Jump to content

firmek

Members
  • Posts

    1369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by firmek

  1. A safe bet would be latest version of 2.0 or an update of it (but not 2.5). One reason why not 1.5.x is that as many times it has been stated it does not support multiple map modules.
  2. Just to be more specific, the current stable version is 1.5 (.something), not 1.2. Which isn't so much different from 1.5 beta. It's up to the personal reasons to install whichever version. On the other hand, frankly speaking it's hard to justify staying on 1.5 stable as the 1.5 beta is the latest and really stable. From my few years experience with DCS I can't recall a case of being forced to roll back from beta. As for 2.0, it is in alpha for more than a year now and I guess it's better to enjoy it rather than wait for whatever reason for release with a "stable" label. The software is there, it's released and is working. Why it is so much important how the release is called.
  3. I think we're approaching the point from incorrect angle. The question should be more about the period of time and air warfare that was appropriate to it. Normandy is 1944 which is much later, after the Battle of Brittain. On the other it would be good to understand if setting up scenarios native to 1944, like escorting strategic bomber runs is going to be possible. It would be good if anyone more familiar with 1944 air warfare history could put some points on that.
  4. It would be good to have it clarified. According to the last update both, updated Nevada and Normandy will be completed and released before 2.5:
  5. On 14.11.2016 the Moon will be the biggest (closest) since 1948 - http://www.space.com/34515-supermoon-guide.html DCS is a SIM after all, but I didn't suppose such details are simulated :lol:
  6. Thanks for the replay Mattebubben. I'll check in 1.5.5. If it works there then maybe the problem was already resolved and exists only in 2.x as it hasn't been updated for some time. EDIT: I've checked in 1.5.5. Everything seems to be fine. It looks like that the problem exists only in NTTR.
  7. Turning the radar on for MiG-21 freezes the client. The problem appears on NEVADA in MP. It looks almost like a former bug with M2000C but is more severe as the client practically dies. Freezes don't appear 100%, in some cases turning the radar on doesn't result in any problem. Still roughly 5-8/10 times the freeze is guaranteed. The problem is critical as pretty much disables MiG-21 from MP on Nevada. Few quick tests didn't show the problem on Nevada in SP. Further testing should be done as also I didn't check yet in 1.5.5.
  8. Yes, this can be appreciated. Everyone realizes that sims are not the AAA titles. The situation however is that it's not a first delay. Sorry to say but such situation may turn even the most supporting users into sceptics. Yes, we don't know what is exactly involved. But do we need to? At the end, from a high level perspective there is nothing special with DCS, it is a project like many IS or other projects. If delays, no expected release dates, constant alpha become a standard there must be reasons for that. After all, only those that don't make anything don't make mistakes, but if the same situation keeps repeating, what does it show?
  9. It's frustrating to be on the receiving side as boring to play on the team with no opposition. There are tons of posts related to "balancing" the aircrafts, missiles, etc, while the highest priority should be addressing the teams population. What are the plans for updating the server to 1.5.5? The situation that a lot of people which updated their clients can't connect may be adding up to the uneven teams.
  10. For sure it can be done. Just that it's not so easy at it may seem. It "works" in case of Mi-8 is really subjective: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=169039
  11. Probably a nice feature that would add to the overall immersion. But it's probably not so easy as it may appear. There are essentially two models - one is the external one, other is the cockpit view. If when sitting in the cockpit player would be able to stick his head outside, he would see a lot of the parts of the plane missing. Such approach is usually taken from the performance perspective - to save processing power from something that would never be rendered. Apart of implementing functionality allowing to stick the head outside also models would have to be probably updated.
  12. If you haven't tried yet, play the stock campaign. It's ok, nothing special, sometimes quite repetitive but good to start with and get some experience.
  13. My personal choice would be 34'' 3440x1440 monitor. From other characteristics: adaptive sync (GSYNC, FreeSync), 100Hz, IPS. Moving from 24 to 34 widescreen the first impression is "wow it's hudge". After getting used to it's more like "it could be bigger, at least higher". Then, why not bigger than 34''? 40'' usually come in 4K or HD resolution. 4K for the moment is too demanding, even for the latest most powerful graphic cards like GTX 1080. HD resolution on the other hand is too low as sitting close (as it's a case with a monitor, but not a TV) to 40'' 1080p individual pixels will be visible.
  14. I wouldn't count on that... The problem is not only resolution but the contrast ratio between the objects (airplanes) and the background. At least 34'' 3440x1440 doesn't help a lot. At the end of a day, if it's 24'' or 34'' or even bigger, the visuals are as good as DCS renders them which is basically the same. Not saying that resolution is something negligable but first it's the engine capability and then the resolution.
  15. Most of the points have been already mentioned: 1. I is difficult to spot targets in DCS. Hopefully the 2.5 with better lighting will introduce more contrast and make the targets to be easier distinguishable from the background. 2. After losing the target while in a dogfight look for it at your 6 3. Targets are better visible when appearing on the sky. In other words try to put yourself below them - though this may not be the best position from the advantage stand point. 4. Spotting targets flying low, having ground as a background is extremely difficult. Use this as an advantage when flying against human opponents. 5. Try enabling the model enlargement - small, max medium (high is too big). Use it to practice at the beginning and try disabling once getting more experience. 6. Use a balanced Field Of View - too wide will give a better periphelial vision but will make the small details too difficult to notice. Too narrow will result in a tunnel like vision. Usually 90 deg is considered optimal for FullHD monitors, 107 deg for ultra-wide. Take it with a grain of salt though as it depends on personal preferences. 7. Learn to use zooming, map it to an easily accessible button/slider on your HOTAS. For TM Warthog the throttle slider is a good option. 8. Calibrate your monitor - may not help much but having a bad color balance, gamma, brightness and contrast can make distinguishing smaller details harder. Especially the gamma settings may influence ability to notice small details.
  16. Overall, The WWII period in DCS is: 1. Normandy Map Not only the map itself but also ground, land and probably naval units. 2. Modules: Already available: - Fw 190 D-9 - Bf 109 K-4 - P-51D Released in 2016 - Spitfire LF Mk. IX - P-40F Kitty hawk Probably released relatively soon: - Spitfire Mk XIV - F-4U Corsair And more planned in the future. Just roughly with new Normandy map there are going to be 5 airplanes at the start and possibly 7 soon afterwards. Considering full fidelity modules (not counting FC3) and excluding trainers, from other periods there are 6 planes and 4 helicopters. Those in total are from 1'st, 2'nd, 3'd and 4'th gen while the Caucasus and current availability of AI units is mostly tailored towards 1980+ scenarios. The overall package of modules, map, AI units from the same era has much bigger value than each of the components separately. Thinking about it is quite interesting as comparing to the other periods, the WWII in DCS will be the most complete one and will provide the most consistent experience.
  17. firmek

    DCS: WW1?

    Simply no, for many reasons: - already mentioned lack of data - close to zero possibility confronting the model with the real life plane - opening yet another work-stream, it's better to focus on providing complete scenarios - units, maps and then aircrafts - there are other much more interesting periods that are sparsely addressed - WWII, 1'st, 2'nd, 3'd gen - small customer base - niche in a niche - small community base, not enough momentum to keep people creating content like missions, campaigns, setting up servers and having players populating them - can get boring in relatively short amount of time - other titles already on the market
  18. Running DCS in 3440x1440 on a single 34’’ display is demanding enough for GTX 1070. Two would require a heavy compromise on the DCS video quality settings - my bet would be somewhere between low-med.
  19. "I wish" ..that is the F-18 that you can see... :D... But seriously, this thread just can't become more relaxed and off-topic :). My suggestion would be to change its title to "hype train on steroids - post your pictures", "relation between number of wishes and modules speed development", "digital flying combat fairies simulator" or something like that :)
  20. Not to take it to seriously :) but first reason might be expectarion for different setup to get some frash air so to say, the second is the release of BF1 :)
  21. Agree, the sole purpose for curves, saturation etc.. is to give everyone possibility to fine tune the controls to their personal preferences.:thumbup: Elaborating however for a second on the controls curvatures as also cyclic “trimming”. Let’s say that we're using a curve that adjusts precision at the beginning of the stick travel (and thus decreases it at the end). When the joystick is in neutral position, applying force will result in a gentle, relatively slow movement of the "real" cyclic. Just as an illustration – the joystick is deflected by 4° while the "real" cyclick only by 1°. Now if the joystick is close to its maximum deflection the situation is becoming opposite. Even its slight movement will result in a rapid, much faster controls response. As an example, deflecting joystick by 4° will result in 16° deflection of the helicopter cyclic. This could be also visualized in other way. At the beginning of the movement the perceived experience is as operating longer stick than the joystick is in reality. In more or less the half of the deflection distance the controls length are the same. Further on, the perceived joystick movement starts to be like it would be shorter than it is in reality. Obviously those effects are stronger the higher the curvature setting is. “Trimming” helps to mitigate the problem as we’re starting with joystick in neutral position (and from the beginning of the curve) but still the conclusion is that the speed of joystick input is not consistent with the reaction speed of the controls and is the function of the amount of deflection. Personally I don’t like the curvature it as it makes exercising the muscle memory extremely difficult. Conceptually the curves can be compared to the mouse acceleration that is just a no go for every conscious FPS player. Going through the initial pain and frustration of learning the “linear”, one-to-one controls IMO brings more benefits in longer time perspective. To be clear, I’m not being religious here. Just trying to help to understand the curves as those have positives but also come with some cost. It is up to everyone’s personal preferences what can be accepted.:thumbup:
  22. I'm bit guessing here but the higher resolution might not be the root of the problem. It should be actually opposite, with higher resolution the details should be more visible. What might be causing the problem is the field of view (aka zoom) being different due to the aspect ratio being changed - screen proportions from 16:10 o 16:9. I've recently changed the monitors from FullHD to wide screen. The result was opposite - everything was extreamly zoomed in and I had to extend the FOV to get back to my previous, "natural " setting.
  23. Interesting. I know that the RWR blind spots are big enough to be always considered for instance with MiG-21bis forcing its pilot to apply special so to say tricks to cover the gaps. Is however the specific size of the A-10C RWR and missile warning system blind spot known? Is it big enough so that the pilot should be worried about it?
  24. Not exactly. Increasing the length of the stick physically increases the range that the hand can travel which in other words so to say increases the control resolution and decrease the sensitivity. Curvatures can't do that for you. Instead they are used to change the sensitivity/resolution at specific sections of the whole control distance. Still however since the distance itself didn't change when setting the curve to increase the sensitivity/resolution at the beginning of the stick travel, an reverse effect of decreased sensitivity/resolution will appear at the end of the stick travel.
  25. I was asking the same question myself and arrived to the conclusion that I could not find any reasons for other than all, 6 guns setting. There must have been a real reason for it - otherwise I assume no one would build a selector. My bet would be conserving the ammo. Though the issue is that effectiveness of .50 caliber rounds in DCS is rather poor. Even the damage dealt (or rather not) by all of 6 guns firing simultaneously can be at best considered not consistent.
×
×
  • Create New...