Weta43

I's a beautiful map - pretty much all I use now. As Tomcatter87 said, there can be times when those beautiful mountain ridges resolve into sharp meshes when you get very close, but that aside, it is a very convincing bit of real estate to fly round in (If only they would finish the North!!!)

It's funny how some people fall obsessively in love with DCS, and then something that was there all along becomes too much for them to bear and causes them to cast it aside - and they become like those people who've divorced their partner, but the anger still dominates their consciousness. They can't let go, and instead their energy goes into persuading everyone they can that their one-time love is the cause of all the ills in the world.

That's a bit unfair - You've never read that it's implemented, and only ever seen it in that one video where it has "EXPERIMENTAL" written across the screen every second it's in view - I would read that without ambiguity as its' experimental and not a standard feature... When you next hear Wags saying "what's that Eurofighter doing there", that doesn't mean the Eurofighter is already in game....

Comms E.D. ? Once again a month passes with no communication regarding how (- or if) work is progressing on the N Afg. module that some of paid for on the back of an E.D. provided ETA of late 2024. No screenshots, not even a single line saying 'we haven't taken all resources away from this map to concentrate efforts on more popular & better selling maps' - or for that matter to say 'we have but will come back to it.' I realise that E.D. probably had to spend more on the map than they expected (the re-work was very well done & it's the map I use the most), perhaps sales weren't as robust as they expected, and E.D> have to maintain a positive cashflow - so maybe downsizing the team &/or delays are understandable - but Northern Afghanistan hasn't been delivered 15 months after we paid for it and nearly a year the ETA we were given when we bought for it. It's not a case of a module having being delivered in a useable state but still in EA because it's still missing a few features, North Afghanistan simply hasn't been delivered. What was the last feature added internally ?

The point wasn't that the US doesn't or can't use GCI, it's that US planes were designed to be able to operate autonomously WRT target aquisition in the first instance, and could be supported by GCI if available, whereas Soviet aircraft were designed to not work autonomously, but instead be the sharp end of an integrated system starting with EWR systems. it comes back to the force projection / home defense doctrinal approach mentioned above. If the purpose of an aircraft is to fly deep behind enemy lines to attack the enemy at its heart, then the aircraft has to be able to find and prioritise targets itself - if it's in a position where it can be supported by other assets (AWAC / GCI), then of course you do that. Why would you not? (& as you said, if you're tasked with a mission by a central command, that's what you do, not head off at your own whim) Flying deep into enemy territory was never the intended mission of the MiG-29. Think about how short its legs are. It really is just there to quickly get missiles to where the GCI intends them to be - which is why there are better radar scan rasters available to GCI operators on the '29's radar than to the pilot themselves...

Like cold starts ?

Personally, I think it's a great idea. If I were doing a cold start or hot from ramp I'd rather walk up to the aircraft than just appear in the cockpit (I might assume someone else had already checked the airworthiness though). We have amazing airbases / terrain getting dropped near / walking to the aircraft has to be more immersive. (I imagine it would go down pretty well on the carrier ops) OK - feedback - I do. Maybe a poll would be a good idea (headed with a slightly longer video?).

No comments on the FP pilot entering the aircraft in the MiG-29 EA release video from 1:49 ?

I haven't bought it yet, but it seems your guess might have been wrong ?

Not in the USAF sense anyway - US aircraft are designed to operate independent of GCI because they were designed to be able to penetrate the airspace of other countries. To do that they had to be able to act autonomously. Soviet expectations at the time the Su-27 & MiG-29 were designed was that combat would be in Soviet airspace repelling invaders, so they were designed to be integrated into the existing well developed static EWR / ground-based GCI systems. (Same reason the USSR didn't really have carriers - their military was designed to operate in the immediate region of their homeland [GLONASS originally only covered the USSR & a small amount of territory around it], principally in a defensive mode, while the US military has always been intended for force projection) The problem we've always had in DCS is that the radars of the RedFor aircraft modelled were designed to be supported by GCI, but the GCI has never been properly modelled - so ReFor has always fighting with its hands tied behind its back. It's a huge 'nerfing' of RedFor aircraft, almost as if ED had said there'll be no active seekers modelled in game, but in this case no-one complained because no-one in the audience knew how active seekers were designed to be used. Post Soviet Union the doctrine changed, and modern Russian aircraft are intended to be more autonomous (at least in part because GCI is in this day and age much more vulnerable), but we don't have those aircraft modelled.

...But for a given size monitor scale is simply a function of FoV and magnification & is the principal determinant of whether something reaches the minimum resolution angle of the eye / covers a pixel. If something doesn't do both those things, then you won't see it without a spotting aid. If you can't see it without a spotting aide when in real life you would be able too, then a spotting aid is functionally more realistic than not having a spotting aid - even if it looks more gamey &/or feels like a cheat I play on a vertical orientation 32" screen at 2160x3840 - it provides both a realistic (vertical) field of view and a realistic scale for observed objects (both of which make it quite immersive). but it sacrifices horizontal FOV to achieve that & still doesn't have the spotting resolution your eyes do. Both those first things make the sim more immersive (look ahead of yourself now - we are more aware of the vertical slice of the world in front of us than the equivalent in horizontal degrees (presumably so we are aware of what we might trip over or bang our head on.) Regarding the second though - The desire to have realistic FOV + realistic scale of objects in view + realistic acuity (spotting ability) without additional zoom or spotting aids is - in my opinion - a fantasy until we have screens that have a similar pixel per degree to the human eye and present a similar total degrees of vision spanned. (So ~95 pixel per degree1 for 210° x 150°- or a 19,950-pixels x 14,250 pixels screen that's big enough to be set at a distance where the pixels subtend 1/95th of a degree while still being at a distance at which it is able to be focused on. That might be quite small physically for something like a VR headset, but for a 2D panel it's going to be a big-ars3d screen. (of course, with eye tracking, the whole image doesn't need to be at that level of detail - most of it wouldn't even need to be rendered in colour, but it all needs to be able to display that resolution everywhere.) Below that resolution & FoV coverage, everything is compromise & what the 'best' compromise is - is monitor + viewer dependent, & in the end just personal preference. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1 Resolution limit of the eye: how many pixels can we see?

For red AC I have an ACHS -1 clock I found in Vietnam (keeps pretty good time). I put it by the monitor & make the clock on screen the same size as the real one. That zoom's pretty convincing...

Something's definitely wrong there.. I don't have the CWG map - for comparison, how does the Marianas map take ? (I chose that because I saw "Dispatcher (Main): load terrain from ./Mods/terrains/MarianaIslands\terrain.cfg.lua" in the log you posted)

There's a surprising number of : lines in there... On your post: Is that from the ME or from a launcher? I just tried opening a(n admittedly simple) mission on the Marianas map (no previous missions loaded) & it took 9 sec to open the mission editor, and 22 seconds to get from the ME to the cockpit. Have you any mods installed?

I guess it's time to ask again - How's the (overdue) Northern section of the map coming?

In order of decreasing frequency: Mi-24, Ka-50, Su-25A, Mi-8, Very rarely the Mozzy. Hardly ever - the F/A-18, Su-27, A-10C, Dora, Mustang, Sabre Used to fly the 18 quite a lot then got into the helicopters

Thanks for the write up LOL - I've got to tell you "Moira" had me googling for a while before I realised what it would be... " Moiré " Moiré pattern - Wikipedia & on this: Is that the same idea as foveation?

There is, so it's bad etiquette dropping it here, but the problem with the Pimax forum is that the only reasons to go there are that you are a so enamored with your Pimax that you have to write about it all the time, you're having trouble with your Pimax and want help, or you're thinking of getting one & want opinions- & none of those groups are the people I wanted to ask. It's like looking for reviews of a product online - you only get the very ends of the distribution of user experience. If you buy it and it does what you expected to the level you expected, there's nothing to motivate you to write a review. What I wanted was answers from people that have one & now just use it without issue having found the sweet spot that means it's a background device not an ongoing hobby in itself. Even putting it in the Chit Chat sub-forum means that probably only 1/1000 forum visitors will ever see it, & some of the 999 who don't will be Pimax users who could answer the question... Ironically while sub-forums make navigation easier, they also make for topic ghettos.

Hi, For any of those with experience - what graphic settings could I run a Crystal Light at with a i9-14900KF, 32.0 GB, RTX 4080 Super I currently run a 4k monitor with pretty high settings, and I'm not sure what I could expect from that headset - how much detail do I lose to gain 3D & which is worse for immersion... If I knew what I'd have to run it at I could see what that looks like in 2D (pop up etc.)

It requires GLONASS (Not the US GPS) which should have limited availability (Russia & Environs) from 82, and full availability by 1995: Then it gradually lost coverage until it was re-prioritised:

This map really could do with a periods selector to choose between those two conflicts (just the builds for the bases need to change, not the whole map. At the moment we have all the equipment in the SIM for the Soviet war, but every military feature modelled on the map is designed to fit in with the US War. I understand why you want these details sorted out, but really the more precisely it models these bases exactly as they were when the US was there, the less credible it becomes for those of us wanting to model the Soviet war. I love this map, but I'm quite disappointed at how explicitly it models the period of the US war.

It used to be that if you weren't quite trimmed right and drifted too far from the initial hover set point, that eventually all the AP channels would trip off & the auto hover would fail. Have you drifted too far between trims, or did the above fix it?

Notepad++

Short of making a different set of buildings for every 5 degree change in slope, I don't know what you expect them to do though. If you look at this image of actual houses, if you reduced the actual terrain to a mesh with even 2m resolution on contours, the buildings on the actual site would have terrain clipping windows and doors in midair... I agree about the cars though - either don't put them on terrain with enough slope to make terrain clipping an issue, or have all scenery cars sit perpendicular to the local terrain, not to the horizon (& I may be showing my ignorance her, but it seems to me there are way too many cars parked in backyards for rural Afghanistan anyway - ? There's only 1 motor vehicle (of any sort) for every 18 people in Afghanistan [one for every 1.07 people here in NZ], and surely they're going to disproportionately in the cities & more affluent / industrialised parts of the country, not parked in the back yard of remote houses with no connection to paved roads?) As someone who lives amongst houses built on hills, apart from some issues with shadows, the buildings in the attached snip look pretty convincing in their perches. Another storey added to the foundations wouldn't hurt though...

I see this complaint a lot. I don’t know where you live, but this is a common thing to see in places where people live in steep valleys with difficult access and aren’t building in a pre-prepared suburb where a developer has ‘Terraformed’ the suburb to civilise it. I’ve looked online and it seems quite common on the hills of Afghanistan. I live in a steep valley and my own 2 storey home is similarly ‘1/2 buried’, with the laundry and workshop below ground level at the rear. I just went out and took the attached images of my house from the front and back, and looked across the valley at similarly “1/2 buried” houses there.