Flamin_Squirrel

It's not really even an aid, in fact I'd argue it's not really even unrealistic; after all the only reason it's there is to make up for the 'unrealistically' low res of PC hardware. It doesn't help you control the plane. It doesn't give you a competitive advantage. It doesn't give you any additional information you shouldn't already have. I've not seen a single person who considers this a cheat counter those points.

Why bother commenting on a thread that you've not read through first?

I'm with you - of all the features in DCS one might object to, I have no idea why this is one of them. I best throw out my descent monitor while I'm at it, just to be sure I'm not cheating :doh:

In poor weather you'll use ICLS, or do you consider that cheating too? If you're that badly aligned an overlay isn't going to help you either. If you say you can't compare two different things, why are you comparing IFLOLS with seeing other planes? The former is supposed to be easy to see, the latter is not. Sorry but your argument just doesn't stack up.

No it isn't. If the ball was supposed to be hard to see you might have a point, but it isn't. All this overlay does is help people see something they should be able to see anyway, but can't for whatever reason, be it hardware limitations, or even their own eye sight. The idea that this is a cheat doesn't stand up to scrutiny - it simply doesn't fit the definition.

:lol: I think the first video is overexposed. The second video I thought looked fairly similar to this image: Maybe hold off on the pitchforks for now, I think some of this is going to be down to our own individual settings. :thumbup:

Based on what?

:thumbup:

I think that some of the calls (like ball call) are automated, but I'm not 100%. Agree with the rest. That said I think the acid test will be for things like Case II/III and whether it can assign multiple aircraft to a stack etc - not sure either way if it can, or is planned for later. DCS improvements tend to be incremental, so I'm sure it'll improve eventually either way, sooner or later.

Of all the things that make a carrier landing difficult, being able to see the FLOLS isn't one of them. This is just a handy tool to mitigate against the limitations of being desktop fliers. Cheating? :lol: Gimme a break.

I believe that was a typo.

Hopefully the 20th, this coming Wednesday.

I'm not going to give you crap for not being correct - you're flying the sim as you want and you're not pretending your way is the right one, just that it works for you. Nothing wrong with that. I will say though, I find that it's generally better in the long run to work on your technique in order to use the correct procedure than it is to come up with different procedures to fit with your wrong technique, if that makes sense.

Besides, acting like a bunch of uncoordinated lunatics (no offence!) will be great testing for your average open MP server :)

Their style doesn't appeal to me either, but clearly it does to their subscribers. Since they've got twice as many subscribers than Wags alone, it makes sense to give them a copy, even if you or I aren't keen.

You're still confusing testing with advertising.

No they're not testers, they're Youtubers. Hope that clears things up.

It gives a score in what I assume is a realistic format; it's detailed in the pre-release manual: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4274281&postcount=3

Oh dear. That's a PSA that should go up here too.

:music_whistling::music_whistling::music_whistling: Only two years without an acknowledgement.

For whatever reason you're not getting to below 250kts soon enough (entering the break too fast or not pulling enough G?). You should be below 250kts and dropping flap/gear about 2/3rds of the way through the break when you've still got a good amount of bank on; the bank prevents the the ballooning you describe.

Yes. Don't post stuff like that to avoid becoming part of the problem.

So true. An unfortunate result of ED refusing to post stickies with the most pertinent information.

Well for headline items, shouldn't it?! The SC has been delayed. Twice. The second time with only a rough time scale for a release. I'm very sympathetic to your view that ED shouldn't spend lots of time collating every last bit of info for everyone and indeed that they're under no obligation to do so. But the only announcement here is from Wags, taking about the initial delay to the 15th of April. Anyone stumbling across this forum might well be confused as to why it isn't already out. 10mins spent to post an updated announcement that people can find easily (instead of trawling through this 200+ page thread) isn't too much to ask.

Do the same with the Tomcat :)