julian265

You can try opentrack's aruco code tracker if you really want to avoid LEDs (but you'd need to slap a flat code on your face or hat!). I have IR LEDs with a battery clipped to my headset, which works great, but I wanted to see if there were alternatives. No amount of tuning allowed face tracking to work for me. The aruco tracker worked better, but nowhere near as well as tracking three LEDs. You might have better luck though. Bear in mind that the size of the code will effect accuracy and hence the amount of smoothing required.

Is solidworks actually running slow? If not, and you can ignore the messages without them blocking your view, just do that. They aren't relevant if you consider the performance to be OK. I work with SW2019 on a very decent machine (128gb ram, 4090) and SW still issues "performance" notifications from the task bar. In my case the notifications don't block my view, and I ignore them constantly. I believe the warnings are issued because the hardware is "not certified" or some bull<profanity> like that.

Either trolling or part of a minority in your views on this topic. Either way, whatever. There's already the option you seem to want for "purists", but in MP servers it's just an extra step for the mission designer to remember to select the sensible option for this particular module... Which isn't always remembered. I don't care as much about the default setting in SP because I can control this myself.

In this case I don't care what is realistic. A small minority would want to wait 20 minutes. Ka50s should default to being pre-aligned unless the mission designer selects otherwise.

The above bug is still present for this mission.

I don't own the F14, and didn't realise that it doesn't work with vjoy. Are you sure it's a limitation of the module, and not something else? I haven't seen any other DCS module ignore vjoy, since it should just show up as a normal game controller. I use two vjoy 'devices' to convert control types (eg encoders -> axes, hat switch -> zoom axis etc), so would not buy the F4 if it does not allow vjoy devices.

As the title says - a simple gimbal that you can make with a saw, drill, off-the-shelf aluminium extrusion, bearings and bolts. The pedal movement mechanism is also simple. I used a welder to make the foot pedals but there would be alternatives. Download the guide https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fsqV5IVW1RrkoS5niRO-zZdL8sXE0kez

Big +1.

With FaceTrackNoIR :P

I thought the same thing :( It seems too common.

Ah, I see. I thought it was for production.

You really need to confirm the engine settings that were used for the particular chart you are referring to, then use them in the sim and compare. Obviously the Germans cared greatly about maximum climb rates, but that doesn't mean that all charts used all-out-maximum engine settings. If you can't find what settings were used for a chart, then you can't compare to it. On a different note - my gut tells me that +/-20% is a ridiculous tolerance for performance. IMO it was more likely to be +/-10%, due to the ambiguity between 20% variation (ie +/-10%) and +/-20%. Feel free to show documentation that says otherwise though.

It's apparently what we have now in the 109 module. With Crumpp posting a pedantic objection to my point, I guess I was hoping to find out what he thought should be the target value.

Indeed. Do you have any reason to think the production climb rate would be so much better than the graphs you posted, as to reach 30m/s?

The problem is that Yo-Yo stated that he thought 23m/s was pessimistic, which disagrees with the data in this thread. It would be nice if we knew the target performance numbers that Yo-Yo is aiming for.