Jump to content

JCTherik

Members
  • Posts

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting. Does the stick have to be perfectly centered or something? I have less than 5 degree bank, all SAS on, Ap on, hdg forward, no effect outside of regular attitude hold.
  2. Not really a bug, but I can't find the wishlist for bindings. Could we get directional Up/Down bindings for 3-position switches, for example the HDG/GT hold for the autopilot? Currently we have HDG on and off, GT on and off, HDG on else off and every permutation of that, but one common way of handling those bindings in other modules is missing. Example from another module would be the autopilot switches in F16. Example in F14: Heading Hold Forward: Move the switch one step forward. If GT is on, put it off. If it's on Off put HDG hold on. If HDG hold is on, do nothing. ie. cycle (GT)->off->HDG hold. Heading Hold Down: cycle (HDG)->off->GT and do nothing if already in GT Antiskid Down: (Both)->off->antiskid Antiskid Up: (Antiskid)->off->Both Engine starter move Left: (right)->off->left etc, you get the point. There are few more switches that could benefit from this, launch bar, refueling probe, probably some others. This is especially useful with two-way momentary switches. Cheers.
  3. I don't know if I'm using it wrong, but I put the airplane in a slight bank, 1-2 degrees, barely two pixels off of the center on the VSI. I engage heading hold, engage autopilot and I'd expect the airplane to roll out. Nothing happens, no AP/Ref light, just the attitude hold from a basic AP. I tried in different ways, HDG hold first, AP first, together with altitude hold, I never managed the airplane to roll out and hold a heading. It keeps the slight bank and makes a very slow turn of few degrees per minute. Ground track works fine, it illuminates the AP/Ref, and clicking the NWS rolls out the airplane. I didn't check whether it actually tracks ground, but it goes wings level in calm wind. Tested in F14B, on MT.
  4. VR is officially supported. I'm running one of the common headsets on default resolution. And your suggested solution to my poor default visibility on default resolution is unironically to make a choice between an ugly game or a crippling disadvantage, which is the exact same thing that you yourself complained about when you perceived that the same dilemma was forced on you merely few hours ago. The fact that you keep repeating that this is due to low resolution shows that despite the two days long debate we all participated in, you still lack even a rudimentary understanding of the problem. I don't see any point in continuing the debate for as long as you make zero effort to understand my comments. I find it hilariously sad that you recommend the same kind of solution which you complain about when it's being recommended to you. I honestly don't know if you have such a high lack of self awareness, if you're intentionally and knowingly abusing dishonest arguing strategies like gish gallop, or if you just straight up don't read my comments at all.
  5. Really?. Me neither believe it or not, and yet somehow, it's been suggested that i turn on labels and drop my resolution if i don't like my disadvantage. I wonder if you remember who suggested that to me.
  6. The airplane disappearing issue was reported here by multiple people, it's not just me. It is paradoxically better on lower res, same as the issue with the dot visibility on low res vs high res flat screens. But on some vr headsets it also affects the situation when the airplane is far away but not yet a dot. The airplane is very hard to see past maybe 2 miles or so. Fresnel lenses make the pixels flicker a little on the edges, and create a lot of aliasing, that's why the VR headsets often run at 150% resolution by default.
  7. For YOU on YOUR hardware! I see the airplane fine in low res, it's the high res i have a problem with. You keep denying a problem you know nothing about, blaming my hardware which is one of the common popular headsets, blaming my eyesight and dismissing the issue. I don't think anything productive will come out of this. I don't play A2A and I'd like to, but i just can't currently. But the mindset that you share with some other people in the community is really blocking any reasonable discussion about it.
  8. As long as you keep dismissing a problem which you don't personally experience and keep suggesting labels, i don't think we'll come to an agreement. I don't want to repeat the problems with labels for the upteenth time as the debate keeps going in circles, but here we go, one last time 1. Lack of aspect information 2. Labels visible through the cockpit floor 3. Labels visible through clouds 4. Labels visible through terrain 5. Ugly and pixelated in VR 6. Disabled on many PVP servers 7. Grey dot label suffers from exactly the same resolution issues as the old black dot 8. Labels not in the same position as the aircraft 9. Most unrealistic of all the solutions
  9. Nothing is stopping me. It's a huge hassle to switch to low res and restart dcs, but yea it works like magic, suddenly i see everything! In VR, the display fills a large part of your FOV, so imagine dropping the resolution to something like 1080p, 50cm from your eyes but on an 80 inch monitor. You will see pixels! In fact it's so bad you have to lean forward to read the instruments sometimes. And we don't have that fancy zoom that you guys have in flat screen. Even on full res, VR is usually a pixelated mess because the fresnel lenses make the pixels flicker. So, if you don't like to risk seizures and eye strain, you crank the resolution way higher, and the headset would effectively do a heavy SSAA - supersampling antialiasing. But that means that while dcs may believe that you see 3k by 3k per eye which it renders, you only have a 2k by 2k physical pixels, so that single pixel dot then gets averaged with the blue sky pixels around it and simply won't render anywhere near as dark and sharp as what it does on a flat screen. It's even worse around 5 miles distance, the airplane may even be few pixels wide, but you won't see third of those pixels at all and now it's light grey, and it gets smeared by the built in SSAA against the light blue sky pixels and is virtually invisible. Imagine how bad that is against terrain. Add in that only maybe centre 30% of your vision may actually be in sharp focus on a good day, so while my FOV may be large, i still need to be pointing my head directly on the enemy to even have a shred of a chance to see a blurry speck. Yes, reducing resolution and disabling all antialiasing is a "fix" which works, and it's disgustingly ugly and makes all the edges in the world flash like a disco. I'd like a solution that doesn't involve dropping resolution. Im yet to hear a feasible proposal that doesn't involve scaling in some way. Let's drop the random glints idea, it would be simple and no performance hit but i agree 100% that path traced glints would be the right way to do it.
  10. Nobody is forcing you to use scaling. And so far the feedback seems to be that while the improved dots are a stopgap solution that's better than what it was, we pretty much universally agree that it has plenty of issues, like the fact that the airplane disappears into distance and then reappears further away when the dot kicks in. On my setup, airplanes are functionally invisible outside around 2 mile radius against terrain, yet are fairly easy to see against a blue sky. That's way closer than the dot would appear. If you don't want scaling, that's on you, i think there should be an on off setting or a momentary bindable button, and you shouldn't be forced to use it. I simply cannot play A2A currently, since the enemy airplane disappears into the terrain shimmer on the far side of the circle if we merge a bit too fast. So while you want to have your scale perfect in every scenario, that also means that my game is virtually unplayable in A2A. And please don't suggest labels while claiming that scaling is unrealistic. So, what do i do to play A2A that's not labels? Do you have a better solution than scaling?
  11. Not twinkling glints, but for example a chance that a 6 second long bright glare of would appear on average once in 5 minutes, a 2 second dimer one on average once every 50 seconds, a 10 second grey barely visible one once every 3 minutes, etc. With proper parameters, I think it could be fairly similar to real glints, but ofcourse I agree that doing it properly based on sun angles and aspects would feel much better, even though it may not actually be distinguishable from the random ones without a ton of testing. Btw MP balance, I don't care about MP balance across different airplanes, but if you have 2 airplanes, same energy, same stores, same state, same background, same altitude/speed etc, they should have the same chance at spotting each other despite playing on different hardware. Otherwise you get the problem that was here for ages, where the weathered MP veterans are running on pixelated 1080p with no antialiasing and all the immersive visual folks get left in the dust, because each just sees something completely else.
  12. It's a strawman argument, but I'd still rather have that than an airplane that's a clearly visible UFO at 20 miles but an invisible shimmer at 5 miles, since we're talking about looking ridiculous.
  13. So you have decided that that is how scaling would look like, therefore you're telling me that i should use labels instead, because they look more realistic to you. First of all, nobody's forcing you to use scaling, but you are forcing me to use labels. Have you seen how bad labels look like in VR by any chance?
×
×
  • Create New...