KaspeR32

Do you think it's safe to assume CV1 will get a bit more usable pixels as well due to the separate screens? I feel like the lenses were limited due to the single screen with DK1&2. I hope this also solves IPD issues.

I can say this about performance. These are the things we know: ED took a poll to see what types of video cards people are currently using. ED is building a new graphics engine that will take advantage of the majority of those video cards (if not all) that run DX11. Now I'm certain they are aware of fact that 2.0 needs to run on many different configurations. The question you have to ask yourself is, why wouldn't ED have their new engine perform the best it can? If there is something that can be taken advantage of, why wouldn't they take advantage? I'm fairly confident that the testers involved right now are monitoring performance very closely, and making sure EDGE is more than just a pretty facelift. Believe it or not, I have confidence that ED really wants DCS 2.0 to succeed, they want it to run on not just high end machines (STEAM users) and they want to get as much improvements as they can in while DCS is on the operating table. I'm not a religious man, but I have faith that DCS World 2 will meet most if not all of our performance needs. :music_whistling: EDIT: Either that or I build a new machine :)

I'm not sure what your definition of "quality" is when it comes to VR, but many people that have tried Valve's HTC Vive say that the feeling of presence is definitely there. While I agree that for certain simulation experiences the current crop of VR devices might be a little sub par, I don't doubt for a second that Oculus CV1 or HTC Vive will create an experience unlike any other in DCS. If you can wait I give you credit, because I'm jumping in head first when it comes to VR and flight sims. :pilotfly:

Wait are EDGE's clouds even volumetric?

Good thing you never tried DK1. :megalol: But yeah, that does suck for you.

Hope you're able to find that mission, as I am interested as well in setting up a "base capture" mission where more planes become available for different tasks. Thanks!

You know how you're supposed to raise the throttle 1 inch before you start? Don't do that. Keep it at idle and start the P-51D. It starts and idles fine. No stalls, no stuttering engine, etc. That's all I mean. It was discussed earlier and the possibility was thrown out there that they *might* return to the PFM to tweak starting behavior of engines (low-RPM). It's not something that would be required by any means to enjoy the aircraft, but I always thought it'd be cool to FEEL the merlin engine starting up a bit less... perfectly. :thumbup: :pilotfly: :)

(Yo-Yo) 1 --- (Everyone else who thinks they know what they're talking about) 0. Yo-Yo, I know there are many more WWII planes on the horizon, but is it possible devs might be returning to the PFMs to add low-RPM modeling and smoke to start-ups?

Well it looks like I am the one switching the planes up in my head. I'm talking about the Dora. So priming is not necessary in the DORA maybe because of the electric fuel pumps. I don't think it's something that just isn't implemented. :thumbup:

I don't remember seeing a priming pump anywhere in the Bf-109. I do however remember switching on 2 fuel pumps (front and rear) which is when the fuel pressure rises for me. Are you confusing the planes?

Great video, I just watched the whole thing at work, hope nobody noticed :music_whistling:

Has anyone mentioned Calverton, NY? It's where Grumman built and tested the F-14. It would be pretty neat to have Long Island and Long Island sound, although like the Nevada map, you'd have to imagine any conflict in the area. It is quite nostalgic though. EDIT: My dad works for Grumman(now Northrop Grumman) and used to bring my family to the "Grumman Picnics" out in Calverton. They used to fly 2 F-14s overhead, right over the treetops (must have been late 80s) and I remember it shaking my insides. It made me appreciate and love the F-14 ever since.

Hey, thanks for you help Invis! One more question, I read on one of Toby's README files about having to download an additional files for 64-bit SweetFx, Is that still the case or is that no longer an issue?

Are a lot of people using Sweetfx with this texture pack? If so, can somebody point me to a decent tutorial on how to set sweetfx up? It's a bit confusing right now with installation, I read somewhere to download a separate 64 bit patch for it, and then there are separate settings (toby posted his in one of his readmes). Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

Are these still being made? And if so what is a link? I tried one a few pages back but I get a 404.

Welp, this might officially be the most useful thing I've ever used for DCS. I don't use your actual profiles but I do use the modified buttons (3 way switches) from this mod. I have to say, not only can I understand very easily how to make more of my own custom "switch" buttons, but your default ones are incredibly useful and have been exactly what I'd like to use the Warthog for. So, thank you both so much for your effort, and if you take donations I would be happy to donate for your time spent.

To the first point, I think we all agree scaling up objects 10x their normal size isn't an adequate solution. Sharpe, you are zoomed in, with the target right in front of you. That's the point we're all trying to make. YES zoomed in works. But you loose all your other FOV. We're trying to figure out a way to have planes visible, without zooming in on every area in a 360 degree sky. It seems to me that Falcon 4.0 USES scaling and people seem to be happy with it, so why is it off the table for some people and DCS? Doesn't make sense.

Amazing. :thumbup: Does that tech hurt everyone in terms of realism?? :music_whistling:

The "yes" vote is for something being done about the current situation within DCS, not necessarily using a pre-existing solution from another game.

Again, we all speak of extreme examples. We all agree that spotting targets is really difficult in DCS. Some people like it, and think it's a challenge, and realistic. Sith I personally don't see using labels being the same thing as using some form of smart scaling. Yes, neither is "perfectly realistic" but who cares? It's all about immersion and enjoyment. I enjoy being immersed but still being able to fly around with my brother (within 5nm) and able to spot him easier than it is now. I mean enough people chimed in on this thread, and voted (yes I know forum members don't represent the whole player base) that this issue should be looked at more seriously. Also, since the majority of the player base likes FC3 (not just members on the forums), I'm almost positive that they would vote the same way. Keep the immersion but find a way to have planes be slightly more visible.

If I was thinking in such limited way about the situation I would probably agree with you. :music_whistling: Why bring it to such extremes? What if the scaling is done on a more minimal scale? A few pixels here, a few pixels there. Or something done with reflections of light on a shiny metal surface (think battlefield 3+ and sniper scopes). Anything to help make up for the lack of detail we see on a monitor, with limited FOV and "zoom". There could very well be a solution to this issue, but simply dismissing it because of one very extreme case isn't helping anything.

This is at an amazing resolution as well. I absolutely think something needs to be done, although it is hard in real life in some situations as the Air Traffic Controller mentioned, people play this online, for fun, and with friends. It's a game at heart, it entertains us. ED makes a Game Flight mode for almost every aircraft they release, so please don't say it's unrealistic therefore it shouldn't be considered. I have mentioned this before, but when I tried to play DCS with my brother, who is not familiar with sims, we spent 90% of the time just looking for each other in the sky. Even the aircraft lights didn't help. So asking for something in between labels and invisible isn't uncalled for.

Thanks for the response :thumbup: Does this also explain the flaps? I'll have to look at the diagram that you mentioned. You are right though, sometimes it's those little details that I love about DCS (and if I don't understand them, cry about)

I think I've found another issue with the electrical system. The fuses for "Landing Gear Power" and "Instrument Lights, Gun-Sight, Indicators, Compass and Starter" seem to be mixed up, at least in regards to the landing gear. You can replicate this behavior if you retract the landing gear on the ground with just the power and landing gear fuse on, the gear doesn't retract. But when I press the Instrument light fuse (3rd from the front), the gear retracts. Can anyone else confirm? Also the "Flaps, Trimmer, Artificial Horizon" fuse still does nothing. Flaps work with or without it on. This is in version 1.2.16.37730

+1 Extremely important. At least make aircraft landing lights extremely visible from far distances. Watch any airport and see how bright those lights look from 5+ nm away