VC

When you say "solved" you mean TWS Auto now tracks accurately in both azimuth and elevation?

Is the information in this thread still current or have there been any improvements to this feature? After learning the Viper I am finding the Hornet very frustrating to use in BVR. I agree with the above that Viper TWS is very slow to build tracks... which is why I always use RWS+SAM and that works fantastically. In the F-18 I decided to use RWS+LTWS instead and that works better for me than full TWS, but there's no scan centering on L&S in LTWS. For using TWS I've now bound PB13 so I can switch from MAN to AUTO and back (and in case I misclick and enter BIAS). Does that still not center in elevation? Does it center in elevation if I go via STT and PB10 as described earlier in the thread?

Absolutely, no sneak peeks at opponents.

When you log onto an MP server, you are presented with a list of slots and zero information about the current tactical situation on the server. I know most serious big servers supplement this with web maps and briefings but having to alt-tab to check those out is really frustrating, especially in VR. I would really love to be able to see, at a glance, before I pick my spawn slot, a map view with currently available airfields and approximate positions of the "front line", main ground target clusters etc. Even better if you can click around that map view a little to plan your mission, then pick your airfield from the map as well and see available planes there. Just an idea :music_whistling:

I think the switch was the issue, tried it with it in radar alt and it worked... mostly. It's still incredibly sensitive, have to check on it and adjust collective because I still get drift but its manageable, about 5-10m in per minute.

Yeah, I know it only has a little bit of control authority and you can over-ride it if you move the collective too far. But I'm making tiny movements of the collective and it alternates between rising and sinking very slowly.

Aircraft always drifts away from set altitude. I push the altitude button on the autopilot control panel, set autohover, set altitude with collective while holding the collective brake button, release and... it just keeps climbing. I move the collective down just a tiny bit and it starts sinking, sinks past the target altitude and keeps sinking. It should have enough control authority, the collective is more or less in the right place to start with. What am I doing wrong?

I think he is referring to VVS as opposed to PVO. PVO aircraft would have datalink as their only job was homeland defense and the fighters were directly integrated with the EWRs and SAM networks. VVS aircraft would be operating offensively, over enemy territory and likley out of friendly EWR range, so cost could by cut by not giving them datalink.

I still think that having it at a very basic level is better than not at all. You are making it too complicated, it doesn't need to have that level of logic. It can just use a basic threat rating based on range and closure speed, then give you the intercept point for that guy until something changes. The best way would actually be if RAZBAM did a plugin for Combined Arms, so JTAC can enter the information for individual aircraft.

A simple implementation that made the HUD pointer say "fly here for nearest bad guy" based on existing EWR and AWACS data would be plenty, still a world of difference to spamming "bogey dope". That's basically all Russian plane (plus Mirage) tactics at the moment though, with varying results. You could also say the 23 would be a slightly less capable 29A but at least full fidelity so more immersive and fun to fly (that cockpit looks amazing).

Nice! But does that mean it will only work with certain types of Russian EWR?

Apologies if this has been asked before, this is a long thread! Does the MiG-23 MLA as RAZBAM are developing it have datalink? I think I read somewhere it had a 2-way one with GCI and they were even able to fire its missiles from the ground. What does BVR look like in a MiG-23? There's no radar display in the cockpit, I assume the contacts and TDC are shown on the HUD like in the MiG-29, but without the backup repeater display? If it does have datalink, how and where would this information be displayed?

I can't zoom out in VR. I already try to avoid zooming in unless absolutely necessary (e.g. to ID), so I'm probably getting a good picture overall. I can spot against the ground, quite well in some conditions, but others not at all. The no shadows things explains it a bit, but even without shadows it doesn't really make sense to me that a light grey aircraft disappears against a dark green forest for example.

Amazing! Just when the cockpit re-work broke the old clean cockpit mod, we get this beauty building on the great work the devs are doing. Thanks Olsiv! And really good to see this module getting some love in general.

I'm at a point where I am happy with my ability to spot in DCS (VR, Vive Pro)... as long as the target isn't too far below me. Now, I do know spotting against the ground is supposed to be more difficult. But I often lose targets that I am already visually tracking at ranges inside 2nm, they go over a change in terrain colour and just disappear like they stopped rendering. They're not pixel dots anymore at that range and they aren't even camouflaged! Is this normal? Are there any graphics settings that I can tweak to help with this?

Same, I started VR with the original Vive and have not flown on a monitor since.

It's not impossible, you can set modifiers on your HOTAS to increase the available bindings, and you can place your keyboard in a way that you can easily find and feel your way around certain button groups (Inser-delete-home-end-pgup/dn and Numpad for example) to add more bindings there. And FC3 planes have such systems simplifcations it's not the same as for example trying to map every MFD button on a Hornet to your HOTAS. If all you want to do is a bit of MP you can skip a few things as well. Having said that, I would support a "partially clickable" FC3 upgrade. Not every switch for startup for example, but at least main panels like radar controls.

Thanks, that makes me feel better! I got worried partly because I noticed it at the same time I started getting a sound glitch in IL2 that made it feel like my cannons weren't firing, so I thought the trigger sensor was glitching. But in DCS I get continuous uninterrupted fire so it's fine. I was also suspicious because my previous stick, a T16k, eventually became unusuable due to a trigger sensor glitch. But in fairness that was after like 4 years of use.

What Taz said. I currently own both Idex and Vive Pro and testing side by side. Basically everyone says "you get used to the poor blacks on the Index everything else is worth it" and I would turn that around and say "you stop seeing the very slight SDE on the Vive Pro and the blacks and colour definition are worth it". Pure personal preference. As for the Res, the difference in clarity between the two is minimal. Obviously if we're talking about super-resolution things like Pimax and Reverb then that's a different matter, but those are more specialised, more expensive and require an even beefier PC to run. It's all compromises no matter how you look at it. And even then, I've looked at "through the lens" type video comparisons and I'm not seeing a quantum leap in visual clarity for those super-resoltuon headsets that I would expect comparing numbers alone. In my experience the lenses on the Index are far worse in terms of glare/god rays. And they also seem to blur the image slightly as a trick to hide the SDE. Don't know about the technical implications of pentile but as I said, for me the Index at the same nominal resolution as the Vive Pro looks only slightly clearer, and not in a way that makes any difference (there are no cockpit labels or instruments that I can read in the Index but can't in the Vive Pro).

The Vive Pro is one that isn't talked about much and a lot of people just dismiss, but it's also a great choice and generally in stock (if a bit expensive). Its main trump card and the reason I'm keeping mine is the OLED screens deliver a contrast and depth of colour that just blow all the LCD competition out of the sky.

Simplest addition would be include EWR info in existing AWACS logic. And put x1.5 playback speed on all the radio chatter :D

Yes but the Su-27S has datalink. I'm talking about improving the AWACS and possibly also GCI communications in the radio menu, for planes that do not have datalink to have a less frustrating and more realistic experience.

It would definitely be a lot of work, not something I'd expect quickly. I guess if it hasn't even been mentioned in passing it wouldn't be on the radar for a long time.

Are there any improvements planned to how AWACS behaves and speaks? I've been spoiled flying aircraft with datalink, I admit it. I would love to spend more time flying ones without it and I'm sure I could train my SA in them but the AWACS experience in DCS is frustrating and a barrier to really enjoying and being effective in a lot of planes. I would love to see: more responsive and faster speaking AWACS; right now it takes forever to answer a bogey dope, both delay and slow talking, and sometimes misses the call completely (especially in MP) some AI prioritisation of what AWACS tells you about; it needs to stop wasting your air-time with calls on contacts 100+ miles away while there are bandits hot on you within 30 miles automatic increased frequency of updates on priority contacts based on their threat level (range and hot or not) and whether they have maneouvered significanlty since last call interrupting; part of responsiveness, if it is halfway through a generic call and something pops up 10 miles away it should stop and tell you that instead; and if you call bogey dope it should also stop what it's already saying and reply if possible, AI GCI providing same service as AWACS but using ground based EWRs, for when AWACS is not available This would really improve the experience for many modules covering a wide range of historical scenarios where datalink is not available in the plane or not realistic for the time period.

I've had this stick for 6 months now and it's great, but I started noticing something about the trigger second stage. It's not causing me issues in DCS yet but it's bugging me slightly. When I pull the trigger past the detent for the second stage, it registers the second stage action. However, it is possible if I hold it really gently to release the second stage without going back past the detent. There seems to be a small gap, or wiggle room, where the physical trigger is past the detent into second stage but the sensor isn't active. I can tell also because there's another small click, seemingly for the sensor itself, that I can push on/off by gently varying the trigger pressure, again all while staying well past the second stage detent. Is this normal? Is this something others have experienced? Should I be worried that this will get worse over time?