Jump to content

Rosly

Members
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rosly

  1. Oh I get it now. You are talking about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx29Fbb2Rqc Wow I didn't know that it is originally a 4 way switch instead of analog joystick (do not have Warhog joy). Eaah, so extending the ministick will not help you. You cannot change this minimal speed in rate 1 at which the TGP is start moving. My extending the minijoystick or changing the curves you only influence on when the rate 1 will kick in (sensor start to move). It will still move with this programmed minimal slew rate. Too emphasize this even more (if not stressed enough ) imagine that if you were annoyed by having only 1 level of slew and you feel relief by switching to analog, you actually not getting full potential of it. You still have limited number of slew rates (9 for TGP and 4 for Mav, wonder how many for Radar). There is still only 9 levels of slew of TGP and 4 for Mav. Imagine how it would feel if it will be properly implemented. How precise it can be and should actually be if coded properly in the game. As mentioned @MartinVoy and @Reflectedboth wonder about the same. Though 9 slew rate levels for TGP is already making a difference comparing to 4 in Mav (those guys mentioned that in their discussion) it still should be far smother as there is no logical reason to quantize the TGP or Mav slew rate at all! Hope that this is crystal clear now what I'm complaining about. And on top of that, real TGP and Mav seeker heads are prone to at least some inertia, means the head cannot stop slewing right in the spot (especially from high slew rates). Yes this is quite rapid but not as "pinpoint hard" as in current implementation of DCS, which is purely game outcome of it being not simulated properly. Plus a whole other minor things like when plane is changing direction TGP should not shake like it is currently, which is purely effect of bug that came from probably some timing or data synchronization issues in the simulation of flight model of the plane and TGP tracking "simulation" (very noticeable when you track A-A like plane, you have 3 or 4 ghost images which came from different frames of picture). A lot of issues there but lets stick to one. I want to gather opinion and actual data/proff from you guys before making the bug report. The slew rate seems to be not quantized in reality and IMHO the current implementation is kind of shortcut in the code. This unfortunately influence on realism and precision while using TGP and Mavs and is simply annoying that you need to fight with TGP targeting (specially in heat of battle). This should be implemented better IMHO or if I'm wrong and there is actually a quantization in slew rate for sensors, let the proof for this appear in this thread. As mentioned, I have found something opposite to current implementation on videos recorded in the 90s from the actual F-16 jet.
  2. Oh... by joystick axis I was having the minijoystick axis in mind. We talking about Radar/TGP/Mav slew rate here, not yaw, pitch etc rate. Those are not quantized.
  3. You can adjust the joysticks axis curve's but this is influencing the RAW input values which are then translated to 9 or 4 slew speed levels. You cannot change those sleew rates/speed, means you are only controlling relation between joysticks angle and preprogrammed slew rate levels (not the slew rate level itself). And yes, that's another angle how this problem may be explained. The implemented model of discrete levels for slew rate is the point, as mentioned in the topic. As seen in the videos there is no discrete sleew speeds in reality (at least the opposite can be seen on the videos from 90s I linked). Hope someone from ED will appear in this topic and share a though on what material the implementation was based. As mentioned I'm not the only one who noticed this and being annoyed (maybe because F-16 is my favorite model and want to love it even more
  4. @silverdevil This is not issue with the controller or minijoystick in it (dead zone or noise) if this is what you asking. I use Winwing Orion 2 and also have Thrustmaster T.16000M but as said it's not a point in noisy joystick. The 9 discreet levels slew rate levels for TGP and 4 levels for MAV in DCS is easy to check by naked eye. And I'm not talking about numbers which are displayed on TGP but actual slew speed and difference to reality.
  5. I was wondering if it is actually so hard in reality to use TGP and Mavericks as in DCS F-16. Every time I need to correct TGP or Mav by a fraction, I struggle as I need to use the "pulse modulation" technique to move it just a bit (like I'm would play some old school racing sim on keyboard not actually controlling an analog joystick). Usually I overshoot. This very frustrating and also feels fake as the camera does not expose any inertia (rock steady jump). I found out that implementation actually use 9 discrete levels for slew speed of TGP and 4 levels of slew rate for Mavericks. This is weird as it would be intentional to make pilot such headache to actually limit the number of slew speed levels. Actually the analog joystick has like 16k levels and I cannot understand why imposing such limits would be beneficial to the pilot. By making levels discrete there is a lot of precision degradation in terms of control (yes I know the analog joysticks are usually digital but there are like 16k levels not 4!) So I tried to confirm this behaviour in some "source" material and on videos I found it looks like despite the TGP is displaying the slew speed as single digit it is not constraining slew speed to discrete levels, or at least there is enough inertia in the movement which allows far more control to what we are used in DCS. Here you can see pilot is moving the TGP very precisely in AREA mode with a lot of control. It is totally opposite to what we see in DCS when you either have 0 movement or speed 1, than 2,3 etc which result in rock stady tracking and sudden jump while entering first speed. Here is a similar video but for Maverick You can clearly see the camera movement is smooth and pilot control it with ease. It is far from those 4 speed levels we have in all Maverics in current F-16 model. Would be great to discuss implementation based on material on which it was designed. Some other videos I found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFj6f9L827A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As1X6xBNEK0 And some other topics where more people are wondering about the same https://forum.dcs.world/topic/300116-tgp-vs-maverick-cursor-speed
  6. It's one of those unpleasantness things in your favorite model I was wondering on the same issue. From my side I can add that, it's not the minimal speed that's is the problem, but that the cursor moves in "digital" manner even if it is driven by analog mini-joystick. Even you scale the "radar cursor slew axis" and clamp it hard, It still moves almost like it has 2 speeds. The slow one (which is still to fast) and the fast speed. There is almost nothing in between. When I want to pinpoint the target, I need to bump the mini-joystick in order to move it a tiny bit. It is like using keyboard for car racing games (modulate in pulses in order to achieve the goal). @NineLine can we ask for some look/thoughts on this? It is especially hard ot operate Mavs on high zoom level beyond range in VIS (preparing for attack). Is the analog axis scaled differently (maybe log scale of some sort) for TGP and Mav?
  7. Seems this is implement now, but not exactly as described. Creating a markpoint still requries TMS FWD regardless or RDR GM mode with SPI or TGP with SPI (or I wrongly understood the description. VampireNZ from where you got this?
  8. Just want to say @lefuneste01 nailed the topic with so much detail and proficiency. I'm absolutely amazed by skills of this guy. You are my hero!
  9. Yet another repro from my side, this time from 2D monitor. It shows that even when F-16 TGP is looking into bombarded area, FPS are dropping from 130 to 34!!!! When we can expect reaction from ED side? Any fix plan or even confirmation of bug reproduction? This bug is not some esoteric discussions about "I lost 5 FPS after update X". This should be pinned topic discussed and (root cause) explained by developers. This is real HUGE problem affecting everyone after using any type of bombs and it is a nightmare if anyone drop such bomb on MP server. The game is unplayable at such server after that!
  10. Seems like more and more people are complaining about this issue. @Mausar added nice video with the FPS counter that drops tight when impact point is in the rendering frame. He also added another trk file for the case.
  11. Can someone form ED look into this and put some tag to this thread? Is is the known issue already tracked by BUG#?
  12. The problem here is not the explosion effects nor smoke in time of impact. The point is that the FPS are affected long after the bomb hit the ground. This is not due particle effects and as taz1004 pointed out, probably not even the crater itself. If you remove crater efects visuals the problem still remains. So the bottom line is why we pay by FPS drop for something that is not affecting visuals? I would understand if that would be some dynamic effect that you have to constantly recalculate after explosion but I cannot find anything other than some resource leaking, effect animation loop. In any way this is obviously a BUG. And it is connected with visuals and turning your head away casue the problem to not affect FPS. Your system spec's are quite impressive but mine is not much worse. On my side 3700x + GTX 3090 +32GB and the influence of the BUG is severe (drop from 45 fps in VR (5760x2800) to 20 fps)
  13. Looks like reported multiple times: Is there a way to disable those craters? This is silly that due to minor graphic effects so many players are loosing fun from this game!
  14. Ok found the root cause. FPS drops are not due to smoke plumes. HMDEndFrame is low when I'm isolating one in a frame (first screenshot - fps_drop2.jpg). But the "bomb craters" is a total killer for my GTX 3090! HMDEndFrame rises to 43+ and FPS drops to 19 if I have one of such isolated in frame (second screenshot - fps_drop3.jpg). The bigger space the crater take on screen, the bigger the fps drop is. And if more craters are in frame the fps drop even more. So flying over area bombarded with cluster munition in killer for GPU. Due to this cluster bombing is a total killer for VR experience. Looks like unoptimized shader? (smoke plumes are 2D sprites which roll towards you in VR as old clouds, but craters does not look like a sprite to me).
  15. Hi, Can anyone can explain me what is "HMDEndFrame" in FPS statistic info "Right Ctrl + Pause x2"? background: I have simple mission on Caucasus map with ~30 ground units on which I train bomb runs. I play on VR and I have stable 45fps+ on my 3700x + RTX 3090. But when bomb the units and than I turn my head into "remains" than fps drops to 20fps!! The HMDEndFrame is rising fom 0.1 to 30+ When I turn my head away from that specific place than fps goes back to 45 and HMDEndFrame is again 0.0 - 0.1 Is this because of smoke coming out of destroyed units? Is really those 4 smoke plumes cause so much burden on 3090?
  16. I was scratching my head for 3 days wondering if my installation files were broken. Tried several times to fix by reinstalling the DCS. Now I know this is deliberate castration of the Normandy map. I'm very disappointed. I bought the "Big show" campaigning and it simply looks ugly because of this issue. Glad Reflected done modification in his campaigning in order to fly the same missions on "Channel" map. But this requires that you buy both "Channel" and "Normandy" which I see as a rip off on war birds fans. Especially that Normandy got proper textures in those areas back in time. The bottom line is we paid for full content and than product quality was deliberately degraded.
  17. I was scratching my head for 3 days wondering if my installation files were broken. Tried several times to fix by reinstalling the DCS. Now I know this is deliberate castration of the Normandy map in order to bump the selling for "Channel" map. I'm very disappointed. I bought the "Big show" campaigning and it simply looks ugly because of this issue. Glad Reflected done modification in his campaigning in order to fly the same missions on "Channel" map. But this requires that you buy both "Channel" and "Normandy" which I see as a rip off on war birds fans. Especially that Normandy got proper textures in those areas back in time. The bottom line is we paid for full content and than product quality was deliberately degraded. That's the whole point.
  18. Hi Reflected, Can you please update the requirements for the campaign? Specifically mention that you have to have the Channel Map in order to play with proper textures? I know this is not your fault but the untextured areas in the Normandy map made me think that I got DCS files broken. I was scratching my head for last 4 days, than I found the thread and I feel a bit ripped of to be honest. I waited so long for Steam Halloween Sale and bought Spit + Big Show + Normandy as it was in requirements. Now I know I should also bough the Channel but is already to late :( Please update the requirements or at least mention that in product description that in order to play in full fidelity you need to have the Channel map. ps: please make sure the Steam also update the DLC description. Thanks.
  19. YES!!! Thank you! Now I have my engine in proper place
  20. xD In this days you never know xD Just kidding @streakeagle, @cfag Thanks for reply. Yes I do the same (adjusting the VR head position this way or another to get correct view). Having more immerse simulation is always better. It mens IMHO both seat height simulation and body animation would be nice to have. I didn't even considered that initially but yes, in many VR titles seeing your body that reflect your actual movements (hands, posture) gives this additional "umpf" to the immersion. I basically flight in VR because of immersion that DCS can give.
  21. When playing in VR the default position of the pilot body is to high in relation to default position of the head (reset position). By default head lands somewhat on top of the torso (like without a neck). You look down and feel your chick is inside the body. Switching the "special option" to move head height while landing makes things even worse as the body is static and on one position we are to high, in the other to low in relation to torso. My solution to this is switch this special option off, and hack the reset position by moving a bit higher than needed (but this is frustrating). Is it so hard to make pilot body (at least) in 2 static versions so this option to move head while landing would not make me feel I do not have a neck? Pilot moves the hand on the throttle and legs on ruder, so there is some sort of dynamic body poses in DCS. At least devs should move the body model to flight position. This is less worse than feeling like having torso in your mouth. Anyway not sure but usually there are levers to move the pilot seat a bit. I didn't found any of such (at least functional) in F-86F in DCS. If there is one in real jet, why not implement that instead of weird "magic options in the menu that move your head"?
  22. This is ridiculous, but the engine sound source is in the middle of the cockpit!!! If you move your head a little back looking on bandits on your six, you hear the engine in front of you (in right ear if you turn head to the left).
  23. Rosly

    F86 FFB?

    The lack of any shake feedback is just embarrassing for this module. There should be at least configuration option for this, regardless is someone think this is realistic or not. FFB is for a reason. We do not have full body shaking and FFB should be suplement for this (felling the AOA).
  24. Any news for this? This completely destroys night navigation in Su25-T
  25. Just found this after looking for solution for my problem with Lantrin POD. The "RATES" is displayed when you move the Lantrin IR head. So if you continuously are getting "RATES" mode it is because your stick is noisy and you need to add the dead zone to prevent this from happening. You can also not use analog and base on digital slew. This is actually nasty that any slew switches the mode to "RATES" as for novice user it might seems as a Lantrin being stuck in some weird state while this is just analog input issue.
×
×
  • Create New...