Jump to content

ARM505

Members
  • Posts

    949
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by ARM505

  1. Game breaking bugs of this nature are EXTREMELY rare - a data point of one, but this is the first time I haven't been able to play when (or rather, how) I wanted to since I started with Lock On all those years ago. And, as mentioned, it can of course still be run in normal 2D mode (hence the 'how'). So while you technically have a point, let's not overstate it. Ironically, had this happened several weeks ago prior to the stable/openbeta path merger, we'd probably have had a hotfix already. So it's a rare 'window of vulnerability' that caught them. As you say, it SHOULDN'T happen, but it does, in very, very rare cases. It's acknowledged and fixed internally already. That'll have to do.
  2. Quite ironic that as the open beta and stable paths are merged, and patch cycle times increase, a game breaking bug (for those on Meta VR devices at least) emerges And I mean that quite sincerely, what are the chances, lol. Ah, sims, always a game of patience. Anyway, 2D flying it is for the moment. Pity my Track IR decided to break in a super weird way at the same time (1 HZ position updates, no idea why)
  3. You don't need to delete anything - just find 'options.lua' under your C:\Users\*your name*\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta *or whatever your install folder is called*\Config - under the ["VR"] subsection, look for ["enable"] = and set it to false And for ED, as I've said before, it would be better if there was an easier way to toggle VR on and off before starting DCS. Also for ED (forum mods) - the 'Game Crash' and 'VR Bugs' forum subsections have what seems like 10+ threads on this same topic/problem now. The official answer to this problem for the moment (again, buried somewhere in one of the threads) is that it's fixed internally, but given the lengthy waits between patches the newer system entails, we are stuck for the moment with no idea when the fix will be released, at least several weeks away it seems.
  4. How convenient. One day they'll (edit to add: I mean Meta) employ people who don't randomly break stuff, but today is not that day I guess. Anyway, day x+1 of wishing DCS had a way of selecting VR on or off before launching the software. Yes, yes, DCS launcher (not installed on my new PC, not going to) so it's back to digging around in the .cfg files to turn VR off. It's all good. (edit to add: to those who don't know where this is, it's in 'options.lua' under your C:\Users\*your name*\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta *or whatever yours is called*\Config - under the ["VR"] subsection, look for ["enable"] = and set it to false )
  5. I have the same issue. The above options don't work in the the headset's menu itself (there is not such PTC option in the 'Experimental' menu). In the Oculus software that runs on the desktop, there is a PTC switch, mine is OFF. DCS logs in, authenticates, then simply doesn't run. (MT)
  6. The *wake* is missing the distinctive 4 screw pattern, not the actual carrier model. Yes, it's a bit of a nitpick, but it's a good catch
  7. ARM505

    External Zoom?

    No, it isn't a normal 'zoom' command. The commands for VR 'zoom' are under the 'UI Layer' control category - there's a VR sub category, and the commands you're looking for are 'Toggle VR Spyglass Zoom' and 'Toggle VR Zoom' (one is just a higher zoom level than the other).
  8. Sorry to add nothing of value, but I'm just laughing at this which is (to me) the quote of the week. Thanks.
  9. The Spitfire cockpit got a re-bake.....I've also been hoping the Huey can get a spring clean, it's a great machine. I also don't mind paying for a V2, I understand that these things take resources. And ED has to forge a long term maintenance plan for these things, we have iconic aircraft that are going to need to evolve with the product, so....pretty much along the lines of the KA50 and A10, yeah.
  10. Just out of interest, if you have a specific term in the 'search' bar at the top (for example, 'gear') then the command will not be highlighted if you press it, EVEN IF that command does appear in the searched for items below. e.g. 'gear' is searched for, all commands with 'gear' appear below, but if you press (for example) your command for 'landing gear down', that command will not highlight. You need to delete the search term above, then it all operates as normal. I'm not sure if this changed recently, but for some reason it stood out to me when changing commands very recently.
  11. Is there any specific aircraft/manual you're referring to? But it's actually a very good question. My (probably wrong) answer is that in (for example) a 737, antiskid uses IRU data, compares it to wheelspeed sensor values, and maintain/releases brake pressure to maintain wheel speed at a certain reference speed in relation to ground speed (best guess, as the 737 FCOM isn't wonderfully explanatory in this regard if I remember correctly). The 777 manual is even less illustrative, saying only "When a wheel speed sensor detects a skid, the associated antiskid valve reduces brake pressure until skidding stops.", and that "Locked wheel protection is provided using a comparison with other wheel speeds". Apparently, pilots are on a 'need to know' basis in this regard, and they just don't need to know *shrugs* So: locked wheel protection on the other hand, compares one individual wheel speed to another specific wheel - then releasing brake pressure when the reference wheel is (for example) 50% slower than the other (basically three inputs: reference wheel speed, threshold, like the 50% in my example, and 'low' value, ie speed below which the protection will be inhibited)
  12. This will certainly open a whole can of worms in the 'rivet counter' mentality people (which isn't a bad thing) - I for one will not want to look too much 'behind the scenes' (as a pilot, you trust that when you signed it out, the guy who signed it over to you did all the right stuff), but I will appreciate little things like that lack of perfectly symmetric engine parameters, gear deployment etc. and at least the 'feel' of a persistent, non factory fresh aircraft.
  13. Agree on the DCS pet peeves - literally the only control bindings DCS ever gets right, are the pitch and roll axes of my joystick. Every single other assignment, be it buttons, axes, whatever, has been wrong, with one notable exception - the TM MFD controls, which admittedly are a lot of buttons. But the losses far outweigh the gains. NOTE TO DEVS: DO NOT AUTO ASSIGN BUTTONS OR AXES. Drop that 'feature' entirely.
  14. Legend says that his mustache was responsible for one of the MiG kills all by itself...
  15. I turned it off as it felt far too extreme to me (having hit many wakes in real life, light, medium, heavy etc, including my own after precise level turns). It's a tough one to call: *my* take on it (and like....well, you know what, everybody has an opinion) is that the actual modelling of a wake encounter *is* accurate-ish, BUT in real life, wakes are 'broken up' more quickly by the more chaotic, natural motion of air which is ALL moving, even slightly, compared to DCS's rendition of the atmosphere, which, apart from wind, is atom-perfect (ie. there is no natural churning of the atmosphere, it's all perfectly smooth, and turbulence in the sim is just a mathematical, zero sum simulation, unlike real air masses - DCS cannot, after all, model every cubic centimeter of the atmosphere, it has to abstract some things). The modelling they've done on the air mass after an aircraft passes through it was indeed VERY impressive though. So in DCS, you get a more 'concentrated' and intense burst of wake vortex IMHO?.....hard to describe. Some background: I fly heavy jets out of one of the busiest airports in the world (watch me start swearing when somebody mentions 'enhanced wake turbulence separation' - the only 'enhanced' part about it is that the chance of hitting somebodies wake is 'enhanced') - sure, hitting a heavies' wake in another heavy isn't the same is being in a light aircraft (and a fighter, pulling G's is probably chewing the air up a LOT), but you still get a sense of the strength of the air movement after a 300 ton airliner ploughs through it a couple of miles ahead of you. And to me, because of what I've felt, DCS feels to 'sharp' and the result of wake is too much..... My 2c.....and I absolutely do not consider my opinion more important or anything - ED have far more time invested in the maths behind this by people much brighter than me, that's for sure....so who knows. But I do turn it off
  16. ARM505

    Issues

    I've been playing this since it's spiritual predecessor was called 'Flanker', and to me, it's never been better. As it's scope continually expands, the issues do too, I get what you're saying - it's like a permanent work in progress, BUT: when you look at the breadth of it all, and what it can do now, it is an INCREDIBLE piece of software. It helps to focus on the bits that work, and are fully fleshed out of course, it can feel like a permanent construction zone otherwise, true, but still........I stick with 'never been better' (helps that I have just bought a new PC)
  17. The Huey is the simplest (mechanically, systems) and the most 'pure, unfiltered' chopper-ery chopper. all the others have some form of SAS/AP to greater or lesser degrees. I have all of them, and when I want a blast of raw helicopter, that's what I'll go to. The Hip leads nicely into the Hind (similar systems/methodology, rotor spins the same direction etc) though.....frankly, they're all worth it in some way or another (I did only pick up the Gazelle after the FM update, and it was my last pick anyway - not much into it) So....UH1. Also, 'Fortunate son: ON/ON' (there is no OFF)
  18. ....especially when compared to how good (for example) the AH64 and KA50 look (was just admiring it in multiplayer now, really very good animation)
  19. Taxied around KUT a bit online, did a circuit with a touch and go, landed and taxied back in without spontaneously exploding - always a win in my book.
  20. And to see the system under stress:
  21. It's very well done, exceptional job, and makes me feel bad that I turn the pilot body off for 99.99% of all flying I do, in all modules. I need to see those switches....and the ones I need to see are normally the ones that are along the side cockpit, the exact ones that are lower priority, thus not mapped to any of my HOTAS/button boxes, and are completely obscured by the pilot model. Even in VR, I find the pilot body the most pointless aspect of a module. I don't get the insistance on it - if I made a module, I would prioritise other aspects. It sucks up work time (modelling, animation etc), for no real simulation gain, and no functional difference. It's already more of a hassle to flick switches compared to reality, I don't need another barrier. Before the pilot body lovers complain, that is of course JUST MY OPINION, and one which module makes clearly disagree with.
  22. I was just in Lisbon for work - the airport was busy, that's for sure! I didn't know a thing about it until we landed, then somebody mentioned it was some kind of 'youth festival' (?) and the Pope was there. Lot's of people. My first time there, so I don't know what it would normally be like. Nice place!
  23. Thanks, and that article made me search to see if those Tac Attack publications are available online; lo and behold, the USAF has graced us with a repository! https://www.acc.af.mil/Units/ACC-Safety/Magazine-Archive/ Goldmines of hilarious stories and cool reads. I once again appreciate the openness the Pax Americana has graced us with.
  24. I need an 'idiots guide to wtf a JFS is'. I know APU's (use those every day at work), electric start, cartridge start etc, but have never taken the time to get JFS units. So.....what are they? What principle do they work on? Do they really start as fast as depicted in this module? Do they need warmup time? I assume they run on jet fuel? Are they just small APU's (ie. small gas turbines?) Anyway, it looks relatively small at least (I assume it's the thing in the middle of the other two things on the left in the photo - my guess is CGB (central gear box?) then JFS, between two gennies, then the hyd. pumps, and the AMADS on the outside?) For my next lesson, I'll learn what priniciple of magic an F16 uses to start....or wtf an EPU is....
  25. ....and on the graphics front, not that we'd want a direct comparison (entirely different genres) but the success of Battlebit shows you don't need absolute graphical fidelity to have a fun game. But that's not the purpose of what we're aiming for of course. A first person view is the just the building block of a LOT of other things. And it doesn't need to be a game mode by itself. It should just be to support what DCS is. That 'granularity' or 'small blade of grass' view is needed for the detail of helicopter/AFV operations. It wouldn't take much to provide basic 'human' movement to what is already in the game. Having your pilot walk is already there. He just needs to run/crouch/go prone, and move in a less ridiculous manner in general for Step 1.
×
×
  • Create New...