Lace

The F1 is a French aircraft, and comparable in many ways to the Jag. The fact that it was operated by the Spanish doesn't make it a Spanish aircraft, nor the F-104 which is next in the pipeline. Of all the developers, Aerges seems the most logical to take on the Jag (given the role and era of their current projects). Whether they choose to or not is of course up to them.

I would love a Jaguar, I think my first thread on this forum was a request for the Jag. I keep telling myself the Jag doesn't have the broad commercial appeal of the F-series US fighters, but it was a big player in some major conflicts with the the RAF (Granby) and the Armee de l'Air (Epervier), is still in current service with the Indian Air Force, and was used by the Omanis until fairly recently. It is as prolific and well known as some recent and in development modules (MB-339, G91, etc). It fulfilled a nuclear and conventional strike role, recce, anti-shipping, precision bombing, was A-A capable, and later versions had Gucci kit like an HMD and TIALD pod. Not to mention the rough/unprepared strip capability. It is a good fit for the Kola, Hormuz and incoming Iraq & Germany maps too.

Polychop - It's not an attack helicopter. Also Polychop - Here's a trailer blowing literally everything up. Awesome work guys, can't wait to log some hours.

You could just swap the names of the liveries, rather than edit the missions. Maybe that would pass the IC?

Our Viper (so far) only supports Steer points 1-30. STPT 50 forms part of a line series which is not yet possible in DCS (for marking borders, kill-boxes, no-fly areas etc.

Jag is one of my favourites, I'd love one but at the moment the Mirage F1 is a decent contemporary substitute.

Landing gear is designed to withstand very high shock loading. One aircraft I have flown was landed so hard (not by me!) there were tyre marks on the underside of the wing skin! The undercarriage was inspected and no damage was found. A Viper landing gear will have a lower tolerance for g loading than a Hornet, but both are designed with huge margins of safety. A lightly loaded Viper should be capable of a firm landing on a carrier deck as the gear will be built to withstand a heavy landing at a high gross weight on a land runway. It will not take a fully loaded jet slamming into an upwards pitching deck. Tail hook physics, IDK. The Viper is designed to take the wire at the far end of the runway with minimum speed on. Whether it would take an arrested landing would depend. With a decent headwind it might take the wire as low as 100kts. I'm personally not a fan of the silliness of operating non-carrier aircraft from carriers, I've never even thought to try it as it would never happen IRL, but this is a game, and people can try all kinds of things which would never happen in real life. Look at the typical logbook number of deaths/ejections/kills and compare it to a real life fighter pilots stats. DCS is just not played in a realistic way by anyone. Tactics, procedures, operations are almost all pure fantasy anyway, so what difference does it make if someone plays in a different unrealistic way.

Not sure where to put this, but since the latest May update, Tacview is no longer exporting tracks, and the 476th Range objects are no longer appearing in the ME static objects lists. I don't know if the two issues are related. Both folders have been reinstalled in the openbeta/mods/tech folder in Saved Games, and I have tried disabling and reenabling within the module manager but without success. Anyone have any bright ideas?

Yes, and thank you. Very simple missions compared to some but I tried to capture the atmosphere of that part of the world, however it was before the new clouds system, and obviously the terrain wasn't a great substitute for the Norwegian fjords.

I was going to wait until the map was a little closer to completion, particularly with the RNoAF bases and the winter textures, but it looks like you are doing a fine job, I might not need to at this rate.

Looks great - I did a similar set for the Caucasus as a stand-in when the likelihood of a Kola map was but a distant dream...

I went from having very specific hardware for each module to a more generic setup. I used to swap out throttles and stick/base combos depending on what I was flying, and tried to match the real HOTAS configurations as closely as possible. Since the number of modules is ever increasing, I decided a while back to move to a more generic setup, and try to map controls to the same physical button, even if it means it is not completely accurate with respect to the real aircraft. I found that I was finding it harder to mentally adapt each time I changed aircraft, not to mention the additional cost and setup time. I feel that the generic setup, while not as realistic, is a worthwhile compromise. It is sad that because of our desires for ultimate realism and fidelity in the modules, it makes it harder to enjoy as many aircraft as possible. In some cases I made the conscious decision to never bother learning them (mostly complex 2-seat aircraft) as I know I will not be able to dedicate the time to store them in my memory (Apache and Tomcat two such examples). I can only fit so many penguins on the iceberg. There is a lot of commonality between aircraft - start procedures follow the same basic pattern, the weapons are shared across many platforms. The basics of navigation and radios are the same, but with the modern HOTAS systems, there are enough non-intuitive differences to mean I need to take a little time pre-flight to remind myself of the exact flows, and tend to use the same self-made training mission to achieve currency. I also tend to binge on one module for a while, so I'm not chopping and changing every sortie, but normally fly them for several weeks before I decide to swap. The Viper is hardwired, and I can pick that one up after a long break no problem. Same with the Gazelle. I dip into the Harrier (and every time wonder why I don't fly it more), A-10 and Hornet every so often, and definitely require a refresher on those. Currently I'm spending most of my time in the F-4 which I'm finding surprisingly accessible. Jester seems helpful here, and my familiarity with the F-5 seems to have helped a lot with the start-up and manual bombing.

I've noticed that when the canvas stick boot is in the periphery of my vision, the texture vanishes and shows black. There is a similar issue with certain head positions making the icons on the RWR disappear. NVIDIA 3080 driver 555.85, Rift S 2.2.0

Tried this last night, and indeed, a single simple keypress resulted in an almost 50% improvement in frame rates. It's amazing how many of these little details seem completely lost to the average user. Many thanks @Qcumber, I owe you a beer.

Brilliant, thanks. I'll have a play later today.

Thank you that's useful, however, I don't have a separate keypad on my laptop - is there anywhere else I can toggle those settings? If not I can find an external keyboard to plug in.

In almost any situation, on any map and flying any module, my frame rate is locked at 40, and I am CPU bound. The DCS menus are locked at a solid 80fps. It has been like this for some time, and changing graphics settings seems to make little difference, only increasing or decreasing the stutters, but never the FPS. I have a laptop 3080 and a Rift S. I have 120 set in the DCS frame rate limiter setting, and have disabled the FPS limiter in the Nvidia control panel. Is there another setting somewhere which could be causing this? Is there something in the Oculus config which might cause it?

BZ chaps, well done. Another great effort and surely the new standard for modules. I've really only scratched the surface, but enjoying it so far. For sure there is lots to learn, but in a strange way it seems more familiar than I expected, like a big F-5. I'd echo the comments about the strange stick pitch movements, and I also had to up the gamma a little as even with the cockpit lighting on, the panels were difficult to see (in VR). FPS is as good as any other module, and the sheer number of included missions for every map is commendable. I'm not normally a 2-seat fan, but Jester seems like something I could get used to. Overall, well worth the wait.

My most used, and the one which IMHO allows the most realistic scenarios is NTTR. I enjoy Syria and Hormuz, but still feel the lighting feel is not quite right with Syria. I like Sinai but haven't been able to really explore it much yet. Kola I imagine will become a favourite once it is fleshed out with a few more airbases, it is a good fit for some late cold war-ish scenarios, with sixth-fleet carrier strikes, USMC Harrier support, RNoAF F-16s and F-5s, Swedish Viggens, Finnish F/A-18s. As long as you aren't too much of a stickler for the correct versions/types actually fielded. It offers probably the most diverse AO in terms of air unit types.

For how much it gets used, I don't feel the need to get something 'better'. I like the fact that it is tiny and just sits under one of my monitors on my desk. It's hard to quantify the performance improvement as there are so many variables, but despite MT improvements DCS is still fairly inefficient at allocating resources, so AI pathfinding etc being moved to another physical computer helps a bit - this is well established.

I've not used it much lately, but it was running some home made sandbox-type missions, mainly for myself and sometimes +1 for multicrew, with both clients on the same local network. I'm not exactly stretching the limits in terms of clients or AI units, but it does a decent job, and the slight increase in FPS performance is offset by the longer setup time and transferring of files over, vs being more impulsive on what I want to fly when playing pure SP locally. Overall, I'm happy given the <$200 total cost.

I'm just waiting to be able to play again, thanks to the Oculus issue, DCS has literally been a non-starter for the last couple of weeks.

Indeed. These guys weren't fighting buttoned up in IFVs and MBTs. We need to see them moving.

It was requested a while ago, and I think there is an 'Unlimited Fuel for Wingman' option now, which alleviates some of the most frustrating catchup>bingo>ejecting typical wingman scenarios.

Yeah, I agree to an extent. I always try to have a weather and atmospherics element to my missions, as It adds so much more depth. Some variation is a good idea, I just feel that complete randomness would be a leap too far, and would result in too many scrubbed missions, unless you specified some min/max criteria for each parameter.