Leaderboard

Slowly making internals for damage modeling, there is a lot to add.

Hello Everyone, thanks for everything. I'm paying more attention to my health now. I can't afford to get sick over the next few weeks. The ball has started rolling towards my back surgery. I had my Surgery pre-admission call today. I've had Surgery before but not like this. There's a lot of preparation prior to my procedure. It's kind of scary but i need to stay positive. I'm looking for to the end result. Pain Relief. I have been working in the background on The Horizon Class Frigates and Destroyers. It's weird because the Andrea Doria is considered a Destroyer but the Forbin is considered a Frigate but both ships have the same hull types. Andrea Doria has a livery but i created two separate models for the Forbin and the Chevalier Paul because their Miniguns are different. Thanks to Beldin for working on the weapons for each vessel. The 76 mm guns on the Horizon Classes are blazing. -- I put the Andrea Doria, Forbin and Chevalier up against the Admiral Gorskov and two Admiral Uskakov and they managed to take out all three ships. It was at close range so i think that played a big part of the defeat. We're ironing out some small issues but they will done soon. Sorry it has taken so long but i think all of you can understand why. Thanks for your patience. It's coming along. One AI Mod Ship at a time. Stay Tuned.

UPDATE 17 February 2025 This is a big update, and one worthy of taking Vaicom Pro to it's next major version, 3.0.0 This update is the culmination of about four months of slowly working on keywords and bugs, trying to clean up the software to reflect the latest DCS lua script standard, and trying to align Vaicom Pro with where I think it needs to go. Finally, launching my pet project, a Chatter theme for Afghanistan using real world CAS, ISR and Tanker comms recorded over Afghanistan from 2004 through to 2014. I have been tapping away on the Afghanistan theme for about 6 months off and on, some of the comms can be confronting but reflect the reality of war, if you don’t want to listen to this, don’t select the theme on. - Fix errors in keywords and add many more standard keyword phrases. - Add new DCS Ground Crew, Wingman and Flight commands. - Provides support for Whisper Attack users by providing a clean VSPX.vap file for use. - Fix the Export.cs routine to allow clean export. - Change PTT Tab indication when ‘No Module Detected’. - Add F-5E Flaming Cliffs version to modules (WIP) you must start Voice Attack after entering the cockpit in this aircraft as DCS will crash, unresolved at this stage. - Add community mod F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler as supported modules. - Add Afghanistan and Iraq theaters to ATO kneeboard time zones. - Add the Afghanistan Chatter theme. YOU MUST DO A KEYWORD RESET AND RESTART VOICE ATTACK, DO FINISH IN THE EDITOR AND PASTE THE NEW KEYWORD SET TO THE PROFILE AS DESCRIBED IN THE MANUAL. Known Issues - Rearming Request with Ground Crew will not open Rearming UI, only rearms last selection (Use Options Command to access menu for now). And something on the social front, our Community Discord just clocked over 4000 users! That's pretty impressive given the very niche role Vaicom plays in the DCS player world. Thanks to all of you for being good community citizens, In 3 years we have had very few issues if any. IMPORTANT (in case you missed it in the patch notes above ) The Auto updater will patch you to the latest version. To ensure your keywords are updated, you have some manual work to do. Keywords now number 1341 standard phrases. If you don't see this you must reset your Keywords database and relaunch Voice Attack to rebuild it automatically. Then do the Finish steps in the editor tab of the Vaicom UI. Happy flying and stay keyboard free

Texturing and 3D progress by our Artist David.

В данном случае "SL PAK" наверняка издевается над "GrayZeeCat", когда говорит "про тень" и надо стремится к идеалу, слетанности. Попробуйте включить быструю миссию для поршневиков, например 2*2: Ме-109 против Спита и всё увидите: про тень, про слетанность, про идеал. Когда бот, находящийся на разной с тобой высоте и курсу (вплоть до противоположного) после кратковременно затишья докладывает - "противник на 2 часа". И противника не увидишь, и ведомый только тебя запутал. Ну правда, ну зачем такое подобие? Вроде "GrayZeeCat" предлагает что-то конструктивное и дельное, а вы делаете вид, что проблема сугубо только у "GrayZeeCat". Не очень хорошо.

Yes I had it added this morning. thanks

К слову про Х-25. Подумаем

Не ребят, что-то надо менять в консерватории(с). Трек и миссия, которые я выкладывал, это обрезка из 2-й миссии компании "Блокпост" (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/files/779889/). Вчера ради интереса еще раз прошел эту миссию. От автора там скилы случайные стоят и у ботов, и у Гепардов. Я ставлю Гепардам уровень "высокий", ведомым ботам - "ас". У игрока три ведомых, Гепарды видны на карте с начала миссии, увел ведомых в море, км на 14 от а/э Новоросийска, оставил там кружить. Уничтожил 4 Гепарда, все Х-25МЛ у меня кончились, зато у ботов еще 12 шт. Отправляю ботов работать по плановой и сбор, у них в миссии прописана атака наземной группы. Боты радостно докладывают "Работаю по объедкам ПВО" и летят убиваться о последний Гепард. 1 бот на глушняк, катапультировался, два других получили по мордасам, сбросили вооружение и потопали на точку. Гепарда естественно не уничтожили. Причем у одного из ботов что-то заклинило, контузило видать), и он до самой посадки спамил сообщениями "Облучение, 2 часа", хрен в эфир пробьешься. Долетели они до полосы, сели по очереди, и, бинго, на полосе один догнал второго, врубился, оба орут "Катапультируюсь!!!". И это ИИ боты "асы"? Это цирк с конями.

Version 1.60 (initial release) 20250218 Download: here (ED User Files) "So if you care to find me, look to the western sky. As someone told me lately, everyone deserves a chance to die." Helicopter Combat Rescue (C-SAR) Sandbox ================================ You are a "Battle Angel", a member of Blue's elite Helicopter Combat Rescue Team "Cesar". The battle for control of Damascus has turned into a prolonged aerial conflict. You are tasked with retrieving downed pilots and return them to a Field Hospital inside the blue safe zone (the hospital LZ is marked with red smoke). While evacuating pilots, expect opposition forces to be on the prowl, so perhaps bring a friend in a gunship. Pearly Gates, your command authority, is in contact with all downed pilots. They can provide you with an updated list of all pilots requesting extraction and can vector you to evacuees. All evacuees use an ELT that you can home in on; Pearly Gates has their frequency. Once you get close enough, the pilot on the ground contacts you and pops smoke. Land close enough to pick them up; have your gunners ready to defend against approaching forces, especially on egress. If you can't land, or prefer to hover to defend, you can winch rescue the evacuee (this is automatically initiated by your chief) WARNING: Be advised that as soon as you can see the smoke, so does the enemy. Expect that you have some two minutes from the moment that your evacuee pops smoke until your LZ becomes hot. Since there are enemy forces actively looking for downed pilots, expect enemy fire on ingress and egress. The entire area around Camp Cesar is contested, with lightly armed patrols roving the area, looking for downed pilots - expect enemy contact once you leave the camp's security blanket. WARNING WARNING: The area north of the yellow "barbed wire" line (marked "--X--X--" on the map) is exceedingly dangerous and only suited for experienced pilots. It should best be entered with a support ship. Damascus' airfield is in Redfor's hands and actively reinforced; the area around the airfield is expected to be patrolled and heavily defended. Only approach the airfield if absolutely required. Scratch that: never approach it, soldier! Attacking the airfield's defenses is outside the scope of your operational parameters and a sure way to attract immediate, and superior, retribution. So, fly low, fly fast, and wear sand filters. And come back alive, Angel! --- FRQ: FARP London 225.0 MHz Weather: CAVOK Notes: If you also have one of the other "Battle Angels" missions and persistence is enabled, the missions share player's accomplishments. This mission can persist all your accomplishments (landings, time, rescues) per airframe if you have persistence enabled (this requires that your DCS is 'de-sanitized'). When run on a server, install 'stopGap GUI' on the server to allow static scenery occupy open player slots. If you are a fan of the Blackhawk, you can add it to the mission and it is immediately supported. Griefer protection is active. Blue on Blue kills are punished. Severely. Acknowledgements Voice acting by ElevenLabs Mission by CFrag Created with DML Uses StopGap (MP only) Enjoy, -ch

Although it has been demanded now and BigNewy has already acknowledged our feedback, I felt the need to use my insane skills in Microsoft Paint to visualize the problem. For the Sinai map there are six entries before Rudel-Chw's Mig-21bis Training Missions although they have been updated yesterday! And even that is only because the initial release of his Training Missions is relatively close to begin with. What will it look like in 2027? Rudel-Chw might still update his missions but they will only show up 5 pages into the Sinai section... It would be tremendous help to see right away what has been worked on recently and what is to be considered "use at own risk, the last 20 updates might have broken this user content". It would also give the users who keep their work current and functioning a much more prominent stage. Can't there simply be a new category that takes account of the last upload by the creator? Like so: Similiarily, I am probably going to buy the M-2000C because only yesterday I have found out that even the user campaigns made in 2022 have been updated. I didn't see that before because there are 18 campaigns and I simply didn't click on every single one of them, especially because I had no hopes for a campaign from 2022 to have been updated anyway. And that is only regarding the user files stuff where the changelog is in the description. I suspect there are quite a few files out there that have been updated but there is no way to know and they won't show up as 'recent' either. What I am saying is: if I see at first sight that a lot of user stuff for module X has been updated recently, I am much more likely to purchase said module.

I heard it would be out in two weeks.

Both Hornet and Tomcat already have ball call and salute actions bindable to HOTAS.

After you are done boresighting press CZ to remove the offset that you created by slewing the TGP... By slewing a sensor, like FCR or TGP, you introduce a "delta" or "offset" into the system that is then applied to all and any steerpoint you select until you press CZ, which removes that offset.

А, сорян, не очень внимательно прочитал. Да, конечно, наблюдать местоположение ведомого конечно надо, но это проще, чем его курс определять. Но я поэтому в теме "Вопросы к разработчикам" и написал, что это костыль, но он все равно лучше, чем то, что сейчас есть. В реале, когда ведомый наблюдает ведущего, он ему и будет докладывать относительно его борта, а не от своего. Он же хочет, чтобы его принимающий целеуказание понял, а не себе напомнить, что он цель обнаружил. Если они друг друга не видят по каким-то причинам, то будут использовать целеуказание, которое будет трактоваться однозначно любым, кто его принял, скорее всего от каких-то заранее определенных хорошо заметных ориентиров, но тоже будет азимут и дальность.

По итогам обсуждения в теме "Вопросы к разработчикам". Боты в модуле ГС3 (ГС4). Хочется изменения в целеуказании от ботов, которые находятся в группе игрока, с указания по циферблату относительно носа бота, на указание азимута. Или, если оставлять по циферблату, то от носа борта игрока. Текущая реализация целеуказания от ботов по циферблату, имеет смысл только в редкие моменты прямолинейного полета всех самолетов группы, во всех остальных случаях, когда самолеты маневрируют, бессмысленная для игрока.

Да, это ваш трек. Жаль, что он опять не сходится. Наверное надо опять спросить у представителей ED. Хотя, постойте-ка ... И этот трек и скрины из него - лучшая иллюстрация того, что вам пытаются уже на протяжении 5 страниц этой темы донести. И да, я не хочу летать за тупым ботом. Хочу, чтобы он хотя бы формально выполнял функции ведомого. Начать хотя бы с целеуказания. Потому, что на большее они пока не тянут. И это не попытка кого-то оскорбить или задеть, это объективно так. Разве это запредельное желание для симулятора боевой авиации?

А в ситуации когда он не держится на крыле, а выполняет поставленную задачу - понятны?

I was going to say, that might be part of the problem, because since there are virtually no other options, there is also no pressure to fix problems. BUT the harsh reality is that there is no shortage software products that are buggy, unreliable and unstable in completely different areas of information technology that are offered in market segments where there is a lot of competition, so even having competing products available on the market does not necessarily mean that you will get a better product from anyone. As I said before, I guess, it is what it is, but to be fair, not only in DCS.

Are we looking at an 2025 release? or even further away..

@ZuluThreeZero I now can confirm that your ears wont bleed anymore over Syria AND Sinai with the next DCS code update.

We are getting close to releasing the next section? It seems that the definition of time for "getting close" is different from what we know. This "getting close" is over seven months!!

Seems like you don't even know what kayfabe is. They're not pretending they're going to get an actual emulation of the radar. What you call "facsimile" (another word you're using incorrectly) is in fact a simulation of one. Which is defined as something that doesn't work exactly like the thing it's simulating, but you can't tell from the cockpit, because the results you get are essentially the same. An emulation would replicate every wire and IC that comprised the AWG-9, and it would chug computer resources for no good reason. It might be more correct in some extreme edge cases, but nothing that would actually come up in normal use. What we are doing is a simulation of the aircraft and its components. Nobody is pretending otherwise, so there's no kayfabe to speak of. What you don't seem to understand that to simulate the systems, documentation on how they are supposed to work is required. Because how would you know your simulation is good otherwise? An emulation would allow you to reproduce undocumented or even previously unknown behaviors, but for a simulation, most things need to be explicitly programmed in. Also, just FYI, "old hearsay" is not usually accepted as a source, unless you want to call SME feedback that, in which case they could get offended at a random ignoramus questioning their years of experience. HB had consulted people who actually flew the Tomcat for the USN. Do you want to tell them they all suffered a mass hallucination and don't know what they're talking about? No, ED decided to lower the standards of what, for their purposes, constitutes a sufficiently accurate simulation. And then, as far as we know it's only for the F-35. In any case, it's certainly not a reason for HB to lower their own, higher standard of "sufficiently accurate". In every case, there are compromises to be made, primarily because of the hardware we use to interact with the sim. That does not detract from the quality of the simulation, or from the effort required to achieve that quality. I suggest you spend some time educating yourself, starting with the meaning of the words you use. You make a lot of bold claims and wave your hands a lot, but I haven't seen a single shred of evidence. File a bug report, then. This would indicate the animation in cockpit is incorrect, and it'll be incorrect for everyone in this case. I don't think the animation being done this way is a design choice. In fact, the throttles should also move sideways when crossing the AB detent, they should probably take a look at this, too. It's a cosmetic thing, but it'd be nice if they did get it right (plus, clear feedback when exactly you hit the detent helps with calibration).

No he's discussing lamentations. "Conan, what is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." "That is good." The word "lamentations" is not, in and of itself, a lament. It is lamentable that you do not know the difference . I'm always up for some semantics antics.

I developped it. I would have no issue giving it better aiming, and adding target prediction, and I actually did it during the development process... But it was not faithful to the real thing. Now I can't send you any manual page or video that is not already public, and public info is scarce. You will need to live with it. Though, despite being far behind predictive gunsight like you can find on US jets for instance, it is absolutely useable. But it requires some training and understanding how it works. It's not a predictive gunsight and only shows the past virtual tracers. So if you are not on a stable turn it can't give you much help. Basically, it computes 8 virtual tracers launched at regular interval and display them in a 8 segmented line (nicknamed the "snake" or "spaghetti"). If you have a radar lock, it also displays a reticle on the snake point which is at same distance than target. It is not a predictive sight and must be used a specific way. I'm sure there are plenty of videos about the gunsight, watch them and train. Razbam's discord is also a good resource for getting hints on how to use it.

On the F-86F the Weapon Safety is done with the Gun-Missile Selector Switch (OFF – SIGHT CAMERA&RADAR – GUNS – MISSILE), on the OFF position all weapons are inhibited. Now, if you are on the ground, and then set this switch out of OFF, into the GUNS or MISSILE positions then, yes, you can fire the machine guns on the ground:

Как мне кажется, в реалиях DCS, идеальным вариантом было бы предложение GrayZeeCat из ветки хотелок о том, что бы боты в звене игрока информировали по носу ведущего(т.е. того самого игрока)... Было бы меньше путаницы

Great news, God bless SkyForge Studios and all the little hands working together. On January 17, 1991, the Air Force Jaguars took part in the first French raid of Operation Desert Storm during the first Gulf War. https://spotaero.blogspot.com/2014/09/les-jaguar-dans-larmee-de-lair-le-temps.html Indeed, excellent for low altitude bombing !!

There is no way currently to place a new livery in the game since even the folder structure is unknown/encrypted @hinapilot

I'll just leave it here. Irrelevant for La-7 though.

По дальностям обнаружения вопрос снят. Перечитал литературу, освежил знания. Был неправ. Приношу свои извинения. Запомнил вашу фразу "Боты видят лучше игрока", которая от вас во многих подобных обсуждениях звучала, а про другую вашу фразу забыл: "У нас в DCS видимость лучше, чем в реале" и столкнулся с ситуацией, когда я вижу технику без меток лучше ботов. Но вопросы по поведению ботов все равно остаются. Позже сформулирую в менее эмоциональной форме. Тут не соглашусь. Трассер видно со всех ракурсов, да, в лоб видно чуть хуже, но все равно видно. Пламя пиротехнического состава трассера не горит исключительно внутри стакана, да еще и догорающие частицы этого состава вылетают. А тут траектория даже не в лоб, Гепард же в вероятную точку попадания стреляет, с упреждением, так что к трассе мы сбоку подлетаем.

hey Oban, is the Lynx coming with the ship? or is that separate? Amazing work.

Appears our prayers have finally been heard: See y'all at the next module release

Boy, I'm glad I flew the mission again. It turned out I missed whole alternative plot!

threads merged. topic pinned

You shouldn't be needing DLSS with a 4090. I'm running DLAA without DLSS on a config like yours. Quad views is you biggest friend with DLAA, it's miles better than what you can achieve with MSAA and a shimmerfest associated with it there.

Суровая - согласен, 35 мм дуплетом не шутка. Дальнобойная - ну 4 км дальность по ТТХ. Но для "асов" как-то кисло, все равно. Бот начинает заход на цель на дальности км 10-12, на скорости ~650 км/ч, т.е. где цель стоит, он уже знает, но еще не видит, согласен. Хотя маркер ЛДЦУ уже примерно в район цели поставить может. На дальности примерно 6.5 км Гепард зачем-то делает одиночный залп, не знаю баг это или с чем-то другим связано, но он себя уже демаскировал, его желтые трассеры отлично видно. У бота все еще есть в запасе около 11 сек до момента вхождения в зону поражения Гепарда, пусть 1 - 2 сек он тратит на то, чтобы скорректировать положение марки ЛДЦУ, т.е. на дальности ~6 км есть все условия для пуска ракеты, которой лететь в таком случае до цели ~7 - 8 cек. Вопрос только, почему бот не может обнаружить предварительно разведанную цель на этой дальности которая вдобавок себя еще и демаскировала? Дальше. Хорошо, первый не увидел, подлетел близко, его сбили. За ним следующий летит, он то что теперь не видит? Там только что такой фейерверк из трассеров по первому был, что по нему местоположение Гепарда не засечь, это слепым надо быть. Напоминаю, мы про уровень "ас" говорим. И Гепарды не перемещаются. Почему бот уровня "ас" никаких оборонительных маневров даже не пытается выполнять? Он тупо на выпущенную трассу от Гепарда напарывается. Почему такое глупое поведение по умолчанию ему задано? Зачем бот вообще прется на дальность меньше 3 км к Гепарду, у Х-25МЛ минимальная дальность пуска 3 км, что он там делать собирается? Уровень "ас" - дальность обнаружения предварительно разведанной стационарной цели менее 3 км. Жуть. "новичок", я так понимаю, в схожих условиях должен подлететь и тростью для слепых Гепарда нащупать . Простите, не удержался.

Дальность видимости машинки в идеальных условиях около 5 км. От этой величины идет минус за слабое вечернее освещение и за маскировку камуфлированных Гепардов на зеленке (низкий контраст с фоном). Все это выливается в обнаружении на дальности менее 3 км. Боту для применения ракет необходимо установить визуальный контакт с целью. Указание на группу в редакторе миссий это только приказ уничтожить "группу ХХХ", а не что-то другое, но для этого цель все равно нужно обнаружить какими-то сенсорами, в данном случае глазами.

Если вы потеряли визуальный контакт с напарником и не видите где у него 12 часов, то он в этом не виноват. Если это мой трек, то он воспроизвелся некорректно - я лечу одним курсом с напарником до самой его гибели, внимательно следя за происходящим.

Я просто приложу скрины из твоего трека, даже комментировать ничего не буду. Все необходимое в красных рамках выделено. null А это вид из кабины. Каким курсом летит ведомый? Без карты F10. null

It seems that you are still misunderstanding what I said. The initial question was "what fighter jet gives the F-16 the most trouble", not "can a very elite pilot in an F-5 beat an F-22 flown by a fighter pilot trainee in a simulated dogfight over the home base". Therefore, my interpretation of the question was something like a scenario where two aircraft of each side, of roughly the same generation, enter the same airspace, without any other supports, with equally and highly qualified pilots, so that a lack of pilot skill is not a factor, with the intention to sweep that airspace, without any restricting rules of engagement. My conclusion was, that the F-22, F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, J-20 and Su-57 are all significantly superior to the F-16, and therefore, will most likely win most engagements. For the F-22, F-35, Su-57 and J-20, it is pretty obvious why, because the F-16s probably can't friggin' see them before their RWS goes "M" and the Viper pilot goes "oh sh*t" and hopefully is lucky enough to turn around and escape. For the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen, which are not 5th generation stealth aircraft, it is somewhat less obvious, but the odds are still pretty clear. All of them have a radar cross section that is a fraction of that of the F-16. All of them have a way more capable radar than the F-16. All of them are more maneuverable than the F-16. At least the Eurofighter and the Rafale have significantly better high-altitude/high-speed performance than the F-16, especially considering fuel consumption. Those former two also have significantly better performance with the same combat loadout as the F-16, because they are bigger, heavier aircraft with stronger engines in the first place, so adding weight has less of an impact percentage-wise on their thrust/weight ratio than it does for the F-16. As for skill, what would you suggest could be done with pilot skill when you are getting shot at, but your radar can not provide a firing solution for a counter-attack? As a consequence, there will probably not be a dogfight, because you're probably not going to get that close. But okay, let's say all the aircraft just met around the corner of some huge mountain, so we really want to know about dogfight performance rather than BVR performance. Each of the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen trio has significantly better maneuverability than the F-16, especially at low speed. All of them have either the same or better dogfight missiles. All of them have a radar with superior off-boresight ability. The Eurofighter and Rafale have an IRST sensor. The Eurofighter also has significantly more power. A car analogy would be: I am saying, the 1995 Ford Escort RS Cosworth was a pretty fast car with ~220 hp at ~1275 kg, but a 2015 BMW M4 with ~430 hp at 1580 kg will win a race on the Nurburg ring against the Escort RS most of the time, especially when both are carrying 4 passengers, provided that the drivers of both cars have comparable skill, because of the significant performance difference between those two cars. You on the other hand are saying, no, the Escort RS would still win often, because even skilled drivers will often make small mistakes, so the outcome of such a race is not really predictable in most cases.

Oh, I get what you mean now. It does that if you let it when you actually wait instead of designating. Please, @Silhou, be so kind and report it - track attached. LANTIRN is moving all the way to the left after selecting Qeyeball mode. Generally, LANTIRN does work in VR (when you see it) in both Qeyeball and Direct head movement modes though. F-14B_lantirn.trk

Did someone say 'to-do list'?

Damn straight! Where else can we get hyper-detailed military jets to fly around? The civvy sim military jets have FMs that feel like melted ice cream and don't look nearly as good. And they have no "Kaboom!" We get the tight FMs, the best aircraft eye candy, and the "Kaboom!"

DCS это не про баланс

Странно, я когда на работе БИНСы регулирую на 37, мне и в голову не приходило что под неё носителя нет. Спасибо за ответы, вопросов больше не имею.

VC-10 , Victor K2 and Tristar for me..

Any chance of a GTR-18 Smokey SAM sometime for some training immersion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTR-18_Smokey_Sam

His results are almost exactly what I can recreate. Four notable points: 1 - Currently, with the very latest drivers for the RTX 5090 (572.42 released three days ago), the 5090 across the board in DCS specifically is averaging a 23% gain over the 4090 when using DLSS at the very highest settings combined with Mbbuchia's QuadViews software. (This is a gain over what I measured just two weeks ago.) When using DLAA, the gain is about ~ 18% at the very highest settings (this is averaging the six headsets we do have in the lab). With regards to what I think of as the "high-end" headsets, ... the Somnium Ultimate, the Crystal and the Varjo Aero, ... the gain of the 5090 over the 4090 in DCS specifically is averaging 18.9% as of driver version 572.42 (with settings absolutely maxed). In IL2, the gains are slightly larger, ... averaging 27% across six headsets. There are bigger gains to be had in MSFS 2020 and 2024 than with DCS (there, ... the 5090 is beating the 4090 by about 33% averaged over the six headsets). I have not had a chance to test with XPlane yet. 2 - Just like I did, he got the 5090 and the Pimax Crystal to work together fine. I believe what other posters have written online about their Crystals not working with the 5090 are true and valid, ... but for myself personally, I was able to get it working. (I also am not using an Nvidia card, ... I am using an ASUS TUF 5090.) 3 - If or when DCS implements DLSS 4 (as Cyberpunk 2077 has), then yes, the price and electricity expenditure of the 5090 may be worth the resultant visual increase. Currently, ... I guess you will have to decide if 23% visual increase is worth the price over the 4090. I suspect it is going to be a mute point anyway for some many months unless you want to pay vastly inflated scalper prices for the 5090. The upcoming trade war and recession will make these prices even higher. 4 - Beginning to build some experience with the 5090 card now and I can say that overall this impresses me as a "poor" Nvidia release. The 2080 Ti was a "good" release, whereas in retrospect, the 3090 Ti is often seen as a "poor" release (hot, loud, with high electricity costs). Following that cycle, the 4090 was an "awesome" release, ... arguably the best in the last decade if not longer. In comparison, the 5090 is a "poor" release.

Hi! Just stumbled upon a mission creator doing a complete playthrough of his Iran vs Iraq war mission. In that playthrough he explains A LOT about the differences between the fidelity and functionality of the 2 modules. DCS F-5E Tiger Flaming Cliffs 3 : Operation Revenge playthrough - YouTube —