Demongornot

Did RAZBAM stated they will do an attack helicopter or an AH-1 or is it just a request ? And well I think if RAZBAM had to make a variant of the AH-1, they'll wait for ED to release their own (since ED already said they wanted to make a AH-1 a while ago) and make another variant, and I doubt that we will get both S and F as they are close to each other, so if ED for example make the S or F, RAZBAM might do the W as they are different enough.

I haven't fly DCS in a while so I might be wrong, but the hardest part might be to calculate the time to impact of the JSOW because depending on the glide slope they might have totally different speed while HARM having a motor that burn for a significant amount of time and reach Mach 2 will have a flight time depending on the target distance. So maybe there is a easier method or we could do the maths, but here is what I'll do if I was to do it : If you have time, just make some tests to write a table of basic time to impact depending on the distance for the HARM (because after burn out the time will change considerably and the velocity will decrease until reaching a final glide speed, so simple linear maths won't be enough) at low, medium and high altitude inside its launch altitude envelope. And time to impact based on both distance and altitude (with more altitudes range than with the HARM) to get a graph showing the time to impact at different range/altitudes of the JSOWS. I know that the carrier aircraft speed when launching those weapons also influence the time to impact differently for the two weapons, but the goal here is not to get an exact precision timing anyway. Just make a mission with infinite ammo, one with the JSOW and the other with the HARM, keep constant speed and altitude and launch regularly weapons, then do it again at other altitudes, then analyze it with Tacview to get the time with launch time and impact time difference, it won't take you long to do and it don't require you to do any maths, and unlike calculating flight time you constantly have those data now, just don't forget to check time to target regarding your actual distance to target and not your previously launched weapon distance when you use it (I can imagine this is a easy mistake to do). If you want to do the math yourself then you need to calculate the average glide speed depending of the slope of the JSOW and 3 different velocity for the HARM : Cruising, deceleration after burn out, glide velocity then add the 3 depending on the distance, maybe you want to do non linear calculation and compute the deceleration to get more precision during this phase or simply average it out.

As simo1000rr pointed it out, this is a great option for peoples with Joys who don't have many buttons or peoples with Hotas who want to use the trim hat for something else (camera movement for those who don't have TIR or VR headset for example). Imagine someone with the Logitech Extreme 3D Pro (one of the most popular Joystick) but still want to fly aircraft with advanced avionic and HOTAS like the A10C or the Hornet, he already need to release the joy to use the keyboard to use most command that normally are done hand on, so auto trim can help greatly, this is more unrealistic to be forced to use a keyboard than having auto trim. I don't see it as cheating, just as a tool, mainly considering that trimming is a really easy and simple task to do, this isn't as if it was skill demanding, auto start is way more a cheat than that, on Helicopters tho one might argue that trimming require a minimum skill level to be accomplished. @CBStu Well if it just compensate for asymmetrical load and speed, it won't affect how we fly during turn and other maneuvers which is the way to go.

Forget the F-111, all I want is the B1B :D

Something modern and big like the AW101

The thing with mining is, it is not only/always GPU bounded, Ethereum was actually what caused the GPU embargo, but a lot of crypto work way better with ASIC, also, some peoples speculate that what made Nvidia price skyrocket wasn't actually crypto (tho it was part if it) but rather the pro sector with a lot of demand for rendering and gpu computing, from big data and machine learning to all the new youtubers who require GPU for things outside gaming like rendering for example (which is why Titan card exist, unlike what some people think they aren't made for game). My personal analysis goes that way : If crypto influenced GPU price recently, it was basically for lowering them, Graphic Card manufacturer and reseller got scared to sell graphic card to miner because this is a volatile market and while you are about to make 10k new graphic card striped down of feature useless for miners (which isn't anyway a desired thing since for the same building process they can sell card at higher price, which is why dedicated mining card were not a thing), if the crypto market collapse, you now have a lot of unsaleable cards, also they wanted price to increase anyway, so by holding the supply it resulted in high demand, higher price and low availability, they won at this time. They saw that crypto was a strong market and a potential good opportunity to sell a lot of cards, but rather than then releasing lot of card for high price before the price got down because of lower demand from gamers, miners and other users, they were forced to hold down because gamers started to hate miners, this mean any reseller who make crypto card or don't do things to prevent miners to buy them would basically got red flagged, so they hold up and recently only (few month ago, 2 I think) they started to finally build up stocks and got ready to sell for everyone, but they were too slow and crypto value plummeted down at a point where it wasn't profitable to buy GC for crypto, Bitcoin got too low for that and already had ASIC and Ethereum not only loose value as well but ASIC started to be available. And basically there were a lot of leftover card in the market while a really low demand also occurred, not only because no new major graphic card occurred, one big one was on the way (the new 20xx serie) and they were expensive, so the price started to goes down, peoples slowly buy again and stabilised the price (otherwise they would not be worth much today) and now they can't lower the price otherwise they will kill the launch of the new cards, they will probably have the 20xx serie at a higher price than would have been otherwise only for compensating for previous generation (after all, those leftover also need to be sold), and when enough new card will be sold, the previous series will see their price go down to get to get rid of excess stock and compensate the expense of producing them, but they won't lower much, just enough so that they are still viable to buy even tho the 20xx will be released for those who can't afford them, but not too affordable to sabotage the new thing... Price will be really unstable and basically they can't really predict what will happen, so it will fluctuate to compensate, but I guess the price will bounce around MSRP and a certain level most of the time. Anyway, who plan to buy one of this new card ? I'll probably get a 2080ti to replace my old 7970 for having proper VR experience, but I won't buy it day 1, so I hope someone which will, will report on DCS performance and stability on 20x0 cards, if possible with VR. Tho I am afraid that the Ray Tracing core will cause some troubles, some games probably coded shaders in their engine in a way that work with a regular GPU but won't be really useful or glitchy with RT cores... I hope DCS isn't one of them, because DCS have a lot of picture in picture, transparency and lighting going on. Tho I wonder if this tech could be actually used to reproduce radar scan for air to air and air to ground with lesser performance hit, because after all radar is basically a ray tracing tech, except that radar can pass through some object as long as this isn't dense enough, even IR sensors could benefit from that since basically it can be a simple PIP with its own shaders applied to it by hack where materials data will actually be heat data. Tho this is only on paper, in reality since probably a minority of DCS users will own those card, it would not really make sense to do it...

Is it possible to export camera informations ? I am mostly interested in knowing if we are in cockpit (F1 view) camera or another one and in the cockpit what all 3 axis in rotation and translation currently are while moving head around with TIR or VR headset, maybe with DCS-BIOS can do it ? Thanks !

Exactly, Tho I don't have motion sickness in Assetto Corsa or DCS, Dirt Rally is different because of how much everything shake and move around. This might also evolve : https://www.wired.com/2015/09/hacking-inner-ear-vrand-science/ Also "virtual reality" isn't a proper word to describe those currents headset, we aren't in a virtual reality, we just look at it, the proper name should be reality immersion headset, but marketing have make it that way, like those 'hoverboard" who don't over... When the true proper VR will come, it will be like in those movies where we put an headset, our body is sleeping but the interface receive all our movement attempt and can give false feedback for the 5 senses, this will be true VR and game of any kind including sims will be awesome when this will be done !

The main issue is still here, if I want to fly something else and I endup needing a precise throttle management at a range where the detent is (really likely to happen sadly) even a "smooth" detent will cause troubles by reducing the precision and ability to react quickly, and if it is too smooth, it will be easy to pass through really often. I simply bounded the AB button of DCS to the autopilot disengage of the Warthog Throttle, sadly it only work as a toggle while it should work as a push to enable button. I know, but when I join aerobatic server (I prefer free flights over combats flights) I often change aircrafts, with a VR Headset, it will be really quickly annoying to do that everytime...

Thanks for the information, but I already knew those existed (I already search for that a while ago). The issue is, what if while flying an helicopter, the require power setting is just on the detent, or same for formation flying/AA refueling or for older aircraft like the F5, the exact position for maintaining the proper speed for a bombing run, those things are more than likely to happen quite often where the range where you need to operate your throttle in a non AB aircraft is exactly around the detent. If there was a mod where we can switch the detent on/off without having to take the throttle apart, I'll have bought it. I can easily imagine how such system would work with a 3 position switch on the detent cover that change the position of a movable detent to allow for : Lift to pass, Pass through, and no detent modes. If only the AB detent wasn't that far from max axis it wouldn't be an issue, I can't understand why Thrustmaster thought it would be a good idea to put it so close to the middle... Tho it only fix the issue for Warthog owners, DCS side feature are still required for all others joysticks.

When I tried the Hornet with my VR headset, since I only have a HD7970 as GC, I am only able to get 20 FPS if I want a readable cockpit, but I am able to fly long time (for sure over an hour) without motion sickness of any sort, and I don't go easy on low flying, spin, barrel roll and other stuff like that, yet I had it once while trying Dirt Rally on Oculus even with good FPS. And since the big difference between Dirt Rally and DCS is how quick the camera move around, I guess if you are afraid to have motion sickness, start flying sloothly, with high FPS at first (even if you had to sacrifice graphics quality until you got accustomed) if you don't have a good GC and disable G effect affecting camera movement. If even this scare you too much, simply start with an aircraft parked and just look around the cockpit, maybe start it, but don't move it until you feel comfortable, then navigate on the ground while avoiding hard braking/turning, if you manage that, you can probably handle a flight. If you already have a VR headset, just try it, if you have troubles, try doing it for a short amount of time and increase slowly how long and then how hard you fly, if you don't have one, well try if you can borrow one, and more importantly, don't be afraid about that, if you can handle DCS with Track IR, you have great chances to handle VR as well, TIR can actually goes harder on inner ear than VR headset since the head movement aren't 1:1.

I usually put my right hand on the mouse and my left hand from the throttle to the joystick, using a screen with the A10 or more recently with a VR headset, last time I flown the Hornet I did this and I never had issues doing it with any airplane/helicopter, throttle often require less work than joystick even for helicopter (except in low altitude or close formation flight and such of course), so switching hand isn't a huge issue, pilot on Airbus have their stick on the left while most being probably right handed. Another solution is to create a macro which will push all the buttons on the cockpit for whatever you plan to do (here, to engage autopilot), most Joy's software have macros.

A button for "Passing through the detent & finger lift" which offer a toggle or a push to pass through is still needed because not all joystick have detents, even with my Warthog my detend is disabled because I really don't want to : remove the VR headset, take the key, reverse the detent, put back the thing together and the key away, put back the VR headset. Everytime I just want to switch from an aircraft with AB to one without. If the Warthog had a "push to pass" detent it would be better, but you need to lift, which make it really impractical to use with other aircrafts. For those without AB detent (having physically it or having it enabled) a button in the sim seem necessary still, AB have a huge impact on IR missiles and quickly consume fuel, enabling it by accident can sometime really have bad consequences, like someone who though he is at MIL but have AB on at lowest setting and is busy doing something else (sensors or anything) might waste lot of fuel. This kind of thing isn't about reproducing how the real throttle operate (you would need at least the Thrustmaster Hornet for that) but rather allowing the player to use it's own as the real one

There is so many problems and questions that may actually explain why this kind of cursor haven't been done yet... Making the cursor being able to stay in place within a bubble only solve a single issue which is X and Y axis rotation of the camera, it could also be projected into Z axis, but where it start to become complicated is axis translation, if your cursor is over "S" switch and you transition the camera in a lateral way, if the cursor is projected into a sphere, it will simply move away and now be over another switch. The solution would be to project it against the 3D cockpit, but it cause two issues, the first is now, do the player really meant to put it here against the seat, or should we consider it as exactly over that switch 3 pixel away (then the player move and the cursor is in a radically different position) and also projecting the coordinate of the cursor into a 3D object will be way more complex than using a simple coordinate system, you would need to use a method close to ray tracing. Tho it is only for a single cursor and the performance hit would be impossible to notice. Also what if the cursor follow the cockpit, but we move from left to right making where it was now hidden under another object, the joystick, another switch, the pilot body, etc etc...And should the cursor track the general control location or should it stay on the same place (placing it on the top or on the base of a switch). The cursor lock also cause the same location issue, tho it can be a little helped by binding the cursor location on screen to the location of the control (the same can also be used for cockpit locking the cursor but we now need to address it over a polygon) which is not as simple to address as a control depending on how DCS is coded...But now should we have cursor locked over control and fixed otherwise or locked and who stay in the same place in the cockpit. Because when hovering a control, if turned on a label with the name of the control appear, but now if we consider the mouse to be either cockpit or screen locked, it either undesirably lock over control we didn't wanted because of a slight movement of your mouse caused by your desk & joystick making your cursor to be gone further from where you excepted it to be, or if screen locked as now, it will cast unwanted label when getting over controls... Also cockpit fixed cursor cause the issue of loosing the cursor, we should not have to remember where the cursor was, so what if it was in a weird location the last use and we try to find it by moving it left and right, but since it may be on the pilot's back, the cursor move but is nowhere to be found... Also how should the cursor act against the interface now, etc etc, so many issues... I personally want to to this : http://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-Data-Glove-V2/ Having a left click button, a right click button, a scroll wheel and a button to basically switch the cursor ON/OFF, (so when I'll put my hand on my HOTAS, the cursor won't move like crazy on the VR screen, which would be so annoying), also a simple calculation between mouse location and headset attitude may with some maths allowing for some quick script on Glovepie or little software in C or VB.NET for example to having it on a fixed place in the cockpit, this is my personal solution for this, and it also fix the issue of having to deal with a mouse while in VR. But for now, my proposal for how the cursor should act : Fixed over the same part of the cockpit until it leave the field of view (avoiding both loosing the cursor or the annoying cursor moving everywhere causing labels to flash), and then, when moving the mouse, the cursor appear on the centre of the screen and again is cockpit locked, except of course if hovering over an interface element (Briefing, escape menu, radio when they will be clickable etc). Also, if you put, lets say, the cursor against the cockpit floor, but move your head against the canopy in a position where another element get over it, the lock location will always be switched, except if the cursor was over a control like a button or rotary switch for example.

I forgot about something really important in my previous message about dogfight, are we including all weapons ? Because if yes, the AIM-9X may give a huge advantage to the F-18 in a lot of situations during dogfight. Of course the missile isn't magical and if the Hornet can't get the Mirage in his JHMCS or the trajectories of the both can't allow for a shoot it won't change anything except psychological pressure on the Mirage's pilot if he notice them. So for BVR right now I don't know, in the future the Hornet will have the advantage, and for dogfight, right now the Mirage have it, and latter on, the Mirage will have advantage on more gun only but a hard time with close range missiles (both 120 because of they fire and forget ability and AIM9X will add advantages) fight on WVR.

I've recently bought both, I haven't time to do much with the Hornet except some free flight and the two first lessons and I've not yet touched the Mirage, but I guess the Hornet have the lead in BVR (tho until the 120, TWS mode and some bugs fixed, it don't have his full potential, so IDK for right now) while the Mirage 2000C with his older radar sill have the edge in dogfight. The Hornet have a better Radar and avionic while the Mirage have great thrust and acceleration, manoeuvrability and incredible instantaneous turn rate. That's how I would see things.

Best suggestion ever in DCS ! Just after the old suggestion for a clickable MI-8 cockpit fan of course :lol: Seriously, this + ability to scroll up and down the chat would be just perfect !

I imagine the best being a more fluid DCS World full fidelity module and MAC merging. The idea to make a simpler version of aircraft to attract more casual players could actually greatly take advantage of full fidelity modules having a MAC level of detail option, I know there is simplified Avionic and Flight model, but I never tested those so I don't know how they compare to FC3, the idea would be to make them FC3/MAC like with this simplified option without running into arcade. If each aircraft had both simplified and full fidelity options in top of MAC basically being a collection of all aircraft but only with FC3/MAC level of avionic, VR readiness and clickable cockpit for at least some keys features like gears, flaps, canopy and other (with a keybinding to highlight available buttons), and other improvement MAC will put over FC3, it would be perfect !

If the Stable have been able to reach the Beta build, this may mean that the next Beta build will push a lot of new things or big features, or at least something long to code that they are still working on.

WW2 bombers would be awesome, I personally would love the P47, but some bomber like B17 or B24 would change so much how we fly ! There is also the Russian Equivalent with the Tu160 and the SU24, but I think that the Western variant would have greater success, tho the SU24 vs F111 preferences would be interesting to know.

This is both an aircraft wish and a question... Would those aircraft be possible ? The B1B might be a challenge to get data from (TBH I totally don't know, maybe the early models are totally declassified or maybe are really hard to get informations about). But the interesting point in feasibility is that both might be a challenge to make because their would not be as popular as fighters/attack aircraft, making them less likely to be chosen as product to make. Also an interesting point about "less desired aircraft" would be that they would have more chances to be popular the sooner they are made, because when there will be way more aircraft to choose from, the release of aircraft like that might actually be a "meh" for many peoples because there would be many other aircraft to choose and many people without a big collection would prefer a F15E over a F111 for example, while if they was to be released today I think that they would have a big success. Tho both would be great for new experiences as the F111 have different roles from most attack/fighters aircraft flyable in DCS, and side by side cockpit might be great for when multicrew will arrive. The B1B is totally unique because it is a bomber, a big aircraft, but it is probably the most interesting of the big aircraft to fly. Don't get me wrong, I would love to fly big aircraft like C-130 or C-17 and equivalent for example and I was sad when I learned that no flyable B-17 would be made, but their flight would be closer to an airliner compared to what we have today in DCS and they might fit into a niche, and their are probably not likely to be made anytime soon sadly, but the B1B is literally made for flying at low altitude, it might actually be more interesting during long missions than a F111 or even than the A10C and other slow ground attack aircraft depending on the mission. So considering one might not have enough public informations available and both aren't as commercially appealing for devs to put effort into developing them than lot of other aircraft who aren't yet done or even planned, how likely you think they are to be made ?

I've done a way better (and final) version. The idea is the same, but it work way better now. This VoiceAttack profile lets you set 2 button/key, and they both have 2 actions, one when pressing, the other when keeping it pressed down for a certain amount of time (that you can set). Button 1 short : Previous. Button 1 long : Cancel. Button 2 short : Next. Button 1 long : OK. The menus contains : Cockpit, Ejection, Space, Map, Radio (toggle radio menu), Pilot (toggle pilot body), Specials, Kneepad, F keys, Custom, Volume and Options/Settings. Specials contain : Recenter VR (² key), Chat toggle, Enter, Full Screen, Active Pause, Auto Start, Auto Stop. Kneepad contain : Next, Previous and Toggle. Functions Keys are F keys from F1 to F12. Custom lets you set (in VoiceAttack) easily your own custom shortcuts, 5s pressed down Y keys is set as Custom 1 as an example, you have up to 24 custom keys available. Volume allow windows volume to be increased/decreased (by 5% steps) or mute (with OK). Options contain : Time (say IRL time), Change Delay, Auto Reset, Reset Delay Time, Reset, Launch DCS World. Kneepad, Volume, Change Delay and Reset Delay Time all four, once selected, will require you to use cancel (long press on button 1) to leave unlike other actions which revert you to Main Menu Item 1. Button 1 (short) and 2 (short and long) have direct control over them. And you can spamm the Previous/Next keys without any issues from what I observed. Change Delay lets you set what delay between a simple click and a long press you want, the default is 0.5 seconds, you can go as low as 0.1 and increase it with 0.1 seconds increments. Auto Reset which is Enabled by default and set to 6 seconds basically will go back to the main menu (first item) after the set time is reached, it is not enabled inside Kneepad, Volume, Change Delay and Reset Delay Time settings. Reset Delay Time allow you to set the wait time before it auto reset with 0.5 seconds increment and a minimum of 1 seconds. Reset just reset everything (including settings) to default, and Launch DCS World will, obviously Launch DCS World, tho you will need to manually setup the executable directory... Except if you have installed DCS World at "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World" in which case the Run.exe is the target. Previous and Next allow you to navigate menu or directly do actions (like the Kneepad for example),"OK" allow you to enter the menu and Cancel to get to the previous one, or at the first item of the main menu if you are already here, OK also reset Change Delay (0.5s) and Reset Delay Time (6s) to their default value. You at least need to setup the 2 buttons (Once for press and another time for release) for it to work, DCS directory isn't necessary, and custom functions are completely optional. DCS World VR VA Profile-Profile.rar

The recent Hornet release brought me back to DCS, and I play with my VR headset, but I quickly found myself forced to use way too often at my taste the keyboard, so I tried VoiceAttack (thanks steam sale) and well, my fan often put wrong commands to it because of the air in the mic, it struggles with some commands etc... The windows voice recognition make it unpleasant to use, but using the keyboard being even worse in VR for me, So, I made a profile that basically use two free buttons on the Hotas Warthog throttle, button radio up and pushed (since the A10C don't use them). So the profile work thit way : You have two buttons : OK and NEXT You can start with any of the two, it will list you the menu items : Cockpit, Ejection, Map, Escape, Special, Radio The button NEXT allow you to choose the next one (it look back to the first when reaching the end) For the first four, if you press OK you have : Cockpit = F1, Ejection = Left CTRL + 6 times E, Map = F10, Escape = Escape (obviously) For Special and Radio, OK will enter their sebmenu Special contain : Recenter (VR headset) binded by default to "²" because there is no default key for VR headset recentre, Space (nice for tutorial), Enter, Chat (left shift + tab), Full Screen = left alt + enter, pilot = right shift + p to switch pilot body and finally FCS BIT which is for the F18 and keep the y key down for 3 seconds, so you can click on the left MFD. Radio contain basically shortcut for function keys, from F1 to F12. If you double tap on OK, it reset itself, so if you are not sure or accidentally press OK with ejection selected (totally not already happened to me during the F18 training while trying to invoke Escape and missclicking, also totally not why I switched Ejection which as originally first and cockpit position :D), it have a delay of 1 second to register the double click (which also mean every menu items you choose will be set 1 second after). When you enter a submenu, just wait to hear the voice before trying to use NEXT, otherwise Special will invoke Radio and Radio will invoke F1 (cockpit), same when cancelling with double OK (even tho this one should be fine to spam anyway). DCS World VR-Profile.rar

This topic remind me this video : [ame] [/ame]

Sinon tu peux aussi regarder du coté du simu Steel Beast Pro PE, très complet et ultra réaliste, je ne l'ai jamais utiliser mais il à l'air de correspondre a ta description.