SonofEil

This is news I’m really happy to hear. Can’t wait for the implementation and hopefully soon after we’ll get realistic basket physics!

I mean, that's certainly a small part of it, but mostly it's because I actually expect a March 20th release. And they'll only release it then because they're more or less required to (they're not though). I bet come the second week of March if they had the option to push it another 30-60 days they'd jump on it. I don't say this to be negative, I just think they're perfectionists, possibly to a fault. I have no doubt that we could've had a "pretty good" F-14 (say, RAZBAM level) two years ago, but from the looks of things we're going to be getting an extremely ambitious study sim instead. They just need to feel comfortable letting their baby leave the nest.

Yeah the A-10 out-flying it's own engine sounds is pretty ridiculous. But in many aircraft the aerodynamic noises at high speeds (canopy and airframe wind noise mostly) can drown out/mask/muddle distinct engine sounds. It just happens this isn't the case with the A-10. Again though, second hand knowledge on this airframe. I sort of agree? But only because the compressor itself on a TF-34 should be virtually inaudible to begin with. The audible parts on that engine are usually the fan and shaft bearings up front, and wind turbulence combined with the LPT and (to a lesser extent) HPT at the rear. This is first hand knowledge. :)

It looks like the first consumer (prosumer?) headset with foveated rendering will be the Vive Pro 'Eye', or whatever they're calling it, expected at some point this year. The good news is that testers of R&D and proof-of-concept (non Vive Pro Eye) iterations of foveated rendering report performance increases of 40-70% with no perceptible loss in image quality (because you physiologically can't notice the loss). If it's able to track saccadic eye movements with extremely low latency (which it has to to be functional) then blinking shouldn't be a problem at all. The bad news, as far as we're concerned, is that foveated rendering may be on game developers to support. I have the impression that ED sees VR as the future so hopefully they won't drag their feet in implementing that support.

Technically that's second hand knowledge. :) But I have the same. The A-10 buzz saw/drone noise is quite audible to the pilots. Wind noise of course increases with speed, but they can always hear and make adjustments based on the sound of the engines.

Foveated rendering is the technique I have the most hope for to provide large performance gains in VR. Your foveal vision only accounts for ~8-18° of your visual field. Outside of that small region visual acuity decreases rapidly. When we start getting full field 190° VR headsets, without foveated rendering 99% of that image will be massively over rendered. Even in our current ~50° scuba mask headsets there's a huge potential performance benefit to foveated rendering.

I saw the quoted post earlier and it got me wondering, are there more easter eggs is DCS? I know this isn’t that type of game and I don’t expect or want a bunch of clever inside jokes scattered all over the place, but just curious what else is out there. EDIT: The only other EE I can think of are the ufo’s at groom lake.

Sorry, but you’ll have to provide a source for that statement because the actual USMC begs to differ. :) From pg. 3: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a498288.pdf “However, the Marine Corps should equip its carrier-based F/A-18s with the LITENING AT instead of the ATFLIR because the LITENING AT is equally capable, less costly, and more quickly available.”

Tasking isn’t the issue with me. It’s 20-friggin-19, I won’t fly anything that doesn’t have an interactive cockpit. Shit, that’s been a rule of mine since like 2005. It’s absurd that any of ED’s currently sold aircraft are hotkey only. Oh, ok. Thank you. No one here was aware of that.:doh:

This video right here was my introduction to DCS and it blew my friggin mind almost eleven years ago: I was getting pretty fed up with MSFS and the sterile aircraft and terrible performance (even with a fairly high end rig for the time). While sort of surveying the flight sim landscape for alternatives I found this video. I was unaware of the Ka-50’s existence so the sinister look and dual rotor setup intrigued me first. Then the wind blew. I’d never seen a demo like that for a consumer sim and instantly knew that this company took its physics seriously. Hell, it’s still a fantastic demo today. The day DCS: Black Shark came out - almost a year after Matt’s demo tease - was the last time I ever touched FSX or any of its subsequent offshoots. There was just no going back. Thanks TFC, Eagle Dynamics and crew!! Happy Birthday!

It was very much a Soviet attack chopper, not post. Development began in '82 or '84, depending on source. Flight testing occurred from '85 onward, and full production was ordered in Dec of '87. It did make its public debut at Farnborough in '92, so that counts as post-Soviet, but the design and development is firmly rooted in Cold War Soviet Russia.

Ok, so those are TARGET specific? I've never used TARGET other than to turn off the throttle LED's. Thank you for sharing though. :)

1. Thank you. 2. Good god!

You won't have to wonder for long. China is very much playing the game now, and far better than Russia ever did. They've already leapfrogged Russia in 5th gen stealth developments and will almost certainly match or surpass western warfare tech in the coming 10-20 years. A few primary areas of technology that the west, and particularly the US, have had a phenomenal lead are CFD, stealth mathematics, and materials science. Russia is still decades behind the west in those areas (lack of foreign investments and poor domestic R&D/manufacturing infrastructure, among a thousand other reasons. Problems that China simply doesn't have.) And China is catching up fast. Many of the their recent developments can be attributed back to a decade of DoD and Lockheed hacks, directly and indirectly, and other espionage activities, but it doesn't really matter how you get there, does it. EDIT: All of which is why my first vote for a new map goes to the South China Sea, although there's a near-zero chance of getting one. This mud hut bombing we love to do here is entirely inconsequential compared to that powder keg further east. China is the redfor of the future. Anyways, went a little OT there. Back OT, if anyone expects the F-14 to release before March 20th...all I can say is you must be new here.

I don't know what any of that means.

Haha, of course. Hours of my Saturday wasted making the problem far more difficult than it had to be, smh. I have no idea why that didn't occur to me. Thanks, Gizzy!

What I'm trying (and failing) to do: Assign the TM Warthog Throttle Laste 3 position switch to the BS landing gear lever. Switch up = gear up Switch center = nothing Switch down = gear down. Sorry to revive this. I know there are many hundreds of pages of "how to's" on this subject which I've spent a few hours pouring over but the simple fact is I don't understand a damn thing about coding beyond simply modifying an occasional existing value. Any help or simple copy/pastes are appreciated. :(

The mass of an object is not affected by weather conditions, the density is. Fuel can expand and contract due to temperature fluctuations but it’s weight remains constant. EDIT: sniped.

Ok thanks, didn’t see that post. The thing that stuck out the most to me was the lack of rudder input required during a wings level power on stall at 45 deg nose up. Every real world single engine prop I’ve flown, aerobatic and non, has required close to full deflection when nearing the stall. Also rapid throttle changes in level flight should cause more than pitch up/down effects. I’d expect a slight tail wag and roll, self correcting or not. I have zero time in a real CE2 but have gone through aerobatics training in a Pitts S2 and an Extra 200 (started in an aerobatic C150 if that counts for anything), ~15 hrs total aerobatics time. I’ll trust your pilot that the CE2 tracks true down the runway and holds a coordinated turn with minimal fuss, but I’d be surprised if she feels such minor effects in all phases of flight. Sir Isaac still has a say. ;) I’m glad to hear you guys are still working on it, and for what it’s worth, I’m really happy you brought the Christen Eagle in DCS.

I’d really like to know if this is a WIP issue. There should be way more rudder work while operating this aircraft. As far as I can tell, besides a lite turn on the takeoff roll (which might’ve actually been due to crosswind), torque and prop wash effects don’t seem to be modeled at all.

Yep, https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209771 But I sure don’t mind you bringing it up again. There’ll be riots if it’s not fixed by the time the Hornet gets a targeting pod.

Yes please, fantastic idea!

This was all brought up when new Caucasus was first released and yeah it's still true. There's even a config hack (that I can't find at the moment) to make the trees smaller. Problem is, as mentioned above, the same number of trees only half the size makes the forests very sparse. Like, DCS 1.X sparse. I pretty quickly reverted back to unrealistically enormous trees. : (

There is definitely something weird going on with the 82's now. I'm getting a lot of "duds" since today's update. When dropping a continuous string of ten bombs, the first ~6 will explode and the last 4 will be duds. When dropping singles and making damn sure CCIP and NOSE are selected, I have ~60% success rate. Some will explode, some won't. Haven't been able to figure out the pattern but I seam to have more failures when the bombs impact structures/buildings/etc. Higher success when dropping on open ground. Either ED implemented an extremely high failure rate or the 82's are bugged now. Edit: this thread is in the wrong spot since DA1 was apparently using the F-18, and so was I.

Yep, correct. After I posted I had a feeling people would think I meant radar altimeter. It can be left off too fwiw. The “PULL UP, PULL UP” warnings should be tied to INS and terrain elevation data iirc.