Brun

Yeah, I'm aware of the option to show earlier posts, but most forums on here default to 'beginning', or at least 'last month'. Only the Lock On forum always defaults to 'last day'. Actually, I've just found there is an option to override the forum default: 'Default Thread Age Cut Off'. Would still make sense for the Lock On one to be changed tho'. Cheers

The reason those buttons don't show up is because this particular section of the forum seems to default to only showing posts from the last day. Would be nice if that were changed, I don't see any way to do it via my own preferences. Edit: 'this' particular section of the forum being Lock On General Discussion, where this topic was originally started.

Not true. You don't see any less because everything behind the frame is distorted in the same way.

Here's some screenshots for a more direct comparison. I won't bother pointing out which is which. One thing to look out for is the altimiter in the lower-right corner of the last pair. The effect on the horizon is quite noticeable in those as well. I think if it were possible for ED to implement something like this, there's no reason why it would have to be an all or nothing option. A slider for 'distortion correction' should be perfectly feasible. Maybe :)

Managed a video. Surprising what you can accomplish on a Friday night when you don't drink too much. The first 15 seconds is straight out of DCS, the second half has a lens correction in after effects. If you notice how much the thickness of the frame seems to change when the view pans around the cockpit, you should be able to spot that it doesn't happen in the corrected version, or at least to nowhere near the same extent. One thing I didn't anticipate is the way it makes whatever is in the centre of the screen appear bigger. This is interesting from a gameplay perspective (pardon the pun) cos it makes whatever you're looking at (for example the HUD) much clearer, yet your overall field of vision is still comparable to the uncorrected version. One caveat is that there seems to be a noticeable fish-eye effect. It's difficult to know what this would mean when actually flying, some people might be fine with it but others could be throwing up in a bucket after a few minutes. Bv3jqMw8yKw&feature=g-crec-u

It would be interesting to get it as an option, that way people could use whichever felt most natural to them. The only really obvious straight line from the cockpit of a combat aircraft will generally be the horizon, and you'd only ever notice that being bent if it was at the top of the screen. I'll try and capture a video over the weekend and put it through post to see what it would look like. Should be interesting.

Appears you weren't being sarcastic, my apologies (and to Cali as well) :) This is something that's very easy to correct in CG rendered graphics. Most software has lens distortion built-in, but it's also very easy to do in post-production (photoshop, after effects etc). I don't know all that much about realtime rendering, but am fairly certain it can be done these days. What I don't know is things like which direct x version might be required, or hardware, or how significant a performance hit it has. Just in case anyone's interested in a more thorough explanation, take a look at attached image. The nine cubes are arranged in the same plane. We know that this means that the ones at the edges are actually further from the camera than the one in the centre, and the ones in the corners slightly further away still. Two things to note about the realtime 3D view on the right: Firstly, the lack of perspective is obvious. Secondly, despite the difference in distance between the different cubes and the camera, all the front faces of the cubes are rendered exactly the same size. Because you see the same size front face, plus the sides/top/bottom etc., the cubes not in the centre appear bigger. On the left, the rendered image has a lens distortion applied which adds perspective to the ones in the corners, making it much more like what you'd see through a real camera. It should also be noticeable that all the cubes appear to be a much more similar size.

^^^ I suspect gear_monkey was being sarcastic. Mine and Mnemonic's posts above explain exactly what causes this. The fact that the FC2 cockpit was fine is because that was 2D. Compare the A-10A and A-10C cockpits and you'll see the same issue. One thing worth pointing out is that the distortion that causes the frame to appear thicker towards the edges of the screen doesn't actually obscure anything outside the aircraft, since that's distorted in exactly the same way. I can appreciate it's a bit annoying, but I don't think there's gonna be any option other than just dealing with it.

If you rotate the view so you're looking directly at the canopy frame, you'll notice it appears much thinner than it does when you're looking straight ahead. It's exactly the same with the A-10C. It seems to be an anomaly of 3D graphics that things appear to change size depending on their distance between the centre and edge of the view. My day job is 3D, and I just knocked up a very quick example in my software of choice (modo) and it shows exactly the same thing. If anyone here has max/maya they could easily see the same thing. I'm guessing this is because the image we see is rendered on a 2D plane, which means the edges are further away than the centre. It's easy enough to correct this with an appropriate lens distortion. No idea whether this is possible in realtime though.

I get a completely reproducible crash with the F-15C quick launch mission when locking a target with a missile selected. This happens if I either lock the target first then hit 'd' to select a missile, or vice-versa. Several crash logs attached. DCS-20121113-002607.zip

Like bungle said, you shouldn't need to rely on mapping the microstick to the mouse or keyboard, the axes are supported directly in game. Having said that, I've had problems previously trying to get A-10C to recognise the microstick axes even though they appear to be working fine in the CCP's viewer. At the moment I'm suffering the same problem with my range axis, suspect the problem is more likely to be in the Cougar drivers/software than DCS. In any event, to get the microstick working your CCP should look something like this: Then in the DCS controller options, select 'axis-commands' from the category menu, double-click the appropriate command in the 'Thrustmaster HOTAS' column, and move the microstick on the appropriate axis. If your axes are mapped in the CCP according to the screenshot above, HOTAS slew horizontal should be JOY_SLIDER2, and slew vertical should be JOY_RY. Hope that helps.

Reinstall fixed the view position and TrackIR problems. Noticed after I uninstalled that it left behind the Config\View\Server.lua file which I thought odd as I hadn't modified or even opened it.

Cheers gents, I'll give the reinstall a go sometime this week. I've also got a problem with my TrackIR 5 only working in pitch and heading (feels very old school) even though it's all fine in A-10C. Whether it's related or not I've no idea, but fingers crossed the reinstall will sort that out too.

Ok this is weird, particularly because I've not seen any mention of anything remotely similar. In all aircraft I've tried in DCS:W (P-51, A-10C and Su-25T), the altitude from the cockpit view is way higher than the position of the aircraft. The montage of screenshots attached should illustrate the problem well enough. A-10 on the left, P-51 on the right. Note the altitude the cockpit view appears to be at, compared to the actual location of the aircraft. I've included the third image in each column to show my planes appear to be missing wings. Presumably these are on the ground, a hundred metres or so below me. I can confirm that it's possible to taxi and takeoff from this situation, although landing is considerably more difficult. In that respect it's very reminiscent of Die Hard 2. I should add that was a completely fresh install, haven't modified anything, and that the problem was there the very first time I launched a P-51 training mission. Did I mention it was weird?

Auto-hide when stationary would make sense.

Some more 'general' stuff...

Haven't seen this thread before. Here's some of mine, all modelled and rendered with modo. Click the images for quite massive versions...

Think this is fixable without having to re-configure your controls. Check out your controllers directory (forget what it's actually called - I'm at work) and there'll be a Cougar config file with a string of numbers after it. This is the one that's been created since the patch. Back it up, and then rename the older Cougar config file with the new one's filename. Sorry if that's clear as mud. There's been a better epxlanation posted previously, should be easy enough to find if you have a look for it.

I believe on that screenshot you can actually see the roof panel through which the pilot and seat is ejected. That previous text you quoted was referring to the Ka-52 by the way. It's two seat cockpit layout probably makes it more convienient to jetisson the canopies sideways.

I read that while I was googling earlier, seems straight forward enough. Canopies go sideways, seats plus pilot go up. :) I'm guessing that's because unlike a fixed wing aircraft, a helicopter isn't necessarily moving forwards at 100+ knots when the canopy separates, so firing it sideways is the safest way to avoid a coming together between it and the pilot.

I think I can, even though I should really be working :) Near the top left of the input options screen, there's a menu which lets you edit controls globally or for individual flight modes. You need to assign your mouse to radar cursor in BVR mode, and TDC in ground mode (if I've got my terminology right). Every other mode, the mouse can be used for external view movement. This of course means you still can't use your mouse for external view control which in BVR or AG modes, but it should work the rest of the time. I'm assuming axes can't be 'shifted'. That's never actually crossed my mind before, but I'm pretty sure it's not possible.

Dunno where you got that idea Thomas, but I'm pretty confident you're wrong. The whole point of detaching the blades is to get them out of the way before the seat fires. That page you linked to even points out the rocket above the seat.

Pity about the external view thing. I rarely use mine so I'm happy with it on the numpad. As for the TDC/radar cursor conflict. If I read you right, you can get around this by assigning the mouse to different axes for different flight modes. This was one of the things that was stuffed prior to 1.11 (I think) because the A-10's AG cursor was controlled via the 'radar slew' controls, and the Su-25's via 'TDC slew' (or vice versa). Never actually noticed it in the list of fixes either, so I was surprised and very happy to see it sorted. My personal opinion is that it really is worth spending the time to get this ironed out, it took me a while to tune it to my liking but I got there in the end. I'd recommend leaving the in-game axis controls alone and try configuring your mouse speed etc through the CH software. I've no experience with it myself, but would have thought you'll get more flexibility and control that way. I'll assume you know that CH Hangar is the place to visit if you need any help on that front. :) B

Yeah, they rather stuffed up that implementation. Can't imagine how they thought anyone would actually use it. Good news is that what you're suggesting works perfectly well. There were still a couple of issues pre 1.12 but thankfully these have been cleared up. I use three bands of sensitivity to make the cursor speed proportional to the microstick travel, works great. Am of the Cougar persuasion meself but I'm sure you'll be able to accomplish something similar with your CH gear. B

Only way to it properly (i.e. analogue) at the moment is to map the TDC to the mouse axes, then use your microstick to control the mouse. Works fine once it's setup, although annoyingly the A-10s Maverick seeker is controlled by the 'radar' rather than 'TDC' axes. Not an issue if you fly the A-10 exclusively or not at all, but a right royal pain in the arse otherwise. B