ak12546

Yes there were some changes in the recent OB update. Many of the time flow/UI related controls were moved to the “UI Layer” section of adjust controls. I believe the new default binding for show FPS is right Ctrl + Pause.

In the most recent update, they moved the time controls into the UI Layer section of adjust controls. You should be able to see and re-bind the controls there.

If I remember correctly, the most recent beta patch moved quite a few of the simulation specific controls into the “UI Layer” section in the adjust controls menu.

Are you using the stable build of DCS or the open beta?

though they seem to be on a very small scale, as opposed to the whole user skin library. Wasn’t the p-47 just one skin or am I mistaken?

Yes, the viper is squirrelly on landing, takeoff, and taxi there is still some flight modeling work to be done, so it might be a bit easier to control in the future. The narrow space between the main gear is the cause for it having a tendency to roll. In my experience, you can leave the speed brakes fully extended during your final approach, and flare just before you hit the runway and idle the throttle, be sure to keep the velocity vector in the [ and at the 3 degree pitch down line during final. Once you touch down, don’t let the nose gear touch the runway for as long as possible don’t apply any break, once it touches apply some light breaking. When your ground speed gets low enough you can start to apply more brake.

As nice as that would be, it’s up to the skin creators to maintain their files. I imagine there are some potential legal concerns when it comes to adding third party skins to the game. Namely, intellectual property and in the case of skins representing active units, permissions and licensing. In any case it’s likely that the process would be more complex than it would seem.

Yes, this would be very cool. Considering that the A10C has the ability to set and join Datalink groups, I’m fairly confident a system like that will be available for the F-16 and F/A-18.

Yes, they have been this way for a while. To my knowledge the only “fix” is a rework to thermal mapping and, probably, to how contrast locking in the mavs work. I have heard that thermal mapping re-works are in progress along side the ATFLIR pod. I’m not sure if your intention is to file a bug report, or to just vent. If this is an attempt at a bug report, ED will likely want a track file anyway regardless of its stability for long duration tracks. I understand that it can be frustrating, but fixes will be applied in time.

I have only tried two HOTAS personally: The HOTAS Warthog and the CH Pro Throttle, and Fighterstick. The CH Pro products are pretty durable, I used them for a few years, though my Pro Throttle had a very poorly made mini-stick (The sensor would stick in the middle) and a very jittery throttle axis, considering that the pair is somewhere between $200-300 that might be a deal breaker. I was able to work through those issues and I had a large number of controls that I was able bind, plus the Fighterstick and pro throttle are great facsimile for the F-16 HOTAS. The CH Pro setup has a very light joystick and throttle throw. The HOTAS Warthog has some improvements over the CH Pro stuff, mainly they are a replica A-10C HOTAS and have a lot of buttons and switches. The major drawback of the HOTAS Warthog would seem to be cost cutting in some critical areas. Some of the buttons are of a lesser quality, my flap switch on the throttle was misaligned and would not always send signals in the forward position, and the Joystick base has a plastic gimbal with low quality grease that lends to a loss of precision control and "Sticktion" (this can be solved with new grease or a stick extension). Overall the extremely precise Hall effect sensors in the Warthog were immediately noticeable. I have heard excellent things about Virpil and VKB controls, but I have no experience with those companies.

It takes away resources from Heatblur maybe, but I don’t think it has much of an impact on DCS World core development, there are separate teams for that.

If you go to the DCS homepage you can log into your DCS World account. Once you are logged in you can click “Profile” on the top of the page. In your profile, scroll down to the newsletter section and click the grey unsubscribe button.

Well, you got me on this one. I am not sure what is causing your issue, If you have any mods, you could try disabling them. You could also try a game repair, or uninstall the F-16 and reinstall it.

It might be possible to limit gameplay in a mission, but as far as I know, I thought that the full fidelity versions of aircraft are used as a default. Check in your game settings in the main menu, should be a tab called gameplay, make sure "Game Flight Mode" and "Game Avionics Mode" are not enabled. That might solve your problem.

If you access the radio menu and talk to the F8 ground crew there is an option to switch your HMD for NVG, it’s similar to how the Ka-50 does it.

The F-18 is definitely the most flexible currently, the only weapons capability it lacks when compared to the A-10C/CII is the gun (of course), CBU-100 series, APKWS, and Laser JDAM. It can be fairly fuel efficient depending on how you fly it. The F-16 on the other hand shares the stick of the A-10 and does have the CBU-97 which is an unguided version of the CBU-103 I think. It is a better performing fighter than the F-18 but lacks the range and flexibility. Eventually the F-16 will have HTS pod and should be a pretty good SEAD platform. At the moment the F-18 is a better choice in A/G. Though personally I like the sense of nimbleness and power of the F-16. Fly both.

I would also like to know about changing my forum name

I will not argue that the Apache is a more capable attack helicopter than the hind, I will say that the hind is just as renowned as the apache. I have no hard data to support this: I think the hind has been in more movies than the Apache. Probably the most important bit: ED has all of their sales data on hand. I would imagine they know more than most what their customer base is buying and using. To consciously make a decision that goes against the well being of DCS World by using funds to develop a supposedly underselling helicopter icon does not make sense. So, either they are foolish, or they have a better grasp of the situation. Considering their success with DCS as a concept I would argue they are not foolish.

I have a TM Warthog set, they feel of decent quality minus my flap switch which I had to replace shortly after purchase. I am always interested in finding the highest quality product, I am curios what you feel is a more quality product. In the future if I want to buy new controls I would like to be armed with more collective experience.

I don’t remember exactly, but I believe if you are low enough to the ground Radar SAM will not shoot at you, I imagine AAA, IR SAM, and tank launched ATGM’s might still shoot at you. Those latter systems have much shorter range and should be easy to out range with Hellfire.

Well, like I said, FC3 has a long lineage back into the nineties. I don't work at ED and do not know the reason. Because they have been steadily improving their product for decades those could have been a part of some planned improvements, or scrapped features. If you were to search the entire simulation you would likely find many examples of unused animations, textures, models, effects, etc. Its the nature of game design and is present likely in every game ever made.

I understand your point concerning animating switches for the list of usable key-binds and agree, they should be animated. However, because they are not currently animated could mean: Animating them would be more work than it is worth or, improvements might already be in the works due to ED's work on Modern Air Combat. These points are merely speculation, I do not know why they are not completely animated. It would not make sense to copy-paste the current assets for FC3 without some kind of improvement, considering the modules age. To sum up, I agree with you, I just don't think that it is a high priority development wise

Well, I believe this change was made intentionally. I’m going to go with Razbam on this one, seeing as I’m not a SME and assume it has the power at idle to move without a parking brake. I believe an easy fix for this is to angle the nozzles forward a bit instead of back.

I believe the Flaming Cliffs 3 (FC3) aircraft are all based on the foundation of the first Flaming Cliffs and/or Lock on Modern Air Combat (LoMAC). As such, they have been around for a long time, and have always been low fidelity modules. Considering that low fidelity modules are less complex, the need to make all of the switches animate would seem to be less important. Granted, I do believe that all functions that you do control should be animated, the reason for this being the contrary are unknown to me. I can only speculate that either: it is a low priority or, possibly the new Modern Air Combat (MAC) will include some updates that might be free for people who own FC3 and thus doing an update now would be a waste of money.

1: I understand your feelings, it took a bit to get used to the fact that the Falcon autopilot has a separate roll and pitch control. I have learned that the pitch altitude hold will also try and hold your bank angle if you leave the roll selector in Attitude setting (or the middle position if my memory is bad). You can compensate by leveling out nicely before applying altitude hold, or you could use the waypoint following or heading select roll autopilots (lower and upper switch position respectively). 2: The A-10C and F/A-18 have been developed solely by Eagle Dynamics. Considering their level of simulation complexity, I am certain that the viper will be just as complete with enough time. 3. I will reference the A-10C here again, if you have never tooled around with it at all, there is plenty of damage model complexity, for me at least. I recall many occasions where I have had engine fires due to damage and had to limp back on just one engine, or when I have lost my GAU-8 due to ground fire. In time, the other jets will have a similar level of damage modeling, especially after the new damage models are rolled out for the modern aircraft.