Cab

I'm thinking the OP's point is that the island of Bahrain is not shown. The attached picture shows where is should be with the red circle.

Yes and no. More accurately, it MIGHT break the plane or it might not. Either way the jet is assumed to be broken until an inspection proves otherwise. Also, yes, use of the paddle is allowed IRL if considered by the pilot to be necessary to save the plane. That's exactly why it's there. However, in DCS that is not what's happening. People are not using it to save the plane. They use it routinely under all conditions as if the jet were designed to fly that way.

Try the Esc key. That works for me

Yep, it's good to have options

Here you go. F-5 wing demo.trk

I went to them with a problem a while ago and they fixed it right quick.

At this point it might be better to submit a ticket to the support staff on the DCS World website

Fair enough

Nope, sorry. I must be a cheap date and easily satisfied because I still love flying the Mig-19.

PointCTRL solves this problem (for me, anyway). VR would be a lot less enjoyable without it.

There can be no true competitive play in DCS in its current state. There are way too many exploits available to players to make it work, not to mention the out-right cheats the really clever ones come up with.

I remember they said Vulkan would come after multithreading. This is lifted directly from the Jan 6 newsletter: "Implementation of the Vulkan API continues in parallel with the multithreading effort. Our Vulkan renderer is integrated with the new render graph, and it benefits from multithreading by using render graph mechanics of background loading of textures and geometry, rendering objects in parallel, terrain streaming, etc. As a result, many rendering tasks submitted to the graphics card will no longer need to wait for each other and hence be processed simultaneously. In our endeavor to unify DirectX and Vulkan renderers, we have developed a mod state where both backends produce identical results. We now have two fully compatible implementations that run under the same API. This means that all our applied graphics modules (the code that renders our skies, clouds, models, effects, etc.) will work the same way on both renderers. To achieve this, we ensured that all our shaders could be converted into Vulkan format in addition to implementing a shader converter available from within DCS permitting to compile any shader on the fly. It is interesting to note that the shader conversion has taken an inordinately large amount of time. The main achievement in 2022 is that DCS now works under Vulkan producing the same visuals as under DirectX. This result is fully ‘transparent’ for our graphics programmers, allowing them to write the same code for both platforms without the need to have separate code paths for Vulkan and DirectX11 and beyond. The next step is to provide our graphics programmers with the new Vulkan features compared to DirectX 11. These include new types of shaders (as per Shader Model 6 and further), ray tracing, some advanced rendering techniques, such as GPU driven rendering, and similar."

Enigma Cold War server is waiting!

I believe this is correct. If I remember correctly the original requirement resulting in the A-10 was destroying Soviet tanks invading Western Europe, not CAS.

No, you aren't the only one.

A little light on the details, but I guess that's one way of describing it.

Yes! I forgot all about that one.

IRIAF, I think, right? And don’t forget the MiG-29

Getting back to the OP, yes, that does seem to be the case for the F-5 The US Navy, however, may very well have different procedures that normally has it extended for approaches. I really don't know.

Exactly. It they're extended on final, that's the only reason I know of.

It really is that simple. Extended speed brakes on final keep the jet engines at a higher, more responsive, RPM range.

Try deploying the chute under 200 KPH. That worked for me.

Does it say Open Beta is required. I only see, "Requires DCS World version 2.7.16 or above!"

Personally, I am not willing to concede this point, but I would agree it's worth discussing. How about this: Instead of a fixed number of days, a user gets X free hours on a module for a period of X days. Yes, it was very effective. I believe that experience is where the two-week free trials came from.