Jump to content

Dangerzone

Members
  • Posts

    493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dangerzone

  1. I run both VKB and Virpil. I understand your hesitancy because I had thatfirst thought prior to committing too. However - honestly - there is no issue at all because you don't require 2 different software running. Both of them are configured by 'writing' the settings to the device itself. I can pull my devices off one computer, plug them into another computer without any Virpil software and have them work the same. The software is only required for the initial configuration and doesn't need to be running in the background after that. I could uninstall Virpil and VKB software from my system now and continue to run fine now that I have the devices configured the way I like. It's not like Logitech and other devices that require their software to be running to keep your custom configuration going. Additionally - some of the software is interchangable. (Not the configuration side of course, but the testing side). I can view my devices with the other brands software and do testing as well. So don't let that stop you from buying what's best for your situation for each device. If you prefer the VKB stick and rudder, and Virpil Throttle - go for it - that's what I did and I'm extremely happy.
  2. You know what. If this would help DCS out - I'd be willing to spend $5 for a DCS Cow Slinging mod. Could be a nice fun way to raise a little bit of capital for further development to the base engine. (Many may not - I dunno if it's a good idea or not - just sayin it's a possibility if it would help). If simple little mods like this coudl be a fun revenue raiser for DCS to help finance further development such as VR performance increases, etc.
  3. Hmm... you do realise what this will create. If we have cow slingloading... people will be asking for elephants to be modelled in the game next. Edit: My only question - do we even have 10K active members on this forum? Nineline may have sent you on a wild goose chase.
  4. Hi, I have the VKB T-Rudder rudder pedals. I love these for general flight. They give great control with my heels able to stay firmly on the floor, just using the balls or toes of my feet. However I'm wanting to get into some aircraft where toe braking is going to be a little more necessary, and I'm having problems trying to find a solution that will give me the full control that I'm after. IRL - I often use a 'touch' of toe braking on one wheel to assist in turns. From what I can tell - this is not possible to do with T-Rudder, even using VKB's virtual T-Link program. What I'm wanting to achieve differs in the following: VKB's solution (T-Link) When braking - a button is assigned for braking. This is at 100% for both L & R. As you push one of the rudders in one direction - the amount of braking on the opposite side is reduced - but the side braking on is still at 100%. So - as an example. Press the button and both Left and Right are braking at 100%. If I then start turning left with my rudder pedals, the right brake starts to be reduced - and is reduced the more I push left, but left is always going to be at 100%. My Preferred Solution I'm wanting to use an analog axis, as opposed to a button to designate the amount of braking, thus able to apply a limited amount of brake pressure to the wheel I want to turn with, and not 100%. As an example - if I use an axis to apply 20% braking pressure, and I have the rudder pressed 50% to the left, I would expect that only 20% of brakes be applied to the left wheel, and the right wheel can have 10% brake, etc. If I was to apply 100% braking - then it would work the same as T-Link, but the less I brake with the axis - the less I want braking to occur on the primary wheel. It would appear as though VKB does not allow for this natively, or with their T-Link software. (I have already contacted support with them - with no workable solution), so was just wondering if anyone else has a solution available before I start investing a lot of time searching for alternative options myself?
  5. Love this mod. So grateful for those who have put the time and effort in. I know this will continue to be developed. My only hope is that one day this will be made into an official module to buy. I'd buy it to support the team in a heart beat, and would be great to have this as part of the core game - fully integrated.
  6. Can you please also show us how you plan on fixing the cable to relieve the strain? It sounds like this may be an issue with these headsets and I want to look at preventative measures to stopping this from happening with mine in the future.
  7. I believe I have an alternative solution for the OP - which may not be exactly what they've asked for in the beginning, but deals with a lot of unrealized complexities at the same time and would be better received by most: First - we need to understand the challenges: The primary challenge facing is how to implement it so those wanting to use it can use it their way. Do you load balance based on numbers? Do you load balance based on pilots previous K/D ration on your own server? Do you load balance rating different aircraft as different capabilities? Do you load balance based on any other number of factors? Or a particular combination of these? How do you handle balancing when a few players leave? Force players to change sides if/when they die, or just when they land to rearm/refuel? My thought (as someone who has both done scripting missions and ran servers, and has also professionally developed commercial applications) - is that such an option is best left to the server operator to decide for their unique mission/environment. And with that many variables at play - custom scripting by the server operators themselves is really the only practical solution, so that they can have more control and fine tune they way they want to do load balancing. Let's face it - one thing that DCS has never been is balanced. DCS isn't like other games - it's primarily a simulator at heart. Modules are made to be realistic - not to be evenly balanced. I've read tons of arguments about planes not being balanced, some being more capable, etc, and how unfair this is on some servers. That's because DCS is not a game at heart - it's a simulator, and without intending any offence - I think comparing implementation of this into DCS by comparing it with other games and expecting it to be 'simple' to implement comes from a lack of understanding of coding, the depth of DCS, the complexities involved, as well as all the possible variables. Now that we understand the challenges that we face - what solution could be provided that would work? My alternative recommendation / Solution: That solution would be the ability to do slot blocking at the mission level, as opposed to having to do it at the server level. How does this help? Well - we have simple slot blocker script already - which is fantastic.... but it has to be installed outside of the mission on the server, and thus can't be used for mission designers who want to distribute their missions in a .miz file, nor can it be used for single player missions that are distributed on ED's website. It's limited to hosted servers only, and people who are willing to get involved in a bit of scripting. If ED implemented slot blocking within the mission file itself with no need for external script to be loaded into the DCS directory separately, it would open up a whole lot of new opportunities to mission designers - which could (if desired) - incorporate as part of (but not limited just to).... server balancing. A stepping stone if you wish to the OP's request - while at the same time also opening up a lot more opportunities for many other mission designers in other areas. Killing numerous birds with one stone, and still not falling into the problems of a hard-coded system within DCS that limits the way server balancing can be implemented. Now you're probably asking. Yes - but how does this help the OP with their original request? I'm going to take a wild guess that the original issue here isn't about having load balancing as an option in the ME that you just turn on/off. Rather - it's about simplifying it to a point where most people who want to be able to do it... can without having to get their fingers dirty and get involved with scripting. And - allowing slot blocking at a mission level would allow mission designers to even design template missions that allow different types of load balancing features (yes - through scripting) but - it could be available in template missions that the community could design that many could download from ED's own website, thus removing the complexities or the need for the average joe to even look at the script if they didn't want to - while still allowing for custom tweaking of the embedded script (and of course giving far more options than just load balancing) to mission designers as well - an option that would not be available if ED hardcoded it direct into the M.E. I just consider something like CTLD or CSAR and how much worse off we'd be if it was implemented into the ME as a fixed option only where we couldn't get to the back end code and tweak it to our own desires. They are both fantastic scripts which I'm incredibly grateful for. And even more so that I have the ability to modify the script to suit my individual scenarios. Having it available as a script allows so many additional opportunities, and I believe that load balancing would benefit in the same way. The alternative (to actually hard code server balancing as an option in the ME) will be too restrictive for most practical situations. This alternative method I think would server all better. As such I hope the OP doesn't see this as being a negative or a 'no' answer - but rather a more indepth description of the complexities involved, and hopefully at the same time, a better solution to ovecome those complexities that could also make load balancing available to all who desire it in a very simple way, with the ability for others to tweak it to their own individual needs.
  8. I have seen instances in the past where DCS considers you 'dead' even though you're still capable of flying, and launching missiles. Not sure if it's a bug or not. I haven't watched the track files attached - but wonder whether or not you're considered dead in this event.
  9. Have you tried hitting "5" on the numpad before doing it to have DCS recenter your headset's forward position to see if that has any effect?
  10. As a potential workaround - go into device manager and disable the HMD's speakers, and use headphones or something else. If it's only the audio disabled, maybe disabling them in device manager and using something else might be enough for the PC, and DCS not to be concerned with the physical disconnection. In regards to obtaining a new cable, you could try heading to http://partsurfer.hp.com/Search.aspx?searchText=940814-001 and type in 940814-001 for the part number. Seems as though they will only sell to United States however, so if you're not in the USA you're either SOL, or have to use one of those freight forwarding companies in order to get the cable. Honestly though - at over $140USD for the cable, plus freight, plus forwarding - it's going to end up being a very expensive cable for an older gen headset, so unless you're sold on using their own speakers - I'd try the workaround above. I love my G1, but after seeing the issues users had with the G2, and now seeing that they don't offer replacement parts for anyone out of the USA - I'm having second thoughts on whether I want to deal with them when I go to upgrade my headset. Please tell us if you're successful in obtaining a replacement cable and how you went about it, or if the disabling speakers in device manager works for you as it could be helpful for others in the future (or even myself if I'm searching the internet for a solution after forgetting about this thread in time to come ) Good luck.
  11. I've built in muscle memory that whenever I move my cursor to select something - I over-extend and then move back slightly (to ensure the cursor remains in the DCS window). It seems if you move the cursor right to the edge of the window, it clicks on what is open behind it.
  12. Sorry if this is a basic question - but have you changed the parking position from 1 to 4 in the mission editor?
  13. I'm sure we'll have Petrov's voice on day 1 of release (Remembering... ... it is early access, so day #1 of release will be when it's out of EA). I for one am grateful we get to fly it now without Petrov's voice (although I understand why people want it), instead of it still being unavailable for us to experiment with and fly until things are finished. If ED waited until all the features were implement that people think should be available before releasing early access... we'd be waiting quite some time longer still, and early access probably wouldn't really be EA.
  14. Be thankful you're waiting on AH-64, and not Half Life 3.
  15. Reload, break them all again, but in a different order until you figure out the right order for the easter egg.
  16. Or... 3. The mission that is being ran has too much units / too much scripting. I just think this is important to mention, as I have seen instances where the highest spec'd systems running on low settings are getting frames down to 30 and below at times - due to being CPU bound, and I'd hate for someone to think that spending money will fix the issue - if infact gear is not the problem but it's the missions and/or servers they're playing on that get quite heavy at times. Thankfully I would expect Vulkan and multi-threading would see improvements there too. BTW - I think this is a double thread. I replied to a very similar topic yesterday I believe from the same O.P. - and it appears to now be missing?
  17. Ditto. I was grateful for the transparency of the list that was released, but the list of to-do's before EA is greater than the list to do after EA so my first gut reaction when seeing that list was one of great disappointment too - expecting that we'll be lucky to see a release in Q2. However after considering certain factors - I'm now hoping (maybe wishful thinking) that the majority of the stuff on the to-do list is already mostly complete, and it's just a matter of polishing / finishing it off so it can be ticked off as complete- as opposed to the first impression I got which was that they haven't even started work on it yet. Of course this is just conjecture, but the reason that I have this optimism and hope is that looking back ED were expecting a December release - and right up until near the end of the year. Then when they realised this wasn't going to occur - they had the opportunity to change the date - they only pushed it back a single month. It would not make sense of them to do that if they knew they had many months of work to do and would be intentionally misleading, and while ED may take time to release modules - being intentionally misleading is not something I believe they practice. So - with no other bit of information to work on, and just this - at this stage I'm still hoping for a January release of EA. I hope this is of some encouragement
  18. Hmm... I had vaicom go on the fritz last night for me. Making that high pitched 'zzzt' sound when I made calls. Closing Vaicom and Voice attack while in the server (SRS already connected), and restarting Voice Attack fixed the issue for me. Not sure, but maybe it has something to do with SRS launching or connecting after Voice attack?
  19. Hi, Just looking for some advise on the best way to handle this. I'm wanting to draw a polygon in DCS with numerous points however as I click through and add my points (in polygon-free mode), DCS will just 'finish' the polygon as though I've double-clicked before I have. Is it possible to 'continue' drawing a polygon / put it back into draw mode after the mission editor considers it complete? Or is it possible to add and/or remove points from a polygon after the polygon has been created? Cheers DZ
  20. Great idea. Can I request adding a difference between hit + destroyed vs hit + damaged as well. ie: 3 scenario's such as "Destroyed", "Damaged", and "Missed" (or whatever the official Russian military terms are for it?
  21. It's definitely possible for them to do this. In fact what you're wanting to do is doo-able right now! (Just not natively). 3rd party to the rescue: To do this: 1) The mission designer could use SimpleGroupSaving (by Pikey) and add this script file into the mission - which will create a 'snapshot' of information into a data file, and check for said datafile and load the state when the mission restarts next time. 2) However the users DCS needs to be desanitized to allow writing of data to disk. This won't save your aircraft's position - but will save where other units are on the ground, etc - allowing for a persistent session as you're chasing. Obviously this isn't ideal, and it would be far better for ED to put this in natively into DCS. Another option is DMSC by Chromium. This mod requires more installation - not just a script embedded into the .miz file but a mod installed to the users DCS directory - and instead of saving a data or "state" file, it creates a whole new .MIZ file from what was saved. Both have their pro's and con's depending on what you're wanting to achieve. Both have their own threads somehwere on this board, so searching for either should give you a wealth of information. While native with no sanitisation would be the optimum - it's definitely possible to do now if you want.
  22. @NineLine - Could I please ask for a comment on this? We haven't seen any response yet from ED - even though we have closed beta teams and 3rd party dev's replying in support of this, and this thread is over 1 year old. Just asking for an indication at least that this thread & request has been seen and has been (or will be) tabled for consideration? Thanks
  23. I think a fair guess is that they don't know themselves...The last 2 years have been the hardest for business, for staff, for everyone in a long time. The hurdles that it's created and unknowns as to what the next 12 months hold could make it extremely difficult to be able to state 6 months or 3 years away. We've also seen how the community turns ETA's around and can be less than patient if estimates aren't reached, so all these factors combined - it makes sense for ED to release no information at all until it's actually ready. Sucks for us who aren't bitter, are patient and only would love some sort of non-obligated guesses as to when - even them guessing probably just opens up more problems, so I think they're making the wise decision by being tight lipped.
×
×
  • Create New...