Pikey

This makes me very sad. I want to be clear. I don't care about Stinger block II or whatever weapon. I also don't pvp much, or fly jets at 200ft. I'm sad for another reason. What I care about is developers changing their products based on what the PvP community think, because of one communities backlash, caused by something the developer made themselves, then improved upon later. I arrive here looking forward to a product, to listen to the developer talking about reasoning that is driving that product, based on a lot of negativity and feeling I have not taken part of and do not understand. That is not the direction I want to hear from a developer making a simulation, it gives me a feeling that I cannot trust the direction of their product. What am I learning? The product is not made for me because it's made for a pvp community. The product is not from your heart. You dont care about simulation, just what the PvP community wants How do I know the FM isn't made for the PvP community, being lightweight and lacking inertia to avoid complaint? Presumably by little light hands that can't move those stiff warthog sticks... How do I know the avionics aren't simplified for the PvP community, maybe we avoid a 15 minute alignment before bedtime? Anything else that we should know about that is important to the PvP'rs? Seems this product is not for simulation enthusiasts.

They said what they were doing with PG. How is it a surprise none of Iraq was modelled? That's like ordering a 1TB hard drive and then wondering why 3 years later you haven't received another 300GB disk space for free. I don't get why folks always have to have stuff for free. It was sold as is, we got more than they advertised it originally as and there is no reason to expect anything else. As for putting the crime in Crimea, again, crazy talk, its free. DCS: World is free. Pay for a DLC, get that DLC, that is the model. Caucasus, the free map, isn't going to get more added, that's it. 1TB harddrive was free, dont ask for 1.3TB and call it a crime not to have it...

Well the AI are a computer, he can hit you if you give him the command, he's unable to miss, technically. So built in dispersion to appear like he is missing is required. That takes effort. A standard distribution of hits inside a range circle is often used. So "some of the hits" will hit. More interesting and believable algorithms can be made? Sure. On the list of things to do? Probably not. Critical? Maybe to some, like most requests, all 234876234 of them. Do ED comment on when number 234876235 is ready to be processed? No.

Hi folks, I'd like to help reproduce. I killed many gas platforms and do not get errors or crashes. Perhaps you can review my track attached and if you have no problems then I think its not th egas platform. Let me know. The information above is slightly conflicting from your words. There are two different dll's the error is in, so the two crashes firstly, are unrelated, even if they appear so, they are breaking different areas of code. Second you talk about the gas platform, but only one log snippet mentions the gas platform, the other two have the new Kuznetsov being killed before the crash. These were from Viggen's. So there's a lot of random stuff going on and I haven't found a way to reproduce or know what is happening in the game at the time. I watched your track until 18:00 mission time. no crash. I find complete logs paint a better picture, for future reference. You can obfuscate the HWID and IP and usernames if you like. The only log part connected to the crash reliably was the first, which you truncated, it was the Viggen kill which occured 100th of a second before the crash. The other crash "WorldGeneral.dll" was 2 seconds after the last event, which is a glacial age in computing terms. I think the chances of getting a reliable and transportable error to ED is a bit low - even the minicontext of the crash doesnt contain useful dev information without the full crash dump (which was likely switched off?) Concentrating on ships, and what units are doing, whats hit or dead in the last few seconds and matching a pattern would be a good way to go, if you can keep the entire logs and if this happens regularly enough that you can provide 1,2,3,4 steps to reproduce, would really help. gasPlat.trk

You either stand by your simulated result or you walk away from simming for good. It's not your problem what people do with your product, that's for server admins to control. Your problem, is to produce a simulation of a helicopter that stands up to scrutiniy and testing against it's real life counterpart and performs as it should do. Now that I heard you don't want to upset jet pilots you have thrown your entire credibility away. You dont care for the truth, you only care for a perceived balance. Wow. Either your sim is accurate and your words are accurate "although the block 2 was fielded as far I heard" or it's not. If I recall any similar conversation with HeatBlur regarding the long range Phoenix, did you hear them say that they would alter the performacne to fit with the DCS pvp metagame? No, probably because HeatBlur settled any question with the simple answer to every single question on this topic... "we model it real or not at all." Same answer for the presence of a Eurofighter in DCS. Balance does not exist in war. It's a fallacy. No one called a war quits because it was unfair! This is a simulator. The server admins make the rules. So, a Polychop representative doesnt want to get shot down by a Kiowa? And cites that as one of their reasons! And uses subjectivity to base their simulation one? According to a perception of what DCS PvP is? I've never heard such craziness.

There was a song about the USS Enterprise, it had the lyrics: "Star Trekkin' across the Universe, Only going forward, still can't find reverse" But seriously, how will that beautiful Ropucha landing ship get into the game? "Yuri, today, we assault Georgian coast at Poti. It is one way journey. We don't go back.No reverse gear on Ropucha and Aligator class ships..."

RPG vs building at 500m is perfectly reasonable for indirect fire support. What we dont have is infantry using buildings. Between the two things... infantry always in the open would be worth changing before RPG's being used at that range.

Yes, its a military sim. How to use a CCIP mode versus CCRP would definitely be in scope for explaining how to execute, but what is not in scope is explaining "when" to use a particular release methodology and that's a common question you can see people wanting to ask, but feeling too embarrassed to ask. And the answer depends on a really deep and broad knowledge of what some people think is fundamental, after 20 years. Some folks regard this question as "what is the correct answer to win at DCS". Like the approach to a game, say an RPG game, what is the best armour to wear or weapon to use or spell rotation to do. The same people are not interested in in depth mission planning. I'm suspecting.. I have no stats, but how many folks have plotted a radar height map for the exposure of their route to known radar systems using CombatFlite's Line of sight tool? Not many, but some. More often, we look at the map, eyeball the contours and say, yeah, I fancy a western IP, popup here and run down this south east riverbed here. If at all. And the new folks are still at the point of... "BUT WHY?" and that is your void. If you or I can see there is an SA2 10nm north east and we need to avoid anything high, and we know there is kinetic defences only, no manpads, a popup would be a good low level, minimum exposure to Radar and guns. The new folks that this doesnt come back to dont want to google "SA-2", "ZSU-23-4", work out the maximum engagement range of the SA-2, the service ceiling of 23mm AAA in order to work out that they can't just fly around in circles happily. Whereas most folks playing DCS would automatically know the SA-2 is only dangerous if you fly straight and level, because DCS AI is not cunning to LOAL because there is no in built IADS and you should never directly dive on a 23mm AAA or you get rinsed. Thats the bit I feel for new people on. But I dont feel sorry when they dont read the manual, because it's like the difference between school and university. In school, they read the book with you. In university, they give you a suggested reading list, but ultimately you go find it out yourself. DCS is like that. It's complex, the world has many units, they have realistic abilities, but aren't perfect. Not only do you need to understand the weaponry to make a decision (and thus be a walking encylopedia - and boy, this community IS) but you also have to know how DCS isn't real life and can be a bit dumb in places, so that a wiki search doesnt help you... IADS and SA-2 is case in point.

There's nothing wrong with the sentiment of the thread, the truth is usually somewhere in between, but the concept of explaining some of the items mentioned recently like popup attacks, is not in scope. Why? Because it's a military process and technique we have abstracted from specific nations repertoires. For some reason, people are surprised to discover that the US aren't the only military in the world, don't have monopoly on making all the tactics. Yet, its treated as if everyone knows how they are conducted, along with enormous amounts of military tactics that people also study and enter into organised play together. Yet, NATO is not the only methodology. CAS 9 lines are not ubiquitous, Bullseyes dont exist in Russia. Russia doesn't have JTACs, or the same navigation techniques or doctrines and neither do many smaller countries that don't quite fit into a NATO-Soviet dichotomy. Folks somewhere miss that the combat simulator part isn't set in stone, and isn't part of what needs taught. YET! The design of the aircraft, the "functionality" is easily explained by the learning of these tactics. Take the Viggen. Unique. Every part of the plane is tuned around the Swedish expectation of a Russian invasion. Soviet GCI mentality, forward facing RWR... Americans with 360 degrees. Can you work out the design from the doctrine? So I can imagine that people think they are missing out, simply put, offline play without connections to others is where this is the gap. You can pickup a lot of things much faster. No one says you need to adopt X,Y,Z process but because a lot of the online squadrons focus on NATO tactics, it's deemed as this private, inaccessible, undocumented thing by casual observers. So, it gets confusing that combat tactics are not spoken about in game, in a sandbox sim about combat. However this is all irrelevant to the OP who time and time again complained that the sim didnt help him learn, refused to pick up the manual, complained about hidden manuals (after not reading the basic docs with the product he purchased) complained about the contents of the first lesson being boring and not having enough taking off, shooting down and instant gratification on, complained that the Lesson in the P51 was hiding the flaps when he had enabled show pilot body, complained that he didnt understand which bindings were important, after explaining he thought Lesson 2 was the first lesson and cockpit orientation clearly irrelevant to the order he wanted to do things in, and so on, building a very exact picture of a person who deliberately ignored the instruction provided then blamed the game for it's lack of delivery. It's utter absurdity. No wonder it riled people.

Indeed.it's a bit harsh, I've seen more frustrated adults than kids. The problem with the suggestion here... and let me be honest, I'd like to see something like this as there is a hole in DCS at the "entry point" ... is you have to give away DLC to do it. I'm not seeing that level of relent from ED. Doesnt make sense to give things away to that extent. But it has been raised many many times that something like the L39 would have been good with a flight school campaign for newcomers. The problem is, if anyone will open their wallet, they would pick something a bit snazzier (actually a minority do seek a trainer, but it seems to be a very small minority). So Imagine if the T-45 Goshawk was done and the lessons were made for training properly. I mean, from a lot lower standard of common knowledge. And THAT was free. Well....fat chance, but wouldn't it make a lot more sense to newcomers? Some of them at least. If I understand correctly, the cost of this type of effort would be massive. If a full module is so expensive to develop and so may years, we cannot imagine that kind of thing being given away for free. The C101 is a pretty good fit for an existing module, but ho wmuch money would it cost ED to buy the rights from AvioDev? If that was even a question. I'd love to see a flight school, damn, I could have thrown so many people in the direction of "Lesson 17 - TACAN Navigation" it would have been awesome to quickly assess new pilots - send your trk file in completing these lessons - earn wings, hello Hornet, off we go back to training again. But the difference being, everyone was a common skill standard. I'd be OK if they gave away for free one of the modules I had bought. But I dont think ED will be doing it. The good news is, some of the things I thought they would never be able to do, they did. So Im not always the harbinger of doom. So - squadron based multiplayer training. I wrote a training for the F-14, pilot arc only but assisted with the RIO arc. Even a simplified type conversion, with as much reuse of existing material from other squadrons, and as much self qualification as possible, only minimal check rides and I was only on the basics after months of work. The idea that same course would have been remade to handle folks that dont know anything of flying, is simply impossible to imagine. The idea that an Instructor could 1:many guide people through that course is unbelieveable to me. For a start, people just dont show up, especially people that dont want to read books. It would be a giant waste of time. DCS is a eat all you want buffet. But there's no service. You get up, go pick your food, then eat it. Some of the folks expect a la carte, with service. And the business model just evaporated.

You didnt notice that I already said the default is for the pilot body off. To change it, he's already found the setting. We aren't talking about a bug in the game at all. When you make a mistake its OK. When you blame someone else for it, it's not. WHen you create a monster thread of pages blaming the game for your own mistakes, you are trolling, or you had a major motorcycle accident years ago and are cognitively impaired.

People reading this need to know on every single point you are factually incorrect, and the problem is with you. You didnt need to embarass yourself. I renamed my profile so I could see what a first user would see. The very first mission is the cockpit overview lesson. (see the attached picture "lessonorder") You deliberately skip the orientation, where it explains what the names of things are, one of your famous moaning points for keybindings. THe selections screen for 1 and 2 is absolutley CLEAR. Yes, It does. On the first page of Lesson 1. The very first. Not the Vertigo72 first, the actual real life first (see attached picture "firstscreen"). The one you skipped because you apparently dont need to know the names of the buttons for keybinding. ... Picture below. He also talks about how to look around in case you don't read so well, which at this point I'm considering a referal to an optician. There is NO pilot body on by default. You changed this from the configuration yourself. (see attached picture "defaultConfig") Having already found that, you've identified the first part of an on-off switch. And then you've blamed DCS for blocking your view and not teaching you something you changed. Are you deliberately being obtuse here? Hyperbole and wrong. I timed the first message at 1:40 seconds before it faded. This timer only progresses if Escape menu is not pressed. So in actual fact, it's unlimited. You can press escape, answer the door, have lunch, come back that afternoon and continue with the message up. Assuming the usage of Escape button is part of operating a PC, standard UI behaviour, the same as understanding applications have options and menus. Which, I know you found because that's where you turned you pilot body ON. On every point you think needs improvement, the game meets our expectations because we can count and read, and you cannot. The root cause of your disatisfaction is you. Either that or you are trolling, but I'm willing to bet you are not trolling, you just refuse to engage your brain.

@vertigo72 This is your thread. Would you mind succinctly identifying an exact example of what would have made things better for you? Let me take the last example you made - P51 training. Problem: "Cannot see the flaps" Not Acknowledged: "Yellow arrow pointing to offscreen" Root cause of issue: "I dont know how to turn my head" Let me comment on this please. I will be hand on heart truthful here. I don't understand how this is a problem. Every flight sim has a method to move your view. In DCS there is a headtracker, a default PoV binding (which i wish to hell would get off my trim hat) and VR. How is this the level that a tutorial needs to attend to? The first hat DCS finds, is bound to "view". Headtracking is automatically bound, across any device, including mouse mode. View is made specifically the first bound thing on every controller. Do you want to know how I know? (no, but Im going to tell you) I have access to every module in DCS and I have had to unbind that stupid view up, left, down up and right etc from EVERY DAM controller every single time and it infuriates me. Now I know why, its for people that cannot manage this on their own. Yet we have reach a new low, someone that cannot find options, controls and press the button on their <whatever Stick> or type View or operate a simple User Interface with standardised keys like "Escape" "Options" "Controls", operate a mouse, etc. You have gone TOO FAR if you are saying this is not good enough. Enough, come up with something reasonable. Your example is not reasonable. I can find many. I tested the P51 tutorial in the last month. I went through a full controller binding. I learned and executed cold start, take off and land, with controls and optional weapons firing in under 15 minutes. I watched the initial Lesson 1. I found it enough to tell me everything I need to know. Why are you being so special about this? I do NOT accept your example as a valid problem.

It's fairly frustrating to see folks with no idea about where the game is going, how it works, its technical limitations, its development course over the last ten years, come in, blame the game, and suggest enhancements without thinking through any of what they say. I suppose not everyone has been a part of this journey. If you find yourself polarised by this topic, that you must have more help, my first sugegstion would be go join a community and interact with their training syllabus, there are countless startups that would like to help. If you care about the reason, read on. Part of the issue with DCS entry is it's different marketing style to standalone "single release" software. In DCS, The base game is free and the investment is in new DLC. A portion of revenue updates the base game but it's not all funneled back, it's still a business. The A-10C product came before DCS:World and there hasn't been any fundamental differences in UI until the single executable .exe. Part of the reason is because every update had to support the last. The sim was always in a state of development. This applied through major revisions. Most other software is Done, patched, then End of Lifed. DCS, is seriously old. Now ED are pinned to supporting dozens of DLC on this platform, every update is even slower and more cautious for fear of breaking anything, which still happens. A lot of folks are talking as if you can slap this stuff in there without much thought to how the game works or is marketed. With a free core, you have the TF-51 full modelled and a Jet from the LOMAC days of FC3 modelling. There isn't a free modern fully simulated jet. It's crazy to some people. Yet, it all began with even less and has continued to evolve. So here's the thing, with a free game, the DLC then has to pick up the first entry to DCS using "Lessons". They are constrained to the mechanics the core game gives them. Cockpit arguments, lighting up parts of the cockpit, the text and audio trigger based lessons. It's not great, the engine is very old now. There can be no "common tutorials" A WW2 plane and a Russian non clickable FC3 jet from ten years hence, is no way to onbboard new players. This is recognised. None of the advanced topics of air combat that the OP is talking about seem to refer to the TF-51. In fact, I doubt people interested in Jets will even see TF-51 before jumping in. And the FC3 legacy that the sim came from is being slowly diverged into MAC and DCSW. Right now there is no bridge properly constructed between FC3 and DCS World. You can quite literally see the difference between game and sim when you look at the FC3 keybindings and the full sims. This has been discussed ad infinitum over the years. ED have been aware for many years, going back to diverging DCSW and FC3 and the inception of MAC. There has not been one original thought in this thread. Not one. And trying to tell you guys is hard work. Bottom line. It's not the right time. Post MAC release there will be a feeder game which WILL be marketed with more effort for beginners so they can see what the game could be like as a full sim. Right now, trying to shoehorn it into DCSW which is just an organic growth of mess from the decade old 'dont need a manual' game, is pointless. MAC is where all this effort will be, it's already run way over time because ED no doubt realised they had to fill this void inbetween the game and the sim. Because its been discussed. Actually they said that too, I think it was Nick Grey on Reddit. If you are having problems with the way the game presents the simulation side and introduces the concepts, you have likely not been here when it was LOMAC, likely are unaware of the FC3 brand, its divergence, its complexity level and thus, DCS:World's origins and the reason for all growing apart from sims where you could access more easily. But sorry, it is what it is, it wont get fixed fast, the changes will come, by design (and even developer/programme leader comments) into the MAC product. If you have no experience of combat sims, your choices are: go fill in the gaps yourself, or wait, until they finish the product that you should be playing. It should have much more friendly entry into this world. It's ED's solution to this, and its been scheduled for years. On the side of existing changes, and just to show, again, ED are aware of this, they overhauled the keybindings UI a few times now, they tried to automate some of this, they spend a lot of time on keeping it OK, but it has to meet a broad range of needs, one of them is the beloved cockpit builder community who require everything bound. Another is, there are simply too many peripherals to do bindings for and no one will keep the default anyway. And another thing is the refinement, even through the restriction of the game engine. The UI does not have a good power to create binding demos, however, on their most recent product, the P-47D, ED upped their game again by providing Lesson 1 in the air, and it went through the switches and told you which ones you should bind. As I said before, this is gold standard from now on, it was a much more effective introduction. If you didnt see this on the product you picked up, it doesn't help, but then you also have an incomplete view of how things are. All the remaining sentiment in this thread is simply missplaced until MAC is done, i'm sorry you were not aware of why this is so weird looking as a commercial product. It's grown, it's changed, its over a decade old, it's audience are avid readers and it's not a simple game to pick up. But I maintain, these types of people who require instant gratification and have heavy requirements for impact and ease of use are not best suited to DCS and will remain disappointed as no tutorial will ever satisfy the gap between combat flight simulation technical detail and basic aviation. MAC is comign for you guys, hang in there.

I think it's terribly sad Scat VII also agrees that they found something missing, and just like the OP cannot provide any example of what. Then states he wants to abandon the thread after providing vague opinions. If people care about the topic, stay and get to the detail. Like many, I once started with Blackshark in 2008. I must have been lost (but I do not recall it) despite knowing Falcon3 and BMS and IL2 and all the sims. I am trying to recall why I was apparently different from these people. I dont remember doing anything immensely different. I read the manual, quite a few times. I went on the forums and saw some useful autopilot posts. There werent any good YT videos back then to be fair. I practiced. It was hard, I got better. What am I missing? I cannot say what DCS needs, I dont think it needs any more documentation, it has enough. The surrounding military topics also are documented, well enough. I want to hear from new people what they actually think would improve how fast they learned (not what they think it's missing generally) I have a good reason for that, because I do run new user things and I might learn something about content. But nothing in this thrread convinces me it would be any use. It's difficult to understand how a counter argument for 'I found enough information' is, 'I cannot'. Both people have an equal footing. Yet one is failing? What exactly doesnt' "work for you"? I dont believe people are failing to find information, I believe they are refusing to look. Of course that is an opinion, but based on how easy Google is to use, what else is logicial? Only some people have this issue. People want to change the sim rather than their expectations of what they think it should be. But no one actually can say how their expectation was, just that it was ... short. It's amazing. Every single time. "Should have been better", "how"? "change topic, its everyone elses fault.", and then listing impractical things like, "more documentation" when we know people dont read it and don't want to. Indexed information? Google is an index. Information in the game? You mean content? Training content, it's provided per module. What one is lacking? Thats valid! say it, which one. Any specifics? Put the feedback in the right forum. Generic information to DCS? getting closer, expand the free game, give me more for less. I've heard this one before. Binding tutorials? Now we get closer... No, training does not define what is a simulation. It's either a sim with some training or a sim with no training. Also, its comparing apples to oranges. Labels dont work. DCS is DCS. This is entirely subjective opinion and the proof is again in the differences in peoples approaches to learning. The argument that DCS is not what it is, because it doesn’t train, is absurd. What you are saying here is that to YOU, DCS is not what it should be. There is no connection to what level of “training” a commercial product must have before it is validated that it is a sim. None. We hear all the time that DCS should be something else. Why should it be something else? It's the same thing, yet I can use it and get enjoyment for a decade and others can't. That isnt a problem with DCS then. I don’t see the value in comparisons of things that are not remotely similar. A combat flight experience dwelling on the visceral feelings of aerial combat is almost the exact opposite of DCS which is process and learning driven, very visual, done from a stationary chair. Your experiences of each will be vastly different. I don’t think you read back on what the OP had said in another thread to get the full context on the reaction. There is an expectation that these complex modules come with complete fighter pilot courses, that’s not happening, but the part of this that still has a heartbeat is in the smoothness of the keybinding experience, the lesson format per each module (which I assure you has come on leaps and bounds, you most likely don’t own the P-47). It’s a heavy drop, as a new player, but no amount of documentation or resources seems to help, it requires a fundamental rethink of UI and game design and that is not budgeted for in the free model. Not that this is our problem, it’s just what it is, people assume a free game should be a AAA game. It’s not. It’s free. Sugar free, salt free, and definitely fat free. This is frustrating thread. I believe in its reason, I believe improvements can be made, but every time someone joins there is nothing new offered. The things that have been mentioned, like more documentation, or indexing it better, is a complete waste of time in the format suggested. There is an overwhelming number of comparisons to "other civilian sims" that provide training on the general aviation side. This is a free sim. It's massively cut down from those because the model dives deeply into individual planes, not into general aviation. It has hugely different focus on topics, making far more effort in detail and flight model than generalistic items. People are judging DCS against existing software and any idiot can tell they are not the same, not least of which, the aforementioned software has relaunch itself every few years to earn more money, whereas your A-10C ten years ago, I'd argue how cool ten years of free updates to the base sim is.

Engine management/Turbo and heat is there, but haven't seen overheating damage yet. Lack of power through incorrect warming up is there (and annoying for scrambles :) Damage is ... OK ... That's being iterated all the time. Bit come off the aircraft, it responds in beleivable ways most of the time, but it's not perfect (yet). It's pretty hard to not recommend it in current state, it flies and behaves fantastic and isn't comparable to an EA Hornet or Viper, but wait if you want to, especially the version with the rockets might be an attractive point to jump in. We are all subjective, my opinion is I've never had as much fun on an EA warbird as this plane. Others may differ.

No idea what the bug is, but if you want to submit a bug, submit a bug. If you need help: 1. Repeat the issue and save a track file and upload it to a new post. 2. Provide the steps to reproduce and the description in clear and concise English. That's it. Sass doesn't accomplish anything, creates forum noise that blots out the useful detail, starts point less arguments and attracts bad posting, so in effect from what could have been a useful post, becomes a useless and detracting post.

I'd donate my left testicle to science for some up to date basic fortifications, static placeable buildings for targets, and... as UNIT not static so they werent so anoying to script with. This is such a basic thing.... i'd buy one for everyone with my new testicle cash.

as long as its not the big smoke, the smoke "grenade" types are the only ones you have.

I think the OP is looking for actual things he can use in DCS as opposed to what they actually did. For example, using the DCS searchlights with a target task on a coordinate up the runway.

Moose Discord has now added channels for the new classes ops-flightgroup ops-auftrag ops-navygroup ops-airwing There are 17 demo missions stickied in these to help you see what these new things do. Extensive logging and messaging is enabled, still, as they are WIP but the functionality is good for public usage.

Exactly. You have to want to play DCS. You dont try to make people that dont want to play something, think they want to play it, when the reality is they will quickly grow bored because it needs effort. I know you can sell bottled air these days, but that's not my job or desire. But I'm pretty sure my mother would have read the manual, had she had any inclination. So I guess my mother would have made a better pilot. She certainly woudlnt have been disappointed... That's what all these videos and marketing do. Invite people with no idea of what DCS really is into the sim, gives them a feeling that its all dramatic beautiful blow things up stuff. I strongly believe that the OP is confused on what type of person should be playing DCS and is trying to convert the wrong audience. I'm a consumer, I'm sold, I enjoy the product. I want to interface with like minded people that enjoy the product in the same way. I dont want to listen to people that aren't interested about the same things. Last of all, I dont want to think of ways to make a disinterested and uncommitted customer into an interested, hungry one. I said as much. I said I didnt want to force people to want DCS, they make the worst type of learners. So I was called out on being a terrible instructor. I'd not perpetuate the madness, if it werent for the fact that letting this go un challenged is being dishonest. Seeing Mover upload videos of DCS where he fumbles with controls and gets frustrated, is horrible to me. It's fake. The OP wants to put that on DCS as the problem. The irony is that the helper friend "Ray" who sets it all up for him is trying to get him interested and he is just not! VGertigo cannot see what's going on. He thinks it's all DCS' fault. So he started a thread because he got so polarised he cannot come back. I'd put it to Vertigo that he had more fun in this thread getting attention than in DCS. That's the person that's convinced themself DCS is at fault. And the kinds of people that stick around with DCS, I find are super interesting human beings, that like being challenged, love learning, are positive and determined and have other great qualities. So bravo, you folks that read the manual. Take a look around yourself and choose who you want to learn DCS with. It could be my Mother and Mover, the likely pair that really need more DCS in their lives, or it could be me, someone that is geniunely interested, doesnt hold other people at fault for their own lack of knowledge, doesnt lay blame on inanimate objects for not teaching them correctly and knows that everything he doesnt know, is only a few keypresses away.

Indeed (about the ship sailing) it became a personal and subjective mission by one person to justify why they couldnt achieve what they wanted at the time, disguised by a general call to find what was best for everyone (which no one could agree on) and as it got more subjective it became pointless. There's a bunch of things that could be improved, just not a single silver bullet and in so many pages I never saw anything practical come out of this. Centralising guides might be OK. But you can have "death by guides". I have the same issue to solve in MOOSE scripting. "I got confused by all the material, there is too much" is a statement that I hear a lot. So we did a guide, that finds all the guides. Too much? Isn't that what this forum is about? Isn't that the general sentiment coming from this thread? It will always be, too much for some, not enough for others, but as I have consistently said, its not the availability of the material that keeps player playing, it is the desire and motivation. If you dont want to look, you will not find. And that is not an excuse, be you Dustman or fighter pilot.

Find and report bugs in OB. That would be my advice.

Worked fine for me using your track and taking control. The only thing I did differently was not open the map view and speed up time and lose contol of my plane.