Cavemanhead

Torso, I just got a Samsung VR to test the waters... Really amazing tech but needs to develop; I'm thinking of jumping in at the next round of 2k each eye. Can you make an apples to apples comparison of Rift vs VR? I think many in the community have are doing the same thing and would benefit from a comparison of someone with both HMDs. Thanks for your post!

Agreed. I love the idea of as much realism as possible with the restriction due to straps as long as I could see "realistically" on gauges that were as big as real life... I'll need to wait for a 40+ monitor for that... In the meantime, thanks all for the feedback and thanks for the LUA file!

I remember at least 1-2 threads on the subject... Looking for an inexpensive solution for a large monitor experience (32"-40")... Recommendations and things to know... I've got a 4770k and a GTX 970 FTW. Looking for what makes a good setup for DCS and why.

Will these amazing skins become available to the community eventually?

Where is a good place to see the "procedural" grass? Assumption is that the flags move on the posts from wind? What kind of environmental sounds are you hearing? Thanks for feedback...

What do you folks think? Busy with work right now so not much time to enjoy any recreational flying... What changes / improvements have you noticed?

Does anyone know if the "black mailbox", or the "alie-Inn" north of Area 51 is modeled? I've been thinking about taking a heli out there to find out...

The slat change was not just an animation as explained by Yo-Yo here... It was tied to the flight model: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2902314&postcount=42

Looks awesome, but I have one question... Do all the contents of this skin's folder go into the aircraft skin folder?

+1 Starting to get old and really appreciate better use of monitor real estate...

Ditto... I fly similarly and I'm not concerned if I can mix it out...

Thanks so much for responding on this issue! One of the reasons I keep paying good money for DCS are little tweets like this from the developers as I find the making of a flight sim as much value as the sim itself! FM discussions are an especially interesting aspect of the development process. I've always thought Yo-Yo's post are so very interesting and thought provoking and have always learned something from them. I look forward to the next patch when the situation is rectified. Perhaps a hot fix is coming soon? I'm a 45 year old mechanical engineer who has enjoyed "all things that fly" since as early as I can remember. As such I suspect the terms "compression" and "clamping" may be a bit of a translation issue into their English use as. My circle of engineers use "compression" and "clamping" to describe a few things, none of which I readily understand in the context of FMs (but admittedly I am not a programmer). English speaking engineers will generally use compression in the following contexts: 1) A structural member under load that is receiving a "pressing force" (opposite of a "pull" when a member is in tension). 2) A gas that is in a container which is made smaller as it is squeezed, thereby decreasing the volume (and correspondingly increasing the pressure within the gas). 3) When a series of events or data points is shrunk down by throwing out unneeded resolution of the data into more coarse data points. In this way, one might say the "data is compressed" into something more useful than in its raw state. Perhaps there may be additional data points added into a given area that give the appearance of compression in the sense that there are many points crammed into a smaller area. On "clamping", this term is not so widely used: 1) One could say "clamping" to describe a method in which the end result is compression. i.e. clamping 2 pieces of a composite material together as they are bonded. In this situation, the composite pieces are "clamped". 2) In a more esoteric way, someone may refer to clamping as "truncating" or stopping the flow or calculation of something... I suspect in Yo-Yos vernacular, the FM changes regarding compression and clamping have to do with definitions 3 and 2 respectively. Then again, I'm a mechanical engineer, not an expert in computer science. Hoping he will chime in again... To be perfectly blunt, I think the change was not a step in the right direction for the plane (outside the context of behavior isolated to slats) and hope it returns to something very close to the way it was prior to the coding algorithms (wires?) for the slats being removed. Hopefully when the links are reestablished, the 109 will fly similarly to how it did before the latest change. I have no interest in "performance" one way or another (I love low performance planes as long as they "feel" right). The 109 flew very believably prior to the last change. After the last change it just felt much less like a flying object under the influence of physical laws as it transitioned through the various regimes of flight, and more like something that seems "forced"... No, I haven't flown a 109 in real life, but I have flown other full scale planes, simulators, and RC planes for many years so I have an understanding of what is "believable". Thanks again for a great simulator and the dedication to realism which are what keep me coming back.

Agreed. A simple slider to adjust FOV at startup would be awesome.

It is not visual only. Definitely not! I know the nuances of this plane at many altitudes and it was spot on before the last patch... Now, it feels like it's reverted to an early Beta or even alpha FM.

Really hope this gets worked out. The new behavior is awful. They had it dead nuts on before this most recent patch. I know because I have been known to simply test fly and land the 109 for 4-6 hrs at a time... It's changed and it's lost the beauty it had before... Oh... and the slats don't work...

This is great and very much appreciated. Do you have this same thing for the Nevada map?

Great posts in this thread... Noticed the same things about lights, stars, etc...

Anyone mind giving this a shot? Thanks in advance!

L39 is ~$60 USD. I have $58 bonus bucks. 60% of $60 is $36 The L39 should cost $24 (after $36 of my $58 bonus bucks are used). But, in the cart it discounts only $18 (instead of $36) Anyone else with an issue?

If yes to subject line, how do I go about getting the Mig 29 flyable in DCS 2.0.3?

Wow... Will post request for touch and go's in the wishlist... Should be a very basic function to include... Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I'd like to make a mission that puts planes of each era at each of the 4 airports, etc... And then simply practice take-offs, landings, etc... While there are other planes in the pattern practicing touch and goes, etc... Does one simply make a given plane have a landing waypoint and TO waypoint immediately after? Is that how to get them to perform a touch and go?

Ok... I generally go into the cockpit and press "enter" to move the eyepoint to a non fisheye sort of view which is where I like to fly from. The issue is that when I lean forward in TIR, I'm quickly restricted by how much the view will change even if I lean in very close... I can't get very close in... It appears to be a restricted view like to simulate I was strapped in or something... But, I don't care about that... I need to be able to zoom right in with TIR to examine gauges, etc... It appears the view file may help...

Does anyone have this issue: Using TIR, I can only zoom in a certain amount before I run into an invisible "brick wall". This make it very hard to read certain instruments and panels, etc... Other planes have a much more well defined view up close such that one can move their virtual eyeball within 1-2" of the gauge... But with the F-5E cockpit, the ability to get close to the gauge or panel is limited to ~9" (guess from memory, but I do recall that it was impossible to read the caution panel). Furthermore, I just noticed that in Chuck's guide, it appears he has some "closeup" views... Closer that what the TIR allowed... I have no issue with TIR in any of the other cockpits... This is all vary curious... Any thoughts/ideas on this?

Very helpful. Thanks again for your feedback.