SMH

Because it's work and their announcement was clear that they're trying to reduce their workload. Could they do an update just to release a new module? Yes. Will they?

And it's summer in Australia, which coincidentally also seems to be where you shifted the goalposts to.

With the newly announced 6 week (at best) update cycles, if it doesn't release by mid-February they will miss the "end of winter" promised deadline as first of April will be the next update period. (We never see new modules released without a corresponding update as it has to be included as an AI in the base-sim.)

Doesn't work, I can only open the gear lock with my keybinding. It's ridiculous to need to use up TWO switches on your stick for obvious toggle functions like NWS on/off and the gun safety. How did they miss this obvious issue?

Again, I suspect it's not the lights, it's the shadows they cast. Fiddle with your shadow options. (Start by disabling shadows completely just to verify that fixes it. Then gradually increase settings and re-test until the problem reappears.)

It's dependent on the Mission settings, I believe. But it's likely one of the shadow settings that's causing the frame rate drop. Try fiddling with those in DCS' graphics options page.

Are you sure it's not your display thinking the screen is black and going into power saving mode? My LG does that and it's incredibly annoying. I've turned off every stupid automatic setting but the function seems hard-wired.

Recording with OBS instead of NVidia's recorder is another work-around. The cursor looks correct in OBS. (Which might indicate it's actually NVidia's bug, but then it used to work with DCS.)

You're just repeating patent falsehoods now so I'm not going to get drawn further into this with you.

I just noticed this too. It looks like variable names are being output as labels. Or maybe the labels haven't been completed for those options yet (which would be part of their internationalization package as we obviously don't see the same labels in different languages). No idea what either of those would do. Are they new? Were there only 2 Overlay options listed there before? (Just searched for those names in every .cfg and .lua file in the sim. Didn't find any matches.)

1. No, that's incorrect. Servers (through their own settings as well as the settings in the mission file the server is serving) can restrict external views, map modes, "cheats" like padlock, easy flight and the ability to turn off the cockpit rendering, and lots more. If you add an option to have transparent canopies they'll absolutely need to add the ability to restrict/enforce that in the Mission editor as well. (This also means it needs to be a "live" option that can change on the fly, where the existing lua edit isn't one, it's loaded at start-time and stays stuck how it is for your entire session, so don't assume that work is done and tested for all planes. Do you ever join a mission and are told, "sorry, you need to change your options and restart the sim"? No, because those options are enforced in real time when you join the mission/server. So, I wouldn't necessarily assume it's as easy as adding a couple of checkboxes to the settings and ME interfaces.) 2. Only after they had added three new settings and made every single aircraft obey those new settings. (And, again, you could be done with this now if you'd just make that simple lua edit.) 3.Who can see cleanly through their glass and why? Are you suggesting we see different things? We're not supposed to. (Excepting some obvious differences re: VR and the number of eyes we have. And as I've already pointed out, the ability for VR users to put their PoV outside the canopy glass really needs to be fixed because that is an unfair exploit as well). 4. ...and also be added to the restriction/enforcement list in the ME and server interfaces. But, yes, maybe you're right that aircraft already know how to implement that lua-option, but again, is it a live option? Probably not! All I'm suggesting is that a better place for their development effort to go is into getting the new reflections finished for all aircraft, and doing some clean-up work on the few aircraft where the effect is over-done or wrong looking. And add reflections on the HUD glass too, as it should obviously have them. (And they won't be much as the HUD glass is angled down towards the black dash. Mostly we should only see the light from the projector lens reflected in them, as is already "painted on" in many aircraft, but that looks bad when all the other glass reflections now move with your PoV except that one.)

I see nothing wrong with your photograph (other than it's taken when the screen is darkened because you have the menu up - try Pause next time). And you don't seem to understand what the word "model" means. Yes, DCS does model death, and of course that doesn't actually kill you any more than modeling flight actually makes you fly out of your chair and go somewhere else. What you call "masochism" I call "realism" and it's the entire reason why I fly this sim and no others. And, again, you're not forced at all. But what you're trying to do is force ED to add three new options as well as make sure those options work in every single aircraft. On the other hand, all I'm asking them to do is finish the new reflection work for all aircraft, and consider cleaning it up some in aircraft where it's a bit too much and/or the mapping coordinate geometry looks wrong. Which is work they had to do anyway. I'm just voting for them completing the work they promised, rather than making and implementing new options (that, again, will require changes to every aircraft) just to hide the fact that this work is still incomplete. Where would you rather see their time and our money spent? Particularly given that you can just make a quick edit to a single script file and have it your way right now. (And if you don't care about multi-player then that's even better, as the IC system won't be a problem for you then.)

Ease up on the straw-man arguments there please, guys. Why can servers restrict features? Because those features can be used as exploits. And having a perfectly transparent canopy when other players don't is an exploit. It is not the same as expecting the enemy to fly the same aircraft as me in any way. It's expecting the enemy (and also my friends) to fly with the same realistic limitations that I do, so they don't have an unfair advantage over me (or over anyone) just because they'd rather be playing a video game than a high-realism sim. And, you're forcing me to repeat myself, you already can mod your aircraft cockpit textures, as well as that lua edit mentioned above, to make your cockpit canopies fully transparent. You just (thankfully) won't be able to join servers that have IC check enabled, because you're using the mod as an exploit to make the sim easier for you than it is for those who want to fly realistically. (Same as if you modded textures to make all enemy planes orange day-glo.) If you had your option (and then, necessarily, also two more options to enforce it on mission files and servers) you'd be in the exact same situation as server operators who don't allow exploits like external view to be enabled would surely also disable fully-transparent canopies. I also don't understand this claim that it doesn't affect everyone equally. How doesn't it? You think some can see through the canopy easier than others? Who? How? (And, yes, all aircraft don't have the better, "live" reflections yet. But that was my original point. They really should be done by now and that is what we really need, as well as some attention to the geometry and textures which, yes, should probably be tweaked on some aircraft because the effect is a little strong in them.) (And I'm not further engaging with MAXsenna for reasons that should be obvious.)

It is something the other players on that server need to be bothered about, because you now have an unfair and unrealistic advantage. (Same as VR users who can put their heads out of the canopies do, that needs to be fixed ASAP as well.)

And enabling this new option you guys want would also be seen as an exploit in all those same MP servers where they don't want users who can't accept reproduction of real-life problems in their video game. You're not supposed to be able to see well out of your canopy at all lighting angles. (Though, again, I think they need to doublecheck their geometry because often those angles don't look right.) This isn't about me, this is about you having an advantage over me in a MP server. And as everyone is pointing out, you already can mod your sim to do this and, yes, be rightfully banned from most serious MP servers because of it, because I wish for you to have to deal with all the same real-world disadvantages that I do. And I want all of them. (We already model death for example. Who wants that? Yet it wouldn't be a fair or accurate sim without it.)

Wow, that's rude. And you can already mod cockpit textures to do this and servers can already enforce "clean" textures. You already have your demand.

No such thing as an unscratched canopy when the lighting angle is right (or rather, wrong) though I do agree some go a bit overboard. Also sometimes you can clearly see the repeating pattern which isn't so good. (The pattern overlaid twice at different angles and scaling could fix that, if it's not too costly to render.) But yes, instead of an option to turn off the "painted on" canopy reflections, how about they just finish that work and do it for all aircraft? Also, they really need to check their geometry as I'm sure we're seeing reflections of things we shouldn't see reflected in particular parts of the canopy. Like the "ACHTUNG" on the seat armor in the FW's when you check six. Pretty sure the angle from the eye to the glass normal is too acute for the reflection on that part of the glass to point to that part of the cockpit. (It should probably point well behind the headrest armor, basically outside the cockpit.) Also, HUD glass should have live reflections as well as the canopy and instrument glass. And that green glow from the projecting lens shouldn't be "painted on", it should appear to change its position on the glass as you move your head around, like the new canopy reflections do and like the HUD image does (though of course its projected out as if at infinity where the glow has a relatively close source point). Oh and does the back cockpit wall and floor of the Mi-8 really need to be waxed to a mirror shine? If we can afford reflections on all those surfaces, fine, but at least blur it up a lot more.

Another way to do it would be automatic, depending on where your head is pointing. Even if there was an option to just make the pilot body turn off momentarily when you looked down at a side panel that would be good and save us from having to hit the keyboard or waste a controller switch on it.

One more wish would be "move left arm", "move right arm" keybinds, so you don't have to toggle the entire pilot model off to see the side panels. (And then you could potentially make elbow sensors that trigger them!)

I really prefer the pilot model on whenever possible (as long as I don't need to see or interact with anything under my arms) but I don't like seeing my own head and helmet in the way when checking six. Can we have an option to at least turn our pilot model's heads off? (And same for the Apache which has this same issue.) I'd rather see a headless neck than have my view blocked by a representation of my head that isn't even tracking where I'm looking (as it doesn't seem to be able to turn past 90 degrees as pilot body motion isn't modeled like it is in the Tomcat). If it could track where we were looking then you could locate the camera just in front of the eyes so you'd never see your own face (except in the mirrors) but it doesn't seem to be designed for that. Also the O2 hose flits from side to side, always on the side you're looking towards.

The nozzle geometry. Here's a photo I took a few days ago. You know what? Maybe it is no better. I think you're right now, I was just wishful thinking. Surprised this wasn't in the hotfix. How hard could it be? Surely it's just something counting from 1 when it should have counted from 0 or something like that.

Refer to the image in the first post on this thread. Then compare to the nozzles I just posted. It's better. (Though I'm still not sure if it's as detailed as the Newsletters led us to believe. Like, the engine nacelles in the Newsletter photo in that first post look far smoother on the sides than what we currently have. I'd hate to think they spent tons of hours on art too good for the sim to actually use.)

Definitely higher resolution nozzles on the B-1 than before. The B-52... not so sure. And the S-3s don't look that detailed at all (like, they have textures instead of geometry modeled vortex generators) though of course they're a great improvement over what we had before. (Now if only we had a Seahawk that didn't stick out like a sore thumb on our supercarrier decks!) I do feel like the previews we were shown were a lot more detailed though, but need to go through them and compare, as in that Hoggit post at the top.

Looks better now. (But wasn't mentioned in the Changelog.) Except maybe the B-52? Hard to say, but it doesn't feel like the same detail we saw in all those shots in the Newsletters.

MSAA, by definition, doesn't supersample the whole picture (that's what SSAA does). Just the edges of objects, where "jaggies" are expected to happen. Also note there's this setting in the NVidia Control Panel (and I assume there's an AMD equivalent). It will clean up edges of transparent textures, like the trees, and I see virtually no performance hit from using it. (Which I have been for years. This together with MSAA are just as good as SSAA, but much faster.)