Ducksen

It would be nice to be able to for specific aircraft set up a list of custom points of interest. They could show on kneeboard as a points list with coordinates and a short text string of what that is. Say you are in an F/A-18 and need to enter a lot of coordinates for bombs or anything else. Having them right there on the kneeboard while you type will be of good help. Alternative is F10, F1, F10, F1, F10 depending of short term memory to remember coordinates and elevation data. For a mission designer to click on points of interest on the map in the editor that populates the kneeboard automatically. Like in the F14B Tomcat. The extra points of interest gets populated on the kneeboard. I am sure there are many aircraft fixed or rotary that all will benefit from a function like that.

Agree on the limited Russian carrier-launched air to ground capabilities in the current state of DCS. Needs to be expanded. Half-baked naval frog. THAT had me cracking up! Thanks for that. Did a quick search and found this gem. https://images.app.goo.gl/7EA63HbyTt41bciE6

You make a fair point. DCS can have a base tolerance. Then the specific aircraft can have bonuses applied to subtract on the base value. Anyway, the tolerance it self was not the case here. More how G-stress is experienced, regardless of tolerance level.

The new G-force effect that came with the Viper F16 module is awesome. The light dims as you breath hard, and the sound dims as well. All coms from AI are reduced almost to zero before blacking out. This greatly enhances the immersion. Why is that an F16 thing? It seems like G-force effect is bound to the module, and not the pilot. This should be a global thing. Seeing that it is the pilot that has the blood going out of or into the brain and not the specific module. Also, while we are at it. G-force training speaks of loss of color during G-force. If this is a fact, can the color be de-saturated when G-force is applied? So in short, bring the loss of hearing from the F16 to ALL modules as a DCS thing and include loss of color not just amount of light like it is today. AKA fade to black. :joystick: :pilotfly:

A quick question. Does anybody have a good solution to reducing the overly vibrant green terrain on the Caucasus map? The winter textures are AWESOME! The Trees are darker green and the terrain sometimes looks a bit black and white, Just like in real life. I have first hand experience with that. Love it. But the green version and somewhat the brown map in the Caucasus map looks like the saturation bar has gone to far right. Or maybe the shader model is off. This is not a bug report, nor a complaint. It is a simple question of is it possible to reduce the vibrancy of the colors? For I have not met anyone that thinks it looks a bit like a green block of lego, and less a green field of grass. On the other hand, add inn some clouds and rain and now we are cooking. Looks good right away. My colors on other games look like they should, but on DCS Caucasus not so good. Is there a solution that others apply? I feel a bit alone in this.

There has to be posts on this from the beginning of DCS time. However, I wish to state that it would be nice to have vapor clouds around the aircraft when we pass the sound barrier. Looking out the cockpit and seeing thick clouds. And seeing other AI and pilots in MP go from not so visible to, oh, there they are. I think this would be a good feature. Maybe it comes with a new remake of cloud systems that ED has said is coming... ? Hopeful...

+1 Regardless of ED bringing it back or not. This post lingers on a point that scaling vs expectation is a bit off. I have had a feeling that the scaling of the sim is off. I have had NO WAY to prove that. Buildings look way to small, some of them look like they could fit on a hardpoint under the wing. YES I am joking, I don't believe them to be that small. I just feel they are. Using the measuring tool in the DCS Editor, some runways are 60-100 meters wide. A soccer field is 100 meters LONG. When taxing around that it does not feel that large. YES the aircrafts are large in real life. But I have no sense that I could play a full sized soccer match on the width of a runway in DCS. The math adds up, you can, but the feeling of scale is off. And objects size will help giving people good vision again. I am using a Vive VR system for display device. I like it a lot, resolution is poor(NOT ED's fault!), and I can not see far at all. Only when right on top of me. Labels are valuable to find anything. I have a programmable keyboard and have set a function of activating labels on a key. Keep it off, but for that superman question; "Is it a bird, is it a plane...." I use labels. My wish, honestly, Make scaling feel right, solve the object size for all regardless of 4K or VR. And after that, make labels unavailable unless in debug mode for mission creation and design.

+1 This would be a great module and fit just right in.

+1 100% agree with OP. Great idea! As for the back and forth of it being a bother to just press the com button or not....Well.... Here is what you do. Read the text that the OP wrote! All that back and forth is fruitless. Those who want that function can have it active, those who do not like it, well, deactivate it. Very simple nice quality of life option for all. No conflict, no one else involved, just you and your opinion and freedom to check or uncheck a box in the settings of DCS at your own will. Simple.

Just a hopefully quick question. I know the term ANGELS refers to elevation in thousands of feet above sea level. Used to name a hight of an aircraft. Example; 9000 feet is angels 9. In multiplayer there are aircrafts using both feet and meters. I heard a few people stating that angels are used for both meters and feet above sea level. I am finding that impossible to belive. Seeng as in a multiplayer session saying angels 3 can mean 3000feet and 3000 meters. So is there a term for meters above sea level? Demons are used for meters BELOW sea level I have found in a brevity manual. But nothing for meters above sea level.

Thanks for the information! So in short, the probe needs to purge the fuel in the boom before self retracting. So no fuel is left in the boom while stowed. It takes 1-2 min. Again thanks, no further questions.

Hi all, using current open beta version. For some time I have encountered a 100% consistant problem retracting my refueling boom. It extends fine, but the same button does not retract the boom back into my aircraft. What am I missing? I need some advice and knowhow. How do I retract the boom? Thanks

Well as in repeat press, yes, I would imagine so. But imagine slowly increasing the pressure from no pressure to full pressure. And while going slowly slowly from 0-100% the kachunk sound loops many times on its way up. If you press it in from 0-100 fast it makes a kachonk sound once. Is that like the real MIG29 was? Seems strange. I can live with this, but believe it to be a bug.

Is there a difference in how the MIG29S and A handles on landing in DCS stable version and in Open Beta? I am finding it very hard to believe the way it performs during landing in Open Beta is approximately correct. I have another post on the bounce. So please in respect to the original poster here don't go off topic. Question here is does the landing of the MIG29 perform the same in both stable and open beta versions? Does anybody know? Meaning will the recipe stated in replies here apply to both versions?

I fly in DCS Open Beta. When using the break lever "W", it makes a nice sound to indicate breaking. Love that part. However, when one maps the break to a variable input in the axis bind page of the control setup the sound repeats. To be clear, it only repeats in a loop if you slowly press the break inn. The sound file repeats for the duration of increase of value on the axis interacting with the breaks. If you slam the thing to max faster than the duration of the soundfile it sounds like it should. Taking longer than the soundfile, it loops and starts over. Leaving it sounding like you press the breaks multiple times as if pumping them, when all you are doing is breaking half strength slowly to max break. Kachonk, kachonk, kachonk, kachonk, kachonk, for one singular continuous press. Not a big deal, but worth mentioning. I will not loose any sleep over this, just noticed it.

YES!!! Love it! That would give ED a steady income. Those like me who have a lot of modules could have that total sum added to a grace account. Not needing to pay untill all of that was accounted for. Make ALL modules and content available from first logon to ALL. The team could do with some expansion. Give them a chance to grow larger. DCS is becoming a beast of a game and needs more people. Let them grow! To be clear, I would gladly pay 10$ a pr month for this game. Maybe get a secondary team that focuses on narrated game content in multiplayer servers and have THAT be subscription based. Narrated missions are the best. And if for a test start ED could start a subscription based narrative content I will say, open wide, here comes my subscription. We pay pr month for films and other content. Why not this?

I agree with most of this. Lights should be visable at long distances. I agree that lights seem to fade real quick, where they should not. There is the situation with all modules following different light intensity. Take the mig21 with taxi lights on and the tomcat. There are huge differences. And before anyone misunderstands, I do know that in real life all makes and models are different. Some exterior navlights, and collition lights as have been mentioned here are too dim. Thereseems to be a lack of standard for lighting as in a minimum intensity. ED should force all modules to comply with new lighting tech and demand all third party devs to revise module lighting, after ED have redone lights. As far as sunlight and starlight goes, well, dont know. The stars are to dim in VR it seems to me. And the Caucasus map seem to vibrant in colour when green and brown. Specially when green. Does that mean a texture issue, meaning off topic here, or is that a sunlight lighting issue? The winter Caucasus is really nice. The trees go dark green and looks really good.

All landing techniqe aside. There is a serious abnormal physics bug to the landing of the MIG29. I got a landing without the bounce. With highest possible load, and lightest possible wight. Good landings on both configurations. So what is then the big deal? I have narrowed it down to the nose gear. If you land purely on rear gear without nosegear contacting the ground before untill much later down the runway, then all seems normal. So, I wanted to push the limit to find the bug. Because what I see on my end when it bounces is not normal, has NEVER happened in real life, and never will, ever. I flew 560kph directly into a hilltop. Making sure to hit the nosegear only. The MIG29 bounces up and I gain approx 200m elevation. Nosegear and tire is intact. No damage. Same in lesser scale if you land and let the nose gear come down early. Bounce is seriously unrealistic. Gaining approx 1 - 20 m elevation. Higher elevation if you really aim for it. Rear gear performes normally, nosegear is the issue.

Hey, thanks for the quick response people! Well I am doing it like on both your two videos and big bounce happens. I will try more later when I have time and experiment a bit. For the record, if inn fact my landings are to hard, I would rather the gear break and bellyflopp the aircraft than to bounce. The physics I am seeing on my end is really supernatural. It is like a cartoon. I am only missing the boing, boing boing sounds. One bounce leeds to another and ends up beeing nose gear first with a bounce and rear gear flipps nose forward again and again. It looks like a galloping giddy steed. Talk about horsepower :) I could probably jump over a SA10 Clam Shell (CS) radar if things where lined up perfectly. I land; SU25, SU25T, F15C, SU27, SU33 on land and carrier, A10A, A10C, FA18C on land and carrier, F14B on land and carrier, F5, Mig21bis. Probably more I can not think of now. Point is, None of them act any where near this. Anyway... Like I said, I will experiment more. Valued the response and feedback.

MIG 29S has huge bounce on landing The aircraft will bounce a lot on landing. 5 - 20 meters in the air like a basketball. Seems like the landing gear needs new dampeners :smilewink: Same problem as the MIG 29A etc. Don't know about the MIG29G, assuming the same there.

Good news! I like alot. Native radio coms. Looking forward to that. Tune the channel and talk. *big smile*.

+1 Built inn. And guids from ED on how best to get the most out of hardwear. Guessing ED knows best how it is programmed and can best guide us.

A menu for managing loadouts for all your aircrafts. So people that do not want to deal with the editor to create and save custom loadouts. Include fuelstates, gun ammo quantity and type and countermeasures. And that would be a little thing make things easier and interesting.

Thanks guys! Valued responses. So it is working as intended then. Nice to know. :thumbsup:

On the SPO-15 Beryoza you get a solid tone for radar lock and quick alernating bip bip bip bip tones when a radar guided missile tracks. The missiles from the SA-19 Tunguska are without smoke and no warning. The only clue you have is a solid tone for radar lock. It works as intended for the SA-8 OSA for example.