shagrat

Not really anything else we can do, other than familiarize ourself with the area of operations (memorize the westernmost 100Km Grid ID column and the two adjacent GZDs) or consult the flight map, either on the MFD or F-10 map set to "map" emulating the bunch of paper maps the pilots use. In real life the JTAC would likely be aware he is close to a GZD border and give it right away, or you would ask him to clarify the GZD. Unfortunately this isn't an option with the AI or scripted JTACs.

Yep, they corrected the tail rotor neutral input, to match the real aircraft. See here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/309212-anti-torque-pedal-rigging-since-dcs-271830348-open-beta/?do=findComment&comment=5054028

It's a bit tricky to keep the nose at 10° if your rotation speed is on the lower end. Need more practice. Problem is we have just HUD and numbers... But going by the number it's getting there. First take off was violent, as I kept the stick aft underestimating the fuselage... Guess I scraped the runway with the nozzles. The half stick for a second, then keep 10° as per the manual, made it way more manageable...

Well, that's what the manual says... If you think you have a better procedure, you want to train, go for it...

F-15E, Full Flaps, Take-Off trim set, max afterburner take-off. Standard day. Rotate by pulling half aft stick for about a second, then neutral and hold 10-12° nose up (NOT flight path!): Gross weight 40k lbs - Rotate at 110 kts Add 5 kts (adjust for air density) for every 5k lbs over 40k gross weight... Do not pull more, after rotation, let the aircraft gain speed and fly itself off the runway. After lift-off raise gear and flaps and directly trim nose down 1-3 clicks to compensate for nose up T/O trim attitude. Climb at 300-350 kts to cruise attitude.

...so you may have general problems with following individual procedures for specific planes? Comparing the weird take off of an AV-8B Harrier to the take off with an F-15E, or a delta wing, Mirage2000 and MiG-21 sounds definitely weird, as the flight characteristics of not one of these airplanes are really "a match". ^this

We definitely need "DUDE"...

Yep, not really...

I am not thinking much at all. It's how the "technical" definition of Fly-by-wire differentiates it. It was mostly a cheeky comment to FlankerKillers: (...)"In the interest of pedantry, CAS is technically a FBW system (there are force transducers in the stick like the F-16), and if the mechanical linkages are all shot out, the plane is still controllable (although both the mechanical and CAS are needed for full control AFAIK)."(...) Per the "technical definition" and being pedantic the first Fly-by-wire systems where electrically controlled Servo-motors that actuated, control surfaces without mechanical linkage (rods or pull-wires). By that definition every plane with a SAS, SCAS or CAS would be a FBW aircraft. I guess we all agree, today we define FBW, more precisely as an aircraft that has a flight computer that interprets pilot inputs and adjusts, overrides or reduce the inputs to the control surfaces to enhance stability and allow inherently unstable aircraft designs to be controlled at all. So while "technically", per definition the F-15E qualifies as sporting a Fly-by-wire system in form of the CAS, it isn't anything like the F-16C or F/A-18C systems.

The A-10C actually does... Link16 uses JTIDS and EPLRS/SADL are applications... At least if Northrop Grumman knows how their Tactical Data Link systems work. The Apache's is a different story. The Longbow network in the DCS timeframe is a separate datalink system, that doesn't interface with Link16, unfortunately.

That's basically what I said... Minus the fact that the very first "Fly-by-wire" designs (no physical linkage between pilot input and control surface) didn't have a computer for a lack of computers, which were yet to be invented...

"Technically" every aircraft that has an electronic component, that controls the hydraulic or mechanical connection to the control surfaces is "FBW" (basically a stick that uses a potentiometer to steer a servo-motor that moves the control surface is "FBW"). In today's terms FBW in combat aircraft usually refers to the controls being managed, linked and optimized by a flight computer. Any augmentation system (SCAS,SAS,CAS) typically has a very limited authority over some or all control surfaces, in order to filter, dampen or compensate pilot inputs in favor of flight stability. A "real" (common term) FBW system typically controls all or at least most controls with way more authority to limit or correct pilot inputs in a certain regime and calculates adjustments to all surfaces to prevent departure from controlled flight... At least that is my take on the FBW terminology. So an F-15/F-15E may technically be called FBW, but it is a very different FBW than in the F-16C, Eurofighter Typhoon or Rafale, etc.

Ok, schließen wir erstmal die Map als Ressourcenfresser aus. Erstellt dir mal eine einfache Mission auf der Caucasus Map (sollte aktuell die am wenigsten ressourcenhungrige Map sein). Tritt das Problem genauso auf? Unterscheidet sich die Performance deutlich, wenn du ein paar dünn besiedelte Dörfer in der Ebene per A/G HRM mapst, oder ob du Tiblisi scannst? Macht es einen deutlich merklichen Unterschied (beim A/G Radar nicht FPS) wenn du statt VR in 2D auf dem Monitor fliegst? Focus auf das Radar und stottern nach dem A/G HRM Wechsel zu A/A, da logischerweise 2D weniger Performance frisst, als VR. Wenn sich aber am Verhalten des Radar/stottern nichts ändert, spricht es für die CPU Auslastung durchs Radar, bzw. die Implementierung. Verschwindet das Stottern, etc. kann es auf einen generellen Bottleneck in deinem System hindeuten. Im nächsten DCS Patch, kommen wohl schon die ersten Optimierungen, trotzdem ist es bestimmt hilfreich, parallel zu schauen, was dein System derart ausbremst. Die 3080 sollte auch für eine Rift S ok sein, gehe davon aus, andere Module laufen mit deinen Settings flüssig in VR? Die CPU ist zwar ein paar Gen älter (2017 eingeführt), aber mit 6 Kernen (12 Threads) und bis 4.7GHz Boost Takt eigentlich ganz OK. Ein Blick in den Performance Monitor ist vielleicht auch ne gute Idee. Wenn das Stottern bspw. daher kommt, dass dein RAM an die Grenzen kommt und ausgelagert wird, hilft CPU und Graka nicht. Ist nicht immer einfach, die Ursache für solche Performance Probleme zu finden... Leider.

Was passiert denn, wenn du auf 3 oder 2 designierte Threads stellst? Das du in der Multi-Threading Version fliegst, davon gehe ich jetzt einfach mal aus. Ich habe mit meinem i5 10600k (nicht übertaktet) und 64 GB RAM jetzt genau einmal einen Ruckler beim A/G HRM erstellen gehabt, allerdings auch Aleppo Stadt-Zentrum... Und ich vermute auch Razbam wird nicht 2 Jahre brauchen für die ersten Optimierungen: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/330163-july-ob-patch-notes-from-razbam-discord/

Weil man vergessen hat ne Deadzone auf den Pedalen einzustellen und die Füsse nicht stillhalten kann?

Bin mal gespannt wie es dann ist, wenn die F-15E all die ganzen Features komplett hat, die im EA erst noch dazu kommen. Eingabe von Koordinaten per MGRS wie in echt, oder die JDAM. Oder gar wenn sie statt dem antiken LANTIRN den Sniper TGP, das HMCS hat und Link 16... ist ziemlich früh, so vor dem ersten Patch schon zu entscheiden wie sie denn "fertig" sein wird.

No worries mate. It definitely is confusing. In addition the naming convention and options differ between modules. Though it got way better and more standardized over the last years. It doesn't help, either, that HOTAS and their switches come in different configurations and can often be adjusted and configured on top of the DCS controls setting... it allows for a lot of flexibility, but it isn't exactly easy or obvious how.

If you have a realistic 3-way switch that sends ON(a)-ON(b)-ON(c) use the ON else OFF binds for a and c. That's what they are for. Simply ignore the center key press (b) and have it as (a) and (c) is OFF. In this case your switch in the forward position (a) bind to "MRM else SRM" and switch in the aft position (c) "GUN else SRM". If you have a momentary 2-way switch (On)-OFF-(On) that sends three button presses (a) forward, (b) OFF and (c) aft you need to either bind "cycle aft" and "cycle forward", or "Weapon switch FWD (MRM)" and "Weapon switch AFT (GUN)" plus an additional button for "Weapon switch CNT (SRM)". Alternatively you can use a single button to cycle through"GUN-MRM-SRM-GUN-MRM..." with the Cycle Loop bind.

The thing is to get precise control with 1:1 curves, you need a 1:1 stick extension/throw. You can mitigate that through angles with shorter sticks (no extension), but you will have to compromise on precision around the center. That's why I wanted to point out the "remove all axis adjustment and everything is fine" isn't necessarily the best idea, depending on your setup. Usually it is a good idea to orient the adjustment on the physical vs. in-game stick. For example, the TM Warthog has more throw (angles) than a real stick. If you actually put in a 40cm extension to replicate the original control column, the Warthog will allow for a far wider movement than the real stick. So to compensate you would decrease the saturation to reach 100% deflection at a similar angle, compared to in-game. That's why Virpil sells the M50-Base optimised for extensions, while the Warbird-base for desk/non-extension setups. If you reverse that and use a non-extension TM Warthog on a in-game stick like the F-15E you can use the extended throw (angles) to your advantage, but still around the center the force required to overcome the friction is an issue and often leads to Pilot-Induced-Oscillations, as you mimic 4-5 cm travel in-game with about 1cm travel on your physical stick. That's where compromising a bit of precision at the full deflection edges vs more precise control around the center can help. The sweet spot is typically different for everyone and if you get more comfortable with a new aircraft and muscle memory kicks in you may even dial it down again, but there is a very good reason ED implemented the option to adjust the axis. We just need to understand adjusting axis with a shorter stick than in real life is a compromise, sacrificing precision at one end or the other. You need to decide what works best for your setup and gives you the best results. Especially if you fly multiple, different modules with the same setup.

What we need is a way to mitigate/adjust the difficulty of AAR in a PC simulation. I currently take even a "let the AI do it for me" solution, but would prefer actual help(!) options.

Nope, have a look at the in-game stick and adjust the curve so the in-game stick mimics the distance traveled of your own setup. Preferably, if it is a long throw center-stick, add an extension. If it is Sidestick with force-sensing (F-16C) adjust accordingly (reduce/remove curve and adjust saturation). If your stick "jumps" or "drifts" in center position, add a deadzone, or you'll never be able to trim properly, or for helicopters re-center easily. If your setup is a more or less 1:1 replica of the real life controls setup (stick length, center mount vs. side-mount) you shouldn't need to adjust any axis, at least only marginal. But if you try to fly a warbird, helicopter or jet with a center mount stick that is 40-60cm high, with a 20cm sidestick, you sure want to at least consider tuning the axis such that a small movement of your physical stick doesn't throw the in-game stick one third of its travel...

The thing, as I mentioned before, is, this there's a reason ED implemented things like air-start, or hot from parking/runway. They intentionally created scripted auto-start and auto-shutdown procedure and they deliberately added things like rudder-assist and Take-Off- assist. They have decided to allow for labels (luckily adjusted over a long struggle to a more flexible system, other than the awful red/blue dot with textblock to a less intrusive "spotting" helper) and even gamey "arcade options" for the few who want a "previously mentioned platform", though I never saw any of the arcade stuff on a MP server... These are all intentional as part of the "suit the user and his particular level of experience and training" credo, from the very start of DCS with DCS: Ka-50 Black Shark. The handholding concept isn't "cheats", but a way to mitigate the real life cues and advantages over an arm-chair simulation. Unlike real pilots in a real aircraft we don't have real comms and can talk with the tanker. We need to fiddle around with a bunch of keyboard/mouse based F-commands in a situation you really want your hands on throttle and stick. We don't have a 210° field of view (peripheral vision) and especially not everyone can afford to buy VR just to have at least 3D for better depth perception. We don't have real world motion/acceleration perception and can't easily afford a full motion platform to compensate for that. There are even customers out there, that cannot afford a full blown HOTAS and Rudder setup, or people that have disabilities, that would prevent them from flying a real plane in the first place. This is why ED implemented helpers and options to enable everyone interested in study level aviation to participate. So while I get the point of competitive PvP may wanting to limit features that could affect competition, I can't understand the hubris of exclusion, based on personal preference, for the greater community playing SP, simple training in MP or PvE in their group. Similar to other "client/player" based options this wouldn't even affect other players in PvE... and definitely not in Single player! As for the "you can easily use the 'unlimited fuel' option" that is often brought up. This is actually a "cheat", not a helper, as it eliminates fuel/weight management. I at least hate this option, and don't use it, as it is a bad compromise and is causing mayhem in MP PvE, where you want a flight to have similar fuel consumption and weight at similar times in the mission, for obvious reasons. As for "turning into something else", it didn't turn into something else with "auto-start" available, nor did I ever see a public server with the "Arcade avionics and flight model" enabled in the last two decades, so I daresay this is a straw man argument. Obviously the reason people pick DCS and stick to it isn't "a better looking -gamey flight arcade- experience. If AAR training in DCS would allow for override of the f...ing F-key orgy and go through the process without fighting keyboard while struggling with station keeping, if the tanker at least in a training scenario would announce turns and smoothly roll, if the tanker talk to you other than "return pre- and contact" and training missions for AAR wouldn't consist simply of a tanker on a race-track, a list steps to go through and a "gid gud" heads up, as hand holding, it could improve. The naval operations introduced an IFLOLS overlay to help. The tankers Pilot Director Lights as a similar overlay would be a good first step. Visual cues for training station keeping would help hand holding. And ultimately a way of adjusting the difficulty for AAR (for example by a more relaxed connection to the tanker) that can be individually set until you get comfortable and dial it down over time, similar to take-off assist, isn't a bad idea. Currently we have a tanker... That's it.

...and please don't skip this part of what DCS is, especially the hand holding part for novice players, or the adjustable experience ( cited from the same product description): (...)"DCS World is fundamentally a deep, authentic and realistic simulation designed also to offer a more relaxed gameplay to suit the user and his particular level of experience and training. The ambition is to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator of such complex weapons systems as the A-10C Warthog or the F/A-18C Hornet. The only next step is the real thing!"(...)

^This ...and at least a handful of the buildings from each map to place in the Missions.

I am glad you still upgrade this map. Is their a remote chance the City of Afrin in northern Syria will be added (currently it is a road crossing in a field)? The biggest issue is, it is a landmark(!) present on the MFD moving map (by name) and on the F10 flight map. If you look outside the cockpit there is not even a bunch of buildings. I am totally fine with a bunch of generic buildings outlining the city, but it's currently missing completely. See also here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/243669-ciry-of-afrin-completely-missing/#comment-5162713