Weta43

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.

LOL

More reading You're right, the Blindfire can guide the missile. When introduced (in 1971) Rapier was optical guidance only, with the search radar under the dome only providing cuing (the dish on the front of the launcher is just coms). The Blindfire radar was introduced in 1979 & that can guide missiles, making it an all weather system. I'll take out the radar, check it still guides, destroy the tracker, see if it still guides...

Rapier is an optically guided system that's radar simply cues an operator to a target area: "Rapier is a surface-to-air missile developed for the British Army to replace their towed Bofors 40/L70 anti-aircraft guns. The system is unusual as it uses a manual optical guidance system, sending guidance commands to the missile in flight over a radio link. This results in a high level of accuracy, therefore a large warhead is not required." The available units in DCS are the optical tracker, aquisition radar and launcher. In DCS the system is modelled as if it were a radar SAM, and will launch even if the tracker is destroyed. Modelling it as a radar system is OK, but it should stop launching if it has no available tracker. See debrief snip for timing, track attached (Sh*t flying was trying to get the Kh-25 working while discovering my control mappings were all mixed up) Guide after guidace gone 2.trk

Different generations, but pretty obvious shared lineagenull

If the intent is to showcase DCS modules, how about integrating the DCS: NS 430 in the same way as for the Mi-8 - a selectable option, but built in rather than the ungainly free-floating option currently available. All the hooks to key-binds are already made, all the nav logic exists and is external to the model, it literally is just the integration as a 3D object -& while you're re-building the whole model seems the perfect time to do it. It would vastly improve the attractiveness / utility of the module as an intro while being a credible but non-classified upgrade for regular users.

& the genes of the YAK live on as the F-35.. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Lockheed Aircraft entered a partnership with Yakovlev in 1991 for further development of the aircraft, now officially redesignated Yak-141; the partnership would not be announced by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992 and not confirmed by Lockheed until June 1994

Another month of silence...

I can’t make this out on the phone - is that a Garmin or similar ?

I think Caucuses/Nevada/etc where people drive to the shop not walk - pedestrians are probably not needed. Afghanistan (Gaza?, etc), where people walk around villages not drive - pedestrians make more sense than cars

That is an interesting graph - where did you get the underlying data? At face value, between 2.5.6 by 2.9 the net result is that where revisions have been made Blue detection ranges have ended up increasing and Red decreasing. F-14 has been unchanged at 117 F-15C started at 65 & is now 85 F-16C started at 75 & is now 75 F-18C started at 95 & is now 100 M2000C started at 65 & is now 87 Su-27 hasn't been touched at 65 MiG-29 hasn't been touched at 42 JF-17 started at 80 & is now 58 It'll be interesting to see if the FF MiG 29 follows a similar path to the F-16 & F-18 - 'cause if it does it's going to have a detection range of about 11 for a couple of revisions. That should make for some interesting posts

Currently the civilian traffic is either on or off across the whole map. It would make more sense to have the map divided into sectors and allow the mission maker to have it on in the specific sectors that can benefit from it in the mission (implemented by ME zones ?). I don't need there to be cars running around on the Pakistan border if I'm flying a helicopter at an Iranian border crossing. It's just wasting CPU cycles. (Same Tblisi / Batumi) The civilian traffic seems to be fairly light from a CPU load POV (Given how much of it there is spread across the map). That being the cases, couldn't we get civilians (just folk wandering the streets) implemented via the same approach on a sub region by sub region basis? Perhaps civilian vehicular traffic at the bases we use but none at the actual front line but still some civilians on the streets of nearby villages etc. - Whatever the mission maker thinks is appropriate... Have the routes pre-calculated and some minimally animated figures that can be activated by the user. (Ideally by creating a zone & ticking one or both of Civilian traffic on ▢, Foot traffic on ▢.) They don't need A.I., they don't need collision calculations they just need to wander around giving atmosphere and making it harder to tell what's target & what's civilian - but they don't really need to be doing that 1,000 km away from where I'm flying...

I've gotta say, Qala e Naw on google earth looks more like ED's terrain than the image you posted Also you're comparing pictures of winter (bare trees & no water in the rivers) with what's supposed to be summer (green trees & snow-melt)null

That would imply not wouldn’t it ? You wouldn’t want to miss out on a limitation would you ?

Given the depth & breadth of the “it’s fine here” replies (& it’s fine here in NZ), it seems more likely it’s a problem with your internet service provider than ED’s infrastructure.

happens to us all sometimes