Jump to content

iFoxRomeo

Members
  • Posts

    1130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by iFoxRomeo

  1. Air Joker schreibt, dass seine fps auf 30-40 fps gefallen ist. Und du sagst: Das ist normal Das ist es eben nicht. Wenn MR an ist, dann sind es entweder 30(bei 60Hz) oder 45(bei 90Hz) aber nicht 30-40.
  2. @Air Joker Das liegt unter Anderem an deinen DCS Einstellungen. Ich würd Folgendes empfehlen. PD 1.0, nicht 1.4. Wasser runter. SSAO aus, Linseneffekte aus(halte ich ohnehin für ziemlichen Quatsch), Schatten runter, Hitzeflimmern würd ich aus machen, MSAA erstmal aus, Kaminrauch hab ich auf 1. Btw. Mit OpenVR brauch man sich für DCS prinzipiell nicht beschäftigen. Ich würde dort nichts verstellen Wenn DCS dann gut läuft, kannst du schrittweise die Einstellungen wieder höher stellen. @dstar Nein, durch Motion Reprojection verringern sich die fps nicht. Sie werden entweder gecapped oder nicht. Kurzgefasst: Sieht man schwankende FPS, dann ist MR aus Langfassung: Die Brille auf 90Hz eingestellt: System liefert folgende fps: MR auto: 0 bis 44 -> MR aus 45 bis 89 -> MR an und gecapped bei 45 90+ -> MR aus und fps gecapped bei 90 MR Forced on: 0 bis 44 -> MR aus 45+ -> MR an und gecapped bei 45 Man kann die Brille auf 60Hz einstellen. Mich würde das Flimmern der Brille dann in den Wahnsinn treiben. Bei 60Hz ist die untere Schwelle bei 30 und die Obere bei 60fps Fox
  3. And now you're confusing things. My comment on you making stuff up is about the invincible AI during landing/on the ground, because you claimed to know it. Not about the bug that aircraft continue to fly after being shot down. Read again. And also, it doesn't matter what YOU think about tracks. ED needs them for their bug fixing. Is that so hard to comprehend? I'm glad I'm not an official here. That gives me the luxury for now to handle your comments the way your name suggests. Fox
  4. Call it how you want it. I didn't assume. Your words! Without anything in your hand you claimed to know. That's making stuff up. There is a difference in lying and "making stuff up to get an explanation" Lying would mean you really know how it works, but claim it works differently. I didn't say you were lying. Negative. A track is required. Regardless of what you think about it. Read this on How to report a bug. Nineline(one of the two english community managers) describes how to efficiently help the devs. With that attitude, how do you expect to get help if people who want to help, can't reproduce your problem. Proof is not needed, reproduction of the problem is. Fortunately some users provided tracks for this bug, so that the "AI continue flying despite being shotdown" bug is corrected in DCS 2.7 open beta. Fox
  5. Dude, seriously: AI doesn't get invincible by its own. If that's your attitude, then please don't post a track. You are wasting the time of those, who try to help you. You claim something is wrong, but consider providing a track that shows your problem as a waste of time? I call this trolling
  6. It doesn't work that way. I have read pilot reports, that F-86 emptied their 1200 bullets into a MiG-15, and it still kept flying. But that doesn't make the MiG-15 invincible. A pilot report is a subjective momentary situation report and the complete circumstances are unknown. Now that would be way toooo easy. What?? You make stuff up and then wonder about your wrong conclusions? The AI doesn't get invincible during landing unless a mission maker sets these parameters. But that is not a general way how DCS AI is handled. Seriously, show some tracks or tacview files. Show the tons of ammo you put into the AI. Your video shows the rearward and/or unlimited flying ai bug, which is corrected in current open beta, but still present in stable. And the Dora didn't eat tons of ammo. Fox
  7. @Gunnars Driver I agree with most points, you mentioned. I don't want to participate in the discussion so much, as it was veery hard to convince PolyChop that their Gazelle's FM is not that of a Helicopter. Now that they said to rework the FM, we have to wait for it to get updated. In case ED has a -free to fly- week again, try out the DCS Gazelle. I did. I was happy I didn't buy it. When I tried it, one thing came into my mind: Lunar Landing module. But of course it can be fun to operate this module, it just doesn't fly like a conventional helicopter with one main and one tail rotor. But actually one thing you mentioned is of particular interest for me Which SuperPuma are you talking about? L1, L2,etc? If you like, PM would be also okay. I don't think developers should compensate for "short standard PC joystick", as this Joystick doesn't exist. Length, available gimbal angle, sensor resolution etc. differ from joystick to joystick. The base should be real geometry, but then options to compensate the joystick's specifications should be available. Because otherwise we get what we got right now with the DCS Gazelle: A subjective interpretation of how the helicopter would behave, according to verbal input with the non existand standard joystick. And this clearly failed in the Gazelle. Fri13 has very good points regarding this. Ask another professional military pilot and you get a different opinion. Imho, exaggering a feature has no place in a simulation. Fox
  8. To be correct, the 262 operated in the Normandy after the 27th July, three airfields that were used - at first Chateaudun, then Etampes, then Juvincourt, not used simultaneously - are not airfields on our Normandy map. If the Normandy map is extended 25km to the south, Chateaudun could be included. Etampes is within the map borders already, at the SE map border. The third consecutive airfield Juvincourt is far out of the Normandy map. Ugra wanted to enhance the Normandy map, once Syria is finished, but I don't think they will add these airfields... perhaps I should post a request in their sub-forum. Just in case. "Kommando Schenk" operated from there and yes the operations were very limited. Source: The Messerschmitt Me262 Combat diary, by John Foreman and S.E. Harvey Fox
  9. A rather long sidenote to this: Well, actually we have a map. The Normandy map. The 262 saw action in that area and at that time, whereas neither the Bf109K4, nor the Fw190D9 did. And both were released long before any map beside Caucasus appeared in DCS. I'm not sure but I think P-51D-25, P-47-40 didn't see action in the Normandy area either. What I want to say: ED priorized the aircraft over the theater so far. Did the A-10C, F-5E, MiG-15bis, F-86F, F/A-18C, F-16C see combat in the Caucasus area that we have? Persian Gulf map as it is now is also an area for a hypothetical conflict for the available planeset. Syria map yes for some aircraft, but then this is a 3rd Party map. DCS is more about the aircraft itself. Mariannas is like the Channel(in its current form): a strange choice No time corresponding aircraft for both maps available or announced by ED. And the WWII version of the Mariannas map is very far away from being released. The modern version being the first, I tend to think WWII was not the deciding factor to choose this area. It seems for me the crowd that came from WWII games/sims to DCS is somehow unable to enjoy the aircraft, when there is no map underneath them which is labeled as the area that this aircraft saw action in history. The other big WWII sim offers many maps that are named after areas where combat happened. But for me these maps (especialIy the newest one) are so extremely lifeless and repetitive that they don't give me the feeling of actually flying over this particular area of the world. I take the old and worn out(for the eye) DCS Caucasus anytime before I fly over the "Other Game" Bodenplatte or the Kuban area. But I do enjoy the other game nontheless, because what counts for me is the experience a particular aircraft offers. Sure the correct map enhances the experience, but during a dogfight I rarely enjoy the landscape. Weather and clouds are more important in a dogfight than the corn field on the ground. So while a period correct map is nice and increases the immersion into the situation, I fail to see why it should be a deal-breaker if it isn't available. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For the WWII aircraft themself and realism: There is no need to have a flyable example. How did all the flyworthy P-47 help ED for their recreation? ED needs data for the FM. No flyworthy aircraft will be flown to its limits just to gain data for ED. They are too precious. Gaining data on the spin characteristics of a P-47 for a PC recreation? Won't happen with a real aircraft. If there is not enough data, then CFD will help. That's what they did with the P-47 and will do for future aircraft. So a plausible FM of the Zero seems possible. Sure CFD is not the holy grail. If nothing is available at all, CFD won't help too. Where airworthy examples of aircraft can help are other not FM related areas. E.g. the engine, not for the performance itself but for the behaviour of the engine. How fast does the engine react to throttle changes? Throttle response changes with altitude? How does it sound at different powersettings? How quickly does the coolant/temperature react on opening/closing of cooling flaps? Propeller pitch change rate, flaps speed etc. Corresponding adversaries are very important as this is a combat simulator. Air and ground. P-51D against a Leopard II? That's a big strech. Interesting, but not funny for the majority. For simulation of the aircraft without combat, MSFS or X-Plane are big players on the market so DCS has to have features the others don't offer. E.g. Damage model But it is still a joy to just fly around in DCS. It will be fun to fly around the Channnel with the Hind, once the performance on the Channel in VR gets acceptable. Fox
  10. Normandy map is made by Ugra, The Channel by ED. Normandy is older map tech than The Channel. And ED stated that it is currently not possible to merge both maps. I can't imagine that anyone is happy about this. I think ED wanted to make The Channel, but enhancing Normandy wouldn't generate new income then. So, new map. Fox
  11. The Channel Map was never part of the KS. How do you see a connection there? Any product would also include F-18/F-16, right? I don't think so. Fox
  12. Yes I have a VR HMD. HP Reverb. Check my Sig It wasn't there before 2.7. It came with 2.7 and the new clouds. I am not talking about bad or not bad graphics. 2.7 Clouds in the distance have a kind of delay to the rest of what is rendered. Compare far clouds with the horizon. If you look at VR recordings you will notice that the recording has often a "nervous" headmovement. And due to this mentioned delay in distant cloud rendering this translates to the jittery behaviour of the clouds which is then more visible. No (virtual)headmovement, not jittery clouds. TrackIR has a dampening in the way it moves your virtual head. Hence this jittery is less visible. And yes, because you have a greater view scale in VR it is more obvious, but it is still visible in 2D. I noticed this jittery in Wags 2D videos but hoped it was because of Youtube's crappy encoding. But it wasn't YT. Fox
  13. Wait.. M1 Garand... why is the Soldier reloading after each shot? It's a semi-automatic rifle... Fox
  14. The "D" Model was used in Korea, so we already have that. I agree, we need more subvariants. Did you hear the Grimreapers' interview with Nick? You can't misjudge Nick's attitude towards german aircraft. And Nineline said multiple times that when he(9L) said Me262 to Nick, Nick answered that he likes the Hellcat... Nick is the Boss and when Igor died in 2018, Nick got more involved in ED's business. The warbirds are not the moneymakers for ED. Or how do you explain, that so much more modern stuff is in development compared to WWII stuff? I would love to see more WWII/Korean stuff. I think a german twin prop is viable in early/BoB scenario. Late scenario it is easy prey in Multiplayer. A AI B-29 should be in the bag when the PTO is opened. A B-29 would also be useful for Korean theatre. Fox
  15. Sorry, but you are talking non-sense. An aircraft wish thread is exactly an aircraft wish thread. State the aircraft you wish. To deny someone his/her wish is just pure egoism. There is no balance in War. Only in -Thunder. Noone made ED do the aircraft they did by posting it in a wish thread. It is not a '42 vs. '44 plane set. The P-51D is a '44+ aircraft and in '42 the Spit IX had Merlin 61 engines with +15lbs boost. In '44 the IX had the Merlin 66 with +18lbs boost. I don't think you will find anyone here in the forums who would be against 150 octane fuel and an E wing for the Spit IX. But ED refuses it. You are fighting against the wrong side. Poke ED that they make better choices. They start the Pacific scenario while Europe is still unfinished in the '44-'45 timeframe. Fox
  16. Interesting. Where did you get this info from? Me262 would be my choice No.1. Ar234 would be nice. Do335 would be nice. My bet: We won't see any German aircraft anytime soon from ED. Nick doesn't like them. Fox
  17. It's the same effect. The jittery comes from the super small (partially unconscious) head movements in VR, that's why it is more visible in VR than in 2D. Fox
  18. @BIGNEWY Well, the ailerons now work at speeds above Mach 0,9. But the strange wingflutter that plagued the Sabre since release is still there. I initially thought both effects, stuck ailerons and flutter, were connected. But it seems these things are not directly connected. I made a video to show it. Please ask the team to look at this. In no manual of the F-86 such wingflutter is mentioned. When this flutter occurs the aileron effectiveness gets changed. In 2013 this effect was ..."interesting"... but in 2021 its not adequate anymore Have a look. The Handbook tells of a twisting moment on the wings that casues the wing heaviness. But it doesn't speak of a fluttering wing. As I understand it, it is a constant moment that changes with airspeed and/or aileron displacement. But no flutter. Excerpt from the Flightmanual F-86F April 1971 Section VI Flight Characteristics Level Flight Characteristics Maneuvering Flight Below 5kft and above 570kts -> aileron control becomes sluggish, but again not fluttering wings. Track from the video attached. Fox p.s. also the gap in the right wingtip is an old "feature" Sabre_wing flutter.trk
  19. Lol, really? Okay, next try. A little bit zoomed in this time. It is not so obvious when recorded and watched in 2D, but when in VR it is extremely visible. I have a Ryzen 5900x and a RTX3080 and the clouds still play dancing queen... Fox
  20. Full screen. The clouds at the horizon. Fox
  21. Now that looks interesting!! Waiting for the update to go live... DCS 2.7.0.5118 Open Beta https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.7.0.5118/ ... DCS: F-86F Sabre by Belsimtek Aileron Control at Mach .9+ Needs looked at - Fixed I hope they didn't just only look at it but actually fix it .50cals are next ED Fox
  22. Wie sind deine Einstellungen bei Steam VR? General und spielspezifische Auflösung hat welche Werte? Du kannst bei Steam VR die Auslastung anzeigen lassen. fpsVR macht das noch besser, kostet aber Geld. Zeig mal bitte einen Screenshot von deinen DCS Einstellungen, System und VR. Fox
  23. Whenever I read generalization, my bullshit warning gets triggered. Generally I hate generalizations A part task trainer won't give you physical feedback, yet it's still called simulator. A full flight simulator will give you physical feedback, though it can be a "not type-correct" feedback, but similar to that. And sometimes it gives very wrong feedback. In a FFS you don't have a helicopter simulation like in the current Gazelle. You have to trim, you have to compensate, you have to fly it like a helicopter with all its glory. Stick centered? Only during start up, taxi and shutdown. Once lifting into the air, the centerposition of the cyclic is only a "transient" position, otherwise you would kiss the ground sooner than you like to. And that is what you get in a FFS. Your muscle memory argument is not correct. Just because you have some kind of automatisation, doesn't mean it is irrelevant how an aircraft behaves. Especially in an aircraft you have to always compensate for the weather/environment. You won't manipulate the controls in the mountains with up and down drafts in the same way you would in 5000ft high pressure zero wind situation. Fly (inadvertent) IMC and you can throw away your muscle memory. To give a "car" example: On road and off road, the same car behaves differently. Fox
  24. Actually ALL switches below covers are not mouse klickable with 2.7 in the Sabre. Fox
  25. Scenario: Jet aircraft set to CAP/Fightersweep inbound to a B-17 Bomber. CTD as soon as the AI Jet "sees" one of those Bombers. And it seems to CTD only with B-17G, A-20G, Ju88 A-4 as bomber. Any other aircraft/bomber I checked(not all) didn't cause a CTD Same scenario, but with Jet set to e.g. Nothing/CAS -> no CTD Just edit the mission, Jet CAP to CAS When the Jet is well outside visible range, EWR will trigger the CAP command and cause a CTD. Just open the second mission. EWR will be activated 1 minute into the game. Once the EWR finds the Bomber and activates the CAP Jet, the game crashes. Interestingly Prop aircraft set to CAP don't cause CTD. A modern jet with radar "sees" the bomber earlier and would cause the CTD sooner than the visual-only jets. I tested only F-86, MiG-15, MiG-21, F-16, F-18 Fox AI_crash.miz AI_crash_ewr.miz
×
×
  • Create New...