Cavemanhead

After flying the P51, 190, and 109 and lurking... These are my assumptions of where things are relative to final release; please advise if incorrect: P-51: Final Release has already been done... Expect some minor tweaks here and there with new versions of 2.0, but basically the plane is officially released. 190: Beta stage plane has completed elements but still tweaking with final release in the future... when? 109: Alpha/Beta stage elements with final release in the future... when?

Hmmm... I read the forums here and there and just picked up this alt + enter tip... I assume it's a toggle? I have noticed some jerkiness but assumed that was normal since it only occurs in detailed scenery areas. Will have to see if vsync matters as well... Assumption is performance will suffer when on. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Thanks, I'll do some reading...

Thanks so much. I'll give it a whirl.

Where can I read a manual on how to use the mission editor... All I want to do is put myself in an ME 109 with a few planes doing touch and goes ad naseum as I'm practicing TOs and landings...

Thanks for the link. Yes, making movement of the flap switch to the center can become "routine" but is pretty clumsy... And you lose the visual reference of where the flaps are positioned based on the switch position (arguably a "nice to have", but not necessary)... The biggest issue is the command being sent repeatedly to the WH long after the flaps are full up/down IF you forget to "terminate" the automatic flap movement. Target works fine for me and I like the GUI so I will intend to keep it... Yeah repeating from above... making movement of the flap switch to the center can become "routine" but is pretty clumsy... To each his own I guess... But... Then you only have limited flap positions instead of the infinite amount the 109 allows by design! Thanks... I'll need to study a bit to fully grasp the script. Thanks for posting... Appreciated.

Hmmm... I think we're nearly on the same page. When I say eyepoint, I do mean the head position - or more specifically, my eyeball position as a part of my virtual head in the sim... I've been assuming that when the view recedes back from the instrument panel after the "fly" button is pressed that the view is settling to the correct head position for that particular plane such that if I could transport myself to the real cockpit seat, I'd be seeing the same thing... So, is the default position considered the "correct eyepoint" for a given plane? I started suspecting it was not when I saw a small fishbowl effect but it sounds like that is another set of values in the .lua file... I have a 1920 x 1080 monitor... Looks like some hunting is in order to get things "right"...

Thanks for info... I've been operating under a few assumptions: 1) FOV was intimately tied to the eye point... The further back one sits relative to reality, the more fishbowl things would be... What you describe makes it sound like FOV and eye point are segregated things... 2) DCS would have made the nominal default eye point "perfect" for each plane by default... In other words, when I'm in the cockpit of a 109 and my eyeball is exactly 24" from the instrument panel, then in the sim it would be close to that (set via some "average pilot model", etc...)

Yeah, the slider is another switch I'm considering... For a plane like the 109, the slider can give a great visual indication of where the flaps are... All the way forward is retracted, and all the way down is extended... full throw on the slider = full throw on the flaps... For 190 it's a little uglier as there will be a "range" can be programmed into the axis so that top 33% (or whatever amount) becomes "retracted", middle 33% is TO flaps, and bottom 33% is extended... Thanks for commenting... Yeah, this was a considered method but I went another route based on your allusion to the potential issue... Unless the sim automatically stops the command to retract or extend (when it gets to the "stops"), then you are pounding the sim with a stream of commands via your WH which may cause issues (if you forget to stop)... Not sure how the sim interprets an "extend" or "retract" command when the wheel reaches the mechanical stops... Anyone know? See previous post. How are you "stopping" the up/down command once the wheel gets to the stop. I'd like it to stop automatically... Maybe the sim already does this... And... how do you get variable flaps positions for various TO/landing/combat flaps positions... I'd like to maintain the infinite variability of the 109 flap... Agree with your rationale on the 109 aside from 2 things: 1) the handwheel would not continue to crank indefinitely... perhaps the sim terminates the flaps command from the WH once the crank reaches the stops (see posts above)... 2) The pilot could stop the crank at any point for infinitely variable control. For 190, AFAIK, you should be able to set the switch to 3 discrete positions: retracted, TO, and landing... No need to divide out your EAC switch for TO...

Thanks. Is there a such thing as a downloadable manual for DCS and each of the planes. I know there is supposed to be at least a .pdf for each plane but they are not yet part of 2.0... Can I get the .pdfs for the planes and the DCS simulation anywhere else that would explain things like the numpad enter key or is this tribal knowledge?

Yes, I too have a VERY STRONG priority for "standardization"... In fact, that is one of the reasons for my question... By design, the 109 flaps are "meant" for the 3 way China Hat since it returns to a "no state" when it falls back into it's middle, neutral position. This allows the switch to be held forward to retract the flaps or held backwards to extend the flaps to a desired amount (as long as the switch is physically held). Once the desired amount is achieved, the switch is physically let go, and it springs back into it's middle, neutral position. It appears to be the only switch on the throttle that operates like this... Logically, this operation "matches" the way in which the 109 flaps operate. BUT... Suppose I want to map the 109 type flap to the "FLAP" switch on the WH (the one that's meant to be a FLAP switch by default). That switch does a great job for a plane that has discrete stop points like the 190 because the forward position can be "retracted, middle can be TO Flaps and back position can be "retracts" (3 discrete steps)... SO... How does one overcome the issue that this switch stays in a given position for a plane like the 109... What happens then is that the flaps would indefinitely move to a retracted or extended position depending on the switch and the WH would continue getting the key command to extend or retract indefinitely... That would seem problematic... Am I missing something here?

I typically fly this plane but I've noticed the other DCS planes do this as well: When I start something like a Takeoff mission, I'm in the cockpit near the dash and the eyepoint backs out and then stops at some predetermined location. What is happening here? And... What is the correct eyepoint to best avoid the fishbowl effect when one has it set too far back? I'd like to best replicate the view as the "average real pilot" would see (height, forward, etc...)...

Because of the unique infinite variability of the flaps, it seems the best switch to map to is the red china 3 position switch on the bottom right of the throttle (2 position momentary with middle position return)... OR... is there another way? I'm thinking of programming in a few stages to this scheme so if I there can be combat flaps, TO flaps, landing flaps, etc... It gets a bit tedius holding the switch down... Does anyone else have a favorite flaps setup that they use?

This will be a dedicated flight sim monitor... I'd love to use something larger, but 40" is max I can have in the avail space (long story). Will this be an issue? As for the 60hz vs 120hz... I currently run my monitor at 60Hz... What does "easy on the eyes" mean?

Hey guys... This is exactly what I want to do and I really appreciate the research and tweaking behind the decision... The area I have is only 38" across so I'd have to go with the 40" (instead of the 48")... I'll be sitting proportionally closer in my pit so the assumption is everything will still "look as big" and the pixels will be packed that much more closely to support good close viewing... I don't understand the importance of wanting the text size to be the same as a 27" 1080 monitor... What does that matter? Right now I have a 23" 1080 monitor so I'm guessing it would look "the same" for me since I'm used to the smaller text size I guess??? How about texture swimming, etc... Do you find more or less than with a standard monitor... Also, can you point me to the info on the chroma 4:4:4 and what that means and also explain why only 60 (and not 120) is needed for flight sims (as opposed to other games). I know that is the case but I've never understood why gaming guys get so hot/bothered over 120 when us flight sim guys know that 60hz is nirvana already...

That makes sense with the alt-space and space... Thanks. It worked.

As a general rule, I don't like to change the DCS default mapping but if I have to I will... My question is very simple... Why doesn't the following work right? For FW-190 MG131 = RCtrl+Space so... TG1 gets assigned to RCtrl+space with a HOLD command so that while TG1 is pressed, the MG will fire MG131/151 = Space so... TG2 gets assigned to 2 events: RCtrl+space and Space with a HOLD command for each so that while TG2 is pressed, the MG and Cannon will fire Why shouldn't this work? For Bf 109 K-4 Fire machine guns (A) = Space so... TG1 gets assigned to Space with a HOLD command so that when TG1 is pressed, the MG will fire Fire Cannon/Rockets (B1) = RAlt+Space so... TG2 gets assigned to 2 events: Space and RCtrl+space with a HOLD command for each so that when TG2 is pressed, the MG and Cannon will fire Why shouldn't this work?

All true... The Vive is marketing to a totally different customer. The option to move around really has no added value in the context of a flight sim. What matters is field of view, rendering speed and quality. The display that does those things the best are what will draw me.

Thanks for responding. Yes, I'm using Target, though I have not dabbled in the scripting yet which looks like what you provide as an example... BOS has a key for MG and it has a key for MG + Cannons... DCS does not have that so the command for TG2 must include 2 keypresses which it does not appear to like to do while in game... I can pull TG1 and get MG only. But the only way I can activate the Cannons is by pressing TG2 then pressing again, and the MGs stop. What I want is MG when I pull T1 and then cannons simply get added to the spray when the trigger hits the T2 activation point...

Is it that bad of a question? :cry:

I've been learning the basic and advanced programming commands and have a few questions... Assumption is that the following issue is really easy to resolve and has been asked before: ME109 and FW190 profiles... I'm trying to make TG1 be standard low caliber MG and then TG2 to be MG + Cannons so that I can pull partial on TG1 and then when things are lined up perfectly, fire the cannons but simply squeezing harder to TG2. When I "hold" I want to be firing... TG1 appears to work but nothing happens when I pull through to TG2... I'm using hold commands on single TG1 function and 2 functions on TG2... Perhaps I need a "release" on TG1 or maybe TG2 doesn't like to do 2 simultaneous functions when activated... Any ideas on how to get this working?

Sith, Although in general, I agree with you on subjective language uses like "too hard" or "too easy" being essentially useless... I still can't get over the fact that I can ram the throttle forward on the mustang or slowly advance and either way, there's basically no left yawing action there to counter with right rudder or brake. I've checked settings and unless there's a bit switch on the takeoff control for the P-51, set backwards relative to the 109 or 190, then it hard to imagine this behavior as "right"... 2.0 is my first foray into the DCS series. And no, I certainly am not one who thinks flying an airplane should be "hard". I believe the 190 and 109 are great representations of handling on the ground for taxiing and during the TO and landing rolls but they are a little bit finicky and probably have a tighter margin for error than the real planes would, but they seem "close"... The mustang just seems way too "automated" on the TO roll...

Context: I've got 20+ years of flight simming experience, with some limited time flying general aviation aircraft. I just got back into the hobby with V2.0 and have been flying the P-51, ME109, and FW190. I was impressed with the 109 and 190 and believe the FM is "close" but needs some work. The P-51 was a colossal disappointment. Although it seems to fly "normally" in the air, it seems incredibly easy to takeoff... There is just zero torque effects, gyro precession, etc... It's like a night/day difference... One can just slam the throttle forward and compensate with an almost imperceptible amount of right rudder... I just can't believe this is the way this bird would have handled... The physics don't say it would and the pilot stories don't either... I'm hoping this is just a bug that will get fixed... Not having flown any DCS planes before 2.0, I can't compare the P-51 to itself before 2.0. But relative to the german planes there's just no comparison... It's ground behavior is simply non-existent...

Thanks for the tip!

Where can I find/print the file that has all the keyboard commands for the 109 (or any plane for that matter)...? I'm building a Warthog file, and want to pick up on all the functions...