Dragon1-1

What does it have to do with anything? We already have screens with enough pixel density to match human eye resolution (about 60PPD) at typical Smartphone distances. Doesn't have anything to do with living or not, or with "superseding" human eyes. BTW, if that was your goal, you'd need a camera, not a screen. That, we don't yet have, the highest native resolution you can get out of a professional camera is about 150MP, compared to human eye's almost 600, but that is improving, too (besides, stacking 4 of those gets you there, if you can somehow afford 4 Pentax XFs).

Since the map origin is in the same place, and I guess the terrain mesh is the same in overlapping areas, then compatibility between the two maps should be simple. In theory, a mission made for the old Normandy should work exactly the same on the new Normandy. In theory. How it works out in practice is another matter.

You again with your peddling. No, your overpriced magic RAM won't magically make things better in the actual sim. It might show up on benchmarks, but it's a rather hard sell that it'll translate to real usage in a meaningful way.

OK, so maybe not on grass. It has those dual wheel bogies to reduce ground pressure, but I guess it's not enough to fly from a completely unpaved field. I know Soviet block aircraft were almost all supposed to be capable of rough field operations, because the Soviet doctrine was big on that kind of thing (note the near universal presence of intake covers to protect the engines from FOD while on the ground, rough field capability is not just about the gear). The F-5E probably not, US didn't design its aircraft for this. And of course, there's also the Harrier, which doesn't really care either way. As long as it doesn't sink into the ground, it can probably fly from it.

Most Russian jets should be able to fly off grass, and the Viggen too. It was an important design parameter in both cases, since the actual runways could very well be obliterated by a nuclear strike in case the Cold War went hot.

IMO, an armed trainer would be perfect. Something not too complex, so it doesn't take too much dev time, and equipped with a fairly representative, but limited weapon loadout (guns, bombs and rockets). A full fidelity aircraft, one that won't win any MP dogfights unless you're already good, but with a backseat, so that you can have someone else to teach you, if that's your thing. Something like the T-38A, essentially, or a vintage T-45, which has an added bonus of being carrier-capable (of course, you still pay for SC, but you get to try carrier ops). Neither can carry a lot of ordnance, and IRL it's usually practice bomb racks, but you could probably take it on a combat mission in a pinch. Trainers are not big sellers, so not much revenue lost over trying to make either of those as a paid module. The TF-51D already fulfills that kind of role, sort of, but only for WWII. It can do everything except combat, and it's pretty good at teaching new players how to handle a warbird. It and the P-51D could probably use a refresh to bring them up to modern visual standards, but it's otherwise a pretty great aircraft. Because they decided they'd rather not deal with the aircraft's quirks, or with how incomplete it is. Two weeks is enough to either get hooked, or realize it's not for you, while also accounting for people who can't fly every day. The last free trial that was on Steam (it was a special event) gave me a pretty good idea what I want and what I don't want, but I did end up coming back to some of those modules later on. Given how much they cost, and how complex they are, IMO two weeks are on the short side for a trial, but it's a good idea overall. It also incentivizes 3rd parties to do a good job, otherwise people would download the free trial, see all the issues (two weeks is plenty of time to get tired of bugs) and promptly refuse to buy. Back in the old days, you could buy an aircraft only to realize it's a mess that works nothing like the real thing. RAZBAM was not always as committed to quality as they are now, and the MiG-21 is so old that it really isn't for everyone.

I wouldn't be so sure. The tech is already there, but it's expensive. I'm expecting "retina" VR displays in consumer headsets to become a thing within my lifetime. Professional grade headsets are already close, and with full FOV, too, from what I've heard. Driving them at native resolution without turning the room into a sauna is another matter, but I'm sure we'll get there, too.

Yeah, 16, been a while since I've been looking at it. Of course it makes a huge difference, that's why the designers did it that way. The F-16's ergonomics are very well thought out, although the seat had been said to be a pain in the neck on longer flights, or with the JHMCS. I suppose mounting the base at an angle could help, but it really should be an adapter.

Comms menu differs between aircraft. Sometimes it's subtle, but they are often organized slightly differently. The A-10 has quite a few commands not available elsewhere.

This really should be a separate torch effect. Although controllable black smoke would be handy, too.

Well, the Huey is iconic, simple, and it flies like a dream. If you want to buy your first helo, it's a great choice. I can imagine that the Black Shark is not everyone's cup of tea, being somewhat quirky to operate, particularly with how the autopilot works.

The problem with Winwing grip is the angle, the real Viper grip does not actually sit upright, it leans forward about 14 degrees, IIRC. That makes it a whole lot more ergonomic. Winwing should consider an angled adapter for simpit builders, the RealSimulator base already has something like that.

Also, keep in mind when it was made. The Mudhen is probably the most anticipated only because RAZBAM had been hyping it up for the last few months. At least it's good to know the advertising works, I suppose.

They probably expected to brag about all the nice things in the patch, and once that got delayed, they had to hastily put something together.

I suspect it's a classic case of wishful thinking. They test, collect the feedback, and they go "we can get this ready one time", then "we can get this ready for tomorrow" and then... "crap, we can't get this ready, not again!". You won't believe how often big time industrial software developers pull this kind of crap. Either that, or lame excuses. Unless you have it on paper that they pay penalties if they can't get stuff fixed in X time, they'll leave bugs unfixed, promised features unimplemented and all that. Dell in particular is known to threaten legal action instead of fixing their crap (at least the US part is, it's harder to pull off in the EU). Not all enterprise vendors are this bad, but it's not unheard of. ED, at least, owns up to the reasons for the delay and their updates are actually good when they do come out. If they break something really badly, a hotfix is usually forthcoming. That's more than can be said about Windows "feature updates".

We do know that they did a lot (because they had to), and we do know that they rewrote several components to both work with MT, and to work better (they stated so in the report). You keep pretending they only did MT, with not other changes in code, as if this was even possible to do. You, like many other people complaining how long it takes, have no idea just how differently multithreaded programs work from singlethreaded ones. I fully expect to get good results, ED also said things to that effect.

It did. I fly 4K VR on a 1080ti, and currently, I'm getting about 20-40FPS if I don't go overboard with the settings. This is GPU-limited, as shown by OpenXR toolkit. As such, it's reasonable to assume that the 1080ti is currently unable to drive DCS. Therefore, an FPS improvement this good could only come from better utilization of the GPU, as well as CPU. Remember, multithreading doesn't come in a vacuum, they had to quite extensively refactor the existing code, and that is what helped, on top of removing the CPU bottleneck. We say "multicore", but it's far from being just that. It's a rendering engine rework, and there's a lot to gain in that area.

Wow, nice. Good to know even the good old 1080ti will get improvements. Then again, this was kind of expected, seeing how bottlenecked DCS currently is.

Yes, actual multiplayer has, well, multiple players. This adds further load, not to mention large MP servers typically have a lot of AI ground units and the like. SP missions are more restrained, if you can shove AI to its own core, you can squeeze out some performance.

People who build simpits can easily add an armrest. In fact, it's pretty handy in that configuration. As for arm strength... well, time to hit the gym. Real fighter pilots aren't massively buff, but they do need to have some muscle. 11kg for full pitch isn't a terribly high force, all things considered, and this allows the stick to be very precise in the G range that's really important. Same for roll. Most of the time you don't want a full rate, but precision counts. This is why real pilots don't really need stick curves, AAR with a stick that tops out at 11kg of pull is supposedly pretty easy (the F-16 does actually have a curve to its stick response, but I'm not sure if DCS replicates it).

Interesting. If you have that part figured out, it can be done. Although, worth noting that a JavaScript plugin is not an executable, but if you can run Chrome from DCS (and don't mind the waste of memory), you should be able to do that.

Actually, this is so you can have external sounds on your speakers, and radio on your headphones, to replicate how you'd hear them in a real aircraft. There are several people here crazy enough to set this up like so, complete with using an actual flight helmet as the "radio" sound device. This is also probably why "hear like in helmet" is a toggle, for those who get that effect from hardware instead.

The big circle moves with your LOS, the small one moves with the radar antenna. That's the way it's supposed to work, the radar will hit a mechanical stop at some point and wouldn't be able to follow your LOS. It worked wrong at some point, but it's been fixed.

Yup, it's obviously not V for Victory holding the release up. As complex as they are, Reflected does a good job testing his campaigns. Although, I can easily imagine this big feature being shunted into the next patch to allow for the things in question to be released. Having just figured out how to take off in the Mossie without burying my wing in the ground, I'm eyeing V for Victory, although I've got so much unfinished content that I'm not sure if I'll be buying on release.

Try Winwing, if you don't mind ordering the China. I have the Orion 1 stick and Orion 2 throttle, both very solid pieces of kit. The stick is incredibly precise, it's got a progressive force curve so that it doesn't take much to move it from the center, but you need to haul back on it if you want to deflect it fully. Very smooth center with no detent, too, can be used to fly helos or the Spitfire without any sort of extension. Orion 2 base is quite customizable, too, you can put in force sensing module or dampers instead of cams. This base works best with a desk mount, can work without if you've got a smooth desk (suction cups), although it is quite tall. I have both the stick and the throttle mounted using DIY mounts, but you can use whatever. The best thing is, Orion stick bases take TM Warthog mounts, so if you don't like the cups, you can use the baseplate from your Warthog, the screw layout is identical. Oh, and if you buy the adapter, you can also use the Warthog grip, although Winwing grips are great, and their hats have quite a bit of travel, far more than TM ones. Buttons are softer but still good. My only complaint is the trigger, which is kind of weird, like it had an extra detent, but it works great once you get used to it (basically, you can't rest your trigger on the first detent, as it clicks before you feel the resistance, this is due to how they set the leaf spring for the trigger). If you're after better precision and already own a Warthog, it might be a good investment.