? I have just mapped LMB/RMB to my HOTAS and look directly at whatever control with which I want to interract using the VR cursor. Not touched a mouse since I moved to VR. Much quicker as there is now no longer any need to let go of the stick or throttle.

Played a lot of flight sims in the late 80's to mid 90's, MSFS, Falcon 3.0, SWOTL, Chuck Yeager and the many Microprose offerings. Once into my 20's I kind of lost the interest/time for simming but came back to it about 10 years ago when I restarted flying IRL and picked up FS9 again. I had an old copy of LOMAC somewhere which I dug out and then bought the first full-fidelity A-10C module. I've only really been seriously flying DCS for the last 3-4 years, i.e. actually being able to effectively employ the aircraft in combat, rather than just bimbling about as there just wasn't the time available which this 'game' demands in order to truly learn the modules, especially with a young family. I guess I'm at the stage now that after spending several thousand pounds on hardware and software for DCS I am pretty competent in 3 or 4 modules.

This is something I have been doing for years now. I work away a lot and it is obviously not desirable to travel with a full set of HOTAS/Rudder controls. The XBox controller is very versatile and with the use of a couple of buttons as modifiers you can incorporate a decent amount of binding combinations, not to mention two sticks so primary flight controls are covered, as well as Tpod/Radar cursor control. I actually find flying the Mi-8 easier with the Xbox controller than I do with my TM Warthog. In VR it is doubly useful as buttons mapped as LMB/RMB mean you just need to look at the control to interact with it so the only controls which really need to be on the controller are those common HOTAS functions. This is an example of my setup for the Viper, though it will need tweeks as the module if updated further and further functionality is added. I have tried to keep certain controls common across modules, so the countermeasure dispense or radio PTT are the same button for simplicity.

I think a SH/UH-60 Blackhawk module, with its various Army/Navy/Civvy derivatives would be a really versatile module, I'm sure it's only a matter of time on that one. Similarly, the F4 has incredibly broad appeal, given its service with the USAF/USN/USMC, not to mention export versions for the RAF/FAA, Israel, Germany, Greece etc. One module I would love to see (but will probably never happen) is the RA-5 Vigilante. A very fast and technologically advanced (and surprisingly agile) big strike aircraft, though admittedly with a very short service life, especially in the strike role as designed. That said, I think the USN is pretty well represented in DCS, with the F18 & F14, F8 and A7 and maybe A6 on the cards.

I fly in VR and never have the pilot body switched on (where available in other modules) - my reasoning being that there are so many controls blocked by the body, and I am unable to move 'my' limbs out of the way as required. How do those who like the VR body get around that?

My votes would be GIUK gap, Kola Peninsula, Fulda gap and the Korean Peninsula. Aegean could be interesting, as could Panama.

No problem. I've attached the cold start and instant action versions. Enjoy! $$ F16 NTTR DACT Instant Action.miz $$ F16 NTTR DACT.miz

I have an DACT NTTR mission where you fight a random enemy (with random skill level), with the option to generate a second or third through the radio menus (fuel state allowing). I made a cold start at Nellis version and an air start at about 50nm option if you are interested I can upload it. Red air are F-14, F-18, F-15, M2000, JF-17, L-39, F-5 or J-11, but this can easily be customised in the ME.

I've seen quite a few photos of Vipers sporting asymmetric loadouts. There are even a couple in the manual as examples, but I've seen mixtures of Mavericks/dumb iron, HARM/CBUs etc. Does anyone know if there is a list of standard asymmetric loadouts? Or what the limitations are regarding drag/weight asymmetry for various flight regimes? Apologies if this has been asked already, I've been away from the forum for a while. :music_whistling:

I thought it would be helpful for people to compare the relative performance of the DCS maps on their systems. Can I suggest 'Stable' or 'Beta', followed by a list of maps owned in order of performance, highest to lowest. I'm running the latest stable in VR SoH Caucus NTTR Normandy The top 3 are pretty close, Normandy very poor. SoH was the worst until the latest update but now runs very smoothly. I've pre-ordered Syria and hope given that it's the same developer it's performance is better than Normandy.

That's quite some list! At least it shows the issue is being addressed. :thumbup:

Considering the vast timeframe the DCS world represents, there are a staggeringly small number of AI units available for mission building. Do ED plan to increase this at some time? Will they be released as 'asset packs' like WWII or China? Even just low-fidelity (like many of the existing AI units) placeholders could be a good option until they can be fully reproduced to current standards.

Look at it this way - some folk will spend 10k+ on a sportsbike for summer weekend use, or on a watch which they only wear on special occasions, etc. 10k for a system which could be in almost daily use and offer many hundreds of hours of enjoyment could be seen as pretty good value. At least, that is how I will attempt to justify it to the wife. :megalol:

Agreed. Briefing text and images should automatically be added to the kneeboard for each mission.

Just for balance, I run DCS in VR from a 1070 equipped laptop and love it. Sure the settings are turned down (a lot) but it is more than playable with my Rift S. I would love better performance but considering my first flight sim was MSFS 4 in 1991 I can live with the apparent reduction in fidelity for the increased immersion. It’s all about managing expectations IMHO.

Just a little bump. I'd love to know if anyone actually uses one of these for DCS. Obviously there is a huge improvement in GPU-based games, but since DCS requires a fair bit of CPU work too will I see much of an improvement in gameplay or will the system just bottleneck? Currently looking at the Aorus RTX 2080Ti gaming box (circa 1500EUR) for use with my 1070 equipped Aorus X7v& laptop.

I guess I'm going against the grain here but SoH is my least used map. Compared with NTTR and Caucasus the frame rate is noticeably lower in VR, and not just in the 'busy' city areas. Even away from the bright lights it is nowhere near as smooth as the other maps. It is also a very empty map (I know it is a very empty part of the world). Any realistic ops are going to be over the wet bits and nowhere near the Iranian interior so it is unlikely you will ever see those parts anyway, which leave Dubai and Abu Dhabi which undoubtedly look nice, do seem a little out of place for a 'combat' simulator. I really wish they'd gone a little further up the Persian Gulf and created Iraq/Kuwait/SA instead but hey. I love NTTR for the realistic training feel, and Caucasus is so versatile with its changeable seasons (Germany in summer, Norway in winter etc.), mountains and coastal plains. YMMV, and as said - you get to try it for free soon!

There are plenty of contemporaries of the current fleet of aircraft to keep ED/3rd Party Devs and consumers busy for decades I'd say. Where is the F111, Tornado, Phantom, A6, A7, F105, F104, F100, Hunter, Lightning? etc. etc. So much material out there and so many potentially great modules I don't think we need to worry too much about DCS running out of ideas in the future. That is without even considering PACT/Eastern aircraft, heavies, transports and more helicopters.

Its called camouflage, that's kind of the point.

Very much this. C:MO is a highly recommended piece of software which complements DCS nicely. There are many cross-overs including Tacview integration, and it is possible to play out any post-WWII scenario (real or hypothetical) you can imagine. I would love to see these two linked in some way one day, and it has been hinted at (by Matrix, not ED AFAIK), but I imagine it will be a very long way off. One can dream though...

This is a good point, but I have many modules which have seen very little use, not because they are poorly executed or are aircraft I do not have an affinity for, but just because the time investment required to get the most from each module is huge, and I simply do not have the time. Buy them to support the devs by all means, but unless you have a lot of spare time, then short of a quick blast now and then you are unlikely to be getting the best of out the aircraft or systems. I have made the deliberate decision to stay away from two-seat aircraft for instance as I don't play MP and don't want to have to learn two roles. After I bought the Spitfire I decided no more WWII stuff. I don't have the Hornet because I knew I wouldn't be able to dedicate the time to learn it properly once the Viper came out (although the Hornet and Supercarrier bundle seems like too good an offer to miss!). ED and their various 3rd parties are producing modules faster than some of us can master them!

The problem with scenario design is that it is difficult to make it realistic and difficult to make it 'playable', and the two are often mutually exclusive. What a set piece battle doesn't take into account is the various stages prior to that situation There is no element of surprise, no advance-to-contact. Generally one side will be defensive, with established (and probably known) dispersals, AD sites, pre-surveyed artillery sites, etc. while the other side will be offensive and if planned correctly massively numerically superior to counter the advantage of prepared defensive positions. The attacking force will attempt to neutralise the air defence network, C3 (or whatever the current term is) and gain air superiority before committing ground forces. Now, this can happen in a number of ways. With Op Granby/Desert Storm there were no real time constraints, so the pre-ground war phase went on as long as necessary to achieve those objectives before putting a foot inside Iraqi territory, hence we never saw the vaunted 'Mother of all Battles' - a tank war on a scale not seen since WWII. Or it may be that an attacking force needs to achieve a certain objective quickly, in which case they may not have the opportunity to completely suppress AD/C3/etc before rolling across the border. NATO expected PACT forces to gain as much ground in Western Europe as quickly as possible to lessen the chances of tactical nuclear weapons being deployed against them. If you just scatter a couple of tank platoons within range of each other then it will just be a slug-fest (and given DCS's limitations with ground war AI and omniscient targeting, they don't move for cover, withdraw or redeploy, they won't look for an alternative route to their objective, they will just sit there motionless exchanging HEAT shells until one side is obliterated). Same with air assets. Simply spawning WVR has eliminated the most important tactical phase of the fight and of course just places you directly in a furball. The fact is that the modern battlefield is vast and interlinked with many mutually supporting units designed to work as a cohesive force. It is kind of difficult to achieve that kind of scenario with DCS. If you want an idea of how a modern (i.e. late cold war) battlefield could play out then stick a couple of these on your reading list: Red Army, Ralph Peters (the only English language book written from the Soviet perspective that I know of). Third World War, Gen Sir John Hackett Northern Fury - H Hour, Bart Gauvin & Joel Radunzel Team Yankee - Harold Coyle

Oh i’m sure it would be! I only had about 20mins in the a/c over the free weekend. I have no idea about the intricacies of sequencing and timing for a ‘correct’ approach. I’m just talking about the physical aspect of putting the a/c back on the boat. Interesting point above about the trap model being simplified/WIP. Is that the case for the hornet also? Is it modelled by a/c or part of the carrier model I wonder? Will it be the same for landing on the new carrier module?

Some great content from Omega Tau. Started the F14 episode in the gym tonight.

I didn’t have as much time as I would have liked in the cat during the ‘free’ weekend due to family and holiday commitments but after a quick check of the mapped axes I was off into the instant action missions. I tried the carrier approach and flying seat-of-the-pants landed first try. A fluke I thought so gave it another go. Same result. This time I set myself up for a bolter and that was achieved relatively drama-free so I lined up for another landing. #3 wire again. Now I know the instant action mission is day-VMC with a calm sea state but to be honest I thought it would be a bit more of a challenge, especially given that I didn’t even look up any speeds before attempting the landings. Really surprised that it was possible to just eyeball it. (No disrespect to the guys who do it for real!) Other than that the module looks great. I really didn’t even scratch the surface of what the aircraft can do and it will be on my to-buy list once the Viper is mastered. The cockpit is very useable in VR and the various shakes, rattles and creaks are very atmospheric. Top job guys!