Ducksen

I like this. Basicly it is using the headset as a tracking device like track IR. Really cool idea.

You may want to make sure the search radar, the p-19 or whats its name is active. It needs that to work. Can it be that simple? I use open beta current version. Works here. HOWEVER at close range.

There have become blue artifacts on the yellow and black warning tapes in the cockpit. Seems to be on the yellow bits. Bright blue artifacts. They change position when panning the camera angle or turning your head in VR. In 2D and VR alike. In VR I tested with VIVE. I am using the newest version of open beta. Click on the image to see what I mean. I use low graphic settings.

We have had a lot of changes made over the last few years. And the encyclopedia we have is not updated with all content in DCS. And the content we do have is lacking in what I would call "in game relevant information" Example; Take a sam system. Note in the encyclopedia page what other units this unit depends on. And have a link list to the others. And a link listed towards the missile that it uses. Makes for a way more userfriendly and informative experience. And mission designers would like to know how far apart the units can be, and if mountains matter for coms between a track radar and a search radar. All that stuff is handy to have right from the developers internal knowledge. You can state if known, what chaff or flare bursts are effective to that specific system. Translate all this to all other module types like bombs, and air to air missiles and more. The developers KNOW this. They are programming the states and terms and all the technical bits. My wish here is to have it up to date. And a routine made so developers check and if needed add their newest creation to the encyclopedia. And that the encyclopedia is standardized so things are listed in the same area of the page and more stuff like that. Even a handy thing like links from a mission briefing. As a mission designer, like many of us are. We could have the possibility to list units by link in the briefing. So when the coalition reads the brief, they can click on a link for SA-15 Tor and see what that threat is and why that matters. What was the engagement range of that thing again? "Click" Oh, yes, I see, I remember now.

Terrain textures to low... :doh:

It helps to set terrain detail to low. The wierd part that it helps in the DCS menu. I went from 45 to 90 fps in the menu screen by doing this. How odd. Just a tip and hint while waiting for fix.

The static 1 is the unit that DCS uses as a background when selecting a slot or aircraft. If you remove that static from the mission then it defaults to something else like a tank or anything, and the text is gone. Don't get me wrong, the text up in the top that states static 1 is a bug for sure, but until a patch comes for this that is a workaround.

Same in the A10C. However, there you CAN adjust the seat down to the lowest position to work around that. Not in the A10A like you say. So agreed that i needs fixing, BOTH on A10A and A10C.

Hi quick post. In open beta in VR my frames droped to half. In the main DCS menu I have had 90 frames. Now it is 45. The same goes for ingame. I normally had 30 frames and now it is 10-15 frames. Now I feel sick and green, and it has become unplayable. Using HTC Vive. Nvidia 1080, 32Gb RAM, Skylake 6700 i7 4GHz. Have set most settings in DCS to lowest setting and turned off all MSAA, depth of field, SSAA, SSLR etc etc etc. Have turned game mode off in windows. Have Enabled my Nvidia 1080 card to have full power available in Nvidia settings. And more... Hope to see a fix for this performance hit. Or if I am the only one, please give me advice. I CAN go lower on settings, but to me it seems not to be the core issue here.

Well. Sigh... This has to work with the in-cockpit radio only. And in multiplayer if you tune your radio to the same frequency, you should hear people speaking on that channel. If you speak on a frequency ALL pilots on the same channel should hear it regardless of third party nicknack. That way you make third party stuff redundant and plane from DCS will work as intended. So imagine logging on to a server. People are on teamspeak, discord, srs. And you just have DCS. you set the correct channel and can speak to them so your voice comes through the game regardless of other external coms. Are people going to sing and be jerks? No more than goes on today. Change channel, your good. I belive this to be the right way forward. What about SU25T, and FC3? Well, an easy small interface box with the frequency and up and down boxes for manual and channel select. Make it small, moveable and hideable.

Yes, it has been mentioned before. Still a good idea. My sugestion is to have lights be off pr trigger zone. Its unnatural for entire map be off. So lights off in zone will work. Just like destruction in zone works today.

Look. ED appears to take hard action to improve DCS now. That is great!!!! Cheer them on! Modders: Do not overcommit to working for free to change a product that will change every now and then. Quit modding creating endless variations of the core game. Let ED work and improve the sim. Modders pull in all sorts of directions creating confusions and a install hassle that feels like cracking games was back in the day. Let ED move DCS into the future and do their thing. Loving what's comming this year. Thanks guys!

Yes! Tought about this a couple of days ago. Great idea. Will make things more fluent, and less taxing on short term memory, F10 and F1, remembering lengthy coordinates.

Hey! Thanks for reporting this. I noticed you where unsure which aircraft that does not have the raindrops. I have checked what I can from my own modules, and here are those I checked and how that went. Please, if needed fill inn on the reported issue. And thanks BIGNEWY for taking this issue further. I do not have all modules, I have heard people mention the Mi8MTV2 also. Can not verify my self. Assume it to not have rain drops. Here are my personal checks: MIG-21Bis - OK MiG-29A - OK MiG-29G - OK MiMG-29S - OK SU25 - NO DROPS OF RAIN SU25T - NO DROPS OF RAIN SU-27 - OK SU-33 - OK J-11A - OK KA-50 - OK A10A - NO DROPS OF RAIN A10C - OK ASJ37 - OK AV-8B N/A - OK C-101CC - OK C101EB - OK F-15C - OK F-16CM bl.50 - OK F-5E-3 - NO DROPS OF RAIN F/A-18C Lot 20 - OK M-2000C - OK TF-51D - OK F-14B - WELL! They are there, but front seat rain looks really weird. Water on hud-glass moving left to right horizontally without wind. Rain in front right glass next to hud has a buildup in a horizontal line. Left side looks normal. And top part of canope looks weird to, it has a flat spot over the top it seems. looks wrong knowing the conope is way more round. In the back seat for the RIO it looks as intended and ok. Beautiful.

Hey. I really need to ask this painful question here in DCS 2.5 general section. If this is placed wrong, then please move it. With the Modern Air Combat sim/game coming out this fall of 2019 I have some pressing issues. First off, will MAC draw the largest part of the playerbase away from DCS? I am guessing that MAC came about as an idea due to many players wanting to have a piece of the action, but do not want to learn many keybinds. And so illuminating a void between "super silly combat aircraft games that go pew pew" and DCS. Where there are players that do not want to play basic arcade flight games, but more a sim, but not have to read a length manual and spend time training in order to enjoy a sim. I am hoping that MAC only caters for that void and leaves the potential MAC playerbase inspired to go full DCS after a year or so. And I really hope that DCS will look and feel better than MAC in comparison so that the true DCS playerbase might try MAC, but feel that it is lacking and want to gravitate back to DCS as DCS is the best. If it turnes out that MAC has more features and more things set right, due to newer core coding and lessons learned and it is less buggy and smoother, many will stay there and never move on. And the question many have talked about is money. We have paid for a lot of modules, and now all 14 in 1 sim? From what I gathered so far, it is all in a kind of FC3 standard of sim. And many of them are in FC3 today. So that is kind of ok for me. My problem with this is when it becomes a separate sim. Could we have all our full fidelity aircraft migrated to MAC and go there if the game is smoother, newer code and all the players? One of the greatest features in DCS is that there is a collection of sims all in one. I am old enough to remember buying a sim game and instilling it with diskettes and CD's before DVD. Back then I was dreaming about the possibility to merge my sims together and be able to play with all in one sim. Today, and for many years now that has been a reality. I am so thankful for the work Eagle Dynamics has put down into making this an alliance of aircraft sims, where all can bring their module to the sandbox and play together. Now I fear there is a tear in that fabric. Where we now are splitting things up and dividing things. I feels like a divorce, yeah you take halve. I'll keep the high fidelity, you take most of the player base. YES, I am joking, and no I am not that salty about it. However, I am worried for the already niche playerbase in DCS, and hope it will grow with MAC and not shrink. For DCS to grow, then it has to be more attractive than MAC. So MAC can be a true stepping stone to DCS. I would also hope that MAC will be a module pack for DCS where FC3 would finally become obsolete. So future players who have MAC can buy DCS MAC pack for a discount. In any respect having a FC4 that might be called MAC pack in DCS would be welcome. I hope for Eagle Dynamics to come out and officially state the reason for a player to in an example fly the SU27 in MAC and migrate to flying the SU27 in DCS. What would motivate a player to make that migration/upgrade. Why leave MAC for DCS given that they are both a FC3 sim level of that plane. And the SU27 was just an example, not limited to. I guess what I am asking and saying is that I fear that the polarity or flow of players will not go from MAC to DCS, but rather MAC being the centerpiece and in many cases an end station for players. There needs to be some drive to go towards DCS. If not I truly fear the future of DCS World. Where else will DCS get funding? I just hope that my fears are irrational and based on false speculation based on wrong information when it comes to it's future. However, moving all serial codes and all virtual assets to a better platform is always welcome. So if we all in the future migrate over to MAC I am on board! If we stay split, the flow of players must go the right direction. For honestly guys, does it really matter that there is another sim that draws players? Would that not be just like having a multiplayer server where the mission is designed to have only FC3 and SU25T selectable aircraft? The players that go there will be most the same that go to MAC? Maybe? What I mean is that there can not be much difference between joining a rookie server and booting up another sim and joining a server there. I hate the fact that I find myself viewing this to be a good point. I truly believe there is no difference there. So in ending notes, this has gone on for way longer than I was prepared to write today. Hope to hear for Eagle Dynamics in an update addressing the place MAC will have in relation to DCS. I truly think this is needed to put at rest the confusion I and many others are having now. Will I buy Modern Air combat (MAC)? Short answer; Yes! Reason; Hope to see some nice features and mechanics that make for a smoother sim experience. Will I leave DCS?; Short answer; NO! DCS is where I have a lot of assets and will hope to see more features that will keep DCS in the lead as the best Digital Combat Sim for civilians there is. And will hope to see players come in from MAC and get overwhelmingly positive over the great realism that DCS provides over MAC and that gameplay is way better in DCS after all. Thanks for reading this far. I have written this from the heart and as it rolled of my tongue so to speak. I have not read over my text before submitting as I want to keep this from the heart and unplugged. So where does this leave us DCS players? Less players to fly with? Maybe, maybe not?

Using current version of open beta. Nvidia 1080 card. HTC VIVE When looking at clouds during daytime, cloudcover level 8 or below. When flying co-altitude side by side with them the shader or whatever is causing it makes clouds darker gray on the right screen. But not solid state. It flickers. The left eye is stable color like you expect. To be clear; I am not talking about clouds moving as a sprite while moving your head. Simply that on the right screen the clouds sometimes flickers between white and dark gray. It may or may not happen when the sprite moves. Its a minor thing, but hope to have it fixed. And yes, I am aware of the upcomming update of the weather system. Looking forward to this also.

In short: I want an option to select the correct VR goggles that one might be using. Not all has VR, I know! But for those that do, it makes perfect sense to select your set from a drop-down menu. That way DCS knows where and what pixels to render, so it does not render more than you need. That should improve performance quite a bit. Now I may be wrong here, but it seems to me, just seems to me that the visual field of a VR goggle is not square. That it is round. If so, rendering only the circle would shave off 1/3 of invisible pixels. The circle inside a square math thing. So rendering only 2/3 of what you do now must be an improvement. We have many types of VR, and I think many sizes of pixel needed. So having a drop-down menu to select what to use for rendering would like I say, help performance. Yes there are mods for this. It seems to be the answer to all of DCS fans questions. But how about getting this to native DCS. Just do this if you have VR. Use the NVG's if you have a module that has that mind you. Lift your goggles up and look at your monitor. See that small circle. I think that is your true pixel need not the rest. I think that that size will vary depending on the set you have. I can't prove that. It just seems to me like that's the way that is. If so, we all have different rending need and we need to be able to select that from an in game settings menu. Like under the VR tab. Where the inspiration for this post came from:

Until the new reworked ATC update comes, I would like to have a tick box pr airfield to disable ATC AI. So when creating a mission for friends we can taxi and takeoff without hearing: Springfield one one, hold position. Do loop until mad! There are awkward ways around this, kind of sort of. But that's not what I am asking. Can we have tick boxes to disable ATC please?

And now the F5E. Hope to see a fix on this soon.

AAR filler quantity could be made easy enough. Have 10 choices in a submenu in coms menu. F1 10% F2 20% F3 30% ... F9 90% F10 100% That would mean, how full you want the aircraft to be when transfer complete is triggered. Fiddling around with pounds of fuel to transfer will be harder considering the amount of different aircrafts are going to refuel. Having a % will make sense to all, and be 'off the shelf' technology. Would like baskets colliding with airframe. And baskets getting sucked inn to the turbine or air intake. Probes that crack the cannope if we fly into it. If we bang it into the airframe, I want to hear it, making me cringe in an au au au fashion.

SP = Single Player MP = MultiPlayer

Thanks for the quick reply! Yes, I am using the HTC VIVE.

When I say that it is important to note I am using the open beta versjon. Also I am seeing the cables on both eyes when they are stationary, when they are at "rest". It is when an aircraft has stretched one of them to get arrested in that it becomes invisible on one screen/eye. Hope to have this very minor issue fixed.

The lights on this aircraft do not shine on the ground or the aircraft airframe. The lights seem to be just brighter surfaces more than the rest. Like the colour is just sett to bright. It seems to not have an impact on the world around it. Look at other aircrafts, they leave a shine on the wings and ground. A10C is a good example, perhaps the best example to show what I mean. Compare the A10C and the F14B. If this is indeed correct to the way it was in real life that would be fascinating to learn about. Not joking. Hope anyone representing Heatblur can give some insight to this. Thanks

As a workaround, you can when hooked up to the catapult press the lower nose gear switch again. Seems weird, I know. But worked for me. Also you can have the ground crew place wheel chocks while hooked up. Remove them again and you might get a launch after that. Yes the aircraft needs to be properly linked to the carriers movements. Just trying to help out.