XLjedi

Perhaps... where I see DCS (and sure other flight sims too) faltering is they focus on the raw mechanical simulation aspects but neglect making any sort of adjustment for the human element. There are some fine motor skills along with seat-of-the-pants feedback that could make the simulations actually feel more real. It's almost like they need an adjustable cockpit bot with user editable slides. But, as I said, I haven't tinkered with them in a while, so they may very well have incorporated it in some way. ...and of course, the dynamic campaign is still a long lost artform. BUT we do have infinite replayable one-off user missions... meh.

In the mean time... spending money on a Flight Control System or Track-IR devices would not be a waste. Alternatively, I could also recommend Elite Dangerous as an excellent platform that also supports VR (and not to mention it's more fun to play than DCS).

Not surprising, since Il-2 was abysmal... but I s'pose we have them to thank as the grandfather of this flight sim genre where landing without dieing is a stellar achievement.

I wouldn't even touch it without a full Flight Control System. ...with the possible optionality of "twisty-stick" or "rudder peddles" Be forewarned... these planes are easier to fly IRL than they are in the game.

If I were you... I'd approach it with caution. I don't really like the game very much (if you can call it a game). I would strongly suggest you force yourself to fly the planes it comes with for about a month before spending any money on it. I mean sure, it looks good, has some nice details and all... and is a neat thing for powering LAN party style quick dogfights. But to me, it feels very much like a clinical study in airframe/flight dynamics with very little game enjoyment unless using it specifically for a head-to-head encounter. Granted I have not turned it on in awhile and maybe they've added some single-player campaign elements (anyone that wishes to opine on this, feel free) and/or storyline... but that's pretty much what I recall of DCS. Maybe some folks can persuade me to revisit? I do miss the early days of flight sims... going way back to the earliest of MicroProse stuff. When there was no multi-player and it basically forced developers to create these wonderful progressive campaign scenarios and branching stories that were just a joy to play. Nowadays it feels like flight sims have gotten lazy... focusing zero on any sort of campaign or story and basically just leaving it to multi-player. Simulations with campaign gameplay and storyline seems very much a lost art to me.

@p1t1o @Dafni I've been using the deluxe TrackIR for awhile... I just clipped it to my aviation headset and have been pretty happy with it. One advantage it has over the VR headsets is you can still see your keyboard and all of your FCS buttons. I've used mine mostly with Elite Dangerous. The more FOV your monitor takes up, the better. I can't remember exactly how big my flatscreen is, but I do sit pretty close to it.

You might have to try starting a new save game and make sure all the appropriate checkboxes are checked... Although I haven't tried activiating them in my old saves as @LoSBoL suggests.

I've managed to stumble upon it a time or two... folks I've come in contact with have specifically thanked me for "being stock". So I have not created or shared any modded craft designs in the year or so that I've posted stuff there. Although, there might be a select few part mods that I may dabble with in the future for rotor and prop craft. ...which do seem will never be a thing in stock.

@kBob @JAFO I specifically limit my craft development to stock parts only to avoid the craft sharing issues... So if by "the community has adapted just fine" you mean "don't bother to share or download modded craft" then yes, I would tend to agree.

Follow-up note... I have noticed, that using my code to apply multiple variants has resulted in a rather strange bug in the game that actually impacts craft aerodynamics??? I will be trying to isolate the offending code this weekend, but what I see happening is... My spaceplanes absolutely stall out at about 350 m/s and can no longer punch through the sound barrier. Very odd! I also noticed that I ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO name each specific mesh object that I am going to apply the variant skin to. A new skin for the landing gear for instance that does not specify which mesh it intends to reskin would have the unwanted affect of also applying the new skin to the glow effect of the landing gear lights, which is a subtle enough glitch that it could easily go unnoticed if play testing never contemplated a nighttime landing scenario. Same for ladders, or parts with flags, or deployable equipment, etc. I'm just going to say for all parts, with variants the specific mesh must be referenced. I'm a bit curious now if somehow the skin plays into the aerodynamics calculations in some way? For instance, the glow effect is ignored, but writing over it somehow caused it to be factored into drag calculations? Seems unlikely...

It still has issues, but happy to see this... thank you

Sigh... where's that unsub button? Ah, there it is!

In the sample code below, I just call "base" parts "Default". If I add another Variant and specify that it's the Default, it might step on someone else's code that would do the same thing. Also, the code has to be repeated so many times, I was trying to make it as short as possible. Since the Default reference is embedded in the module that is only created if ModPartVar does NOT exist... I modified the code below; it seems pretty benign. ////////// avionicsNoseCone \\\\\\\\\\ @PART[avionicsNoseCone]:HAS[!MODULE[ModulePartVariants]] { MODULE { name = ModulePartVariants primaryColor = #ffffff secondaryColor = #4c4f47 baseDisplayName = Default baseThemeName = Default } } @PART[avionicsNoseCone] { @MODULE[ModulePartVariants] { VARIANT { name = XL_Stealth displayName = Stealth themeName = XL_Stealth primaryColor = #2c2c2c //dark gray secondaryColor = #000000 //black TEXTURE { mainTextureURL = Livery/Stealth/Skins/Airbrake } } } } My original post that contained the outline for the above code was asking for opinions on efficiency and/or structure improvements, so the thread is certainly welcomed... and I will stay tuned to see what may develop.

I knew I had seen a mod for A/C carriers before...

@DoctorDavinci That mod just swaps out the individual part texture files correct? If I can scrap the textures it comes with and load my own, I might have to check that one out.

I've been calling the default colors "Default" and I'll probably use the "XL" prequalifier on my theme names to avoid mis-steps. I might hold off on pushing too far into it until they fix the bug that causes parts with flags to break. You've probably already seen my relatively simple Mod Manager script for only adding the ModPartVar node if needed.

It works fairly well if there are no new parts. ...if there are new parts, you'll see in the code where I made substitutions. Additionally, I'm pretty sure a number of the new parts could pretty easily be migrated to prior versions if needed. This can be useful if trying to test a new design for instance in a previous install where a certain favorite mod maybe still works.

...only for the Mission Editor, but it's a start.

It's a Blender model... not sure how the Unity engine works, but it was scaled down for RealFlight to be RC size so I could land RC planes on it. I would imagine it could be scaled to any size.

@Wjolcz Well, the Nimitz class model above is 8000 polys (including interior hangar bay) with a 4096x4096 skin, which was fine in RealFlight 8 years ago. Not sure what it would do to framerate if loaded in KSP though. I'd still rather have a dock.

@Wjolcz If you just want a stationary item... there's probably a mod to add one already. I've added them to other games meself, so putting one in KSP would be no big deal. http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=14694

We don't need an aircraft carrier... we can already build those. What we need is a nice dock area by the KSC or Island Base where launching and recovering ships would make sense. People can build whatever aircraft carrier or recovery/research ship they want. My preference for Kerbals might look something like this:

Are they the deployable type solar panels, and radiators? If so, I've been having the same problem exiting the Mk3 Cargo Ramp. (see my post above)

I would be willing to volunteer as a playtester... if there was a need. I have a decent variety of 30+ craft that I usually try immediately as new updates are released. I always seem to find that something has gone awry on at least one of them with every update. Feel free to PM if you all need any help!

Any clues yet as to why the Mk3 Cargo Ramp causes deployable solar and radiator arrays to explode on exit? Squad Bug Tracker 18017 I'd like to be able to transport my rovers via spaceplane again...