dotChuckles

Going to jump on the band wagon of "there is something not quite right here". Using the rift, I find the default head position to be accurate if you were 4 foot high and sitting with your chin on top of the stick. Just look left and right end see where the eyepoint lines up, it's virtually over your knees, throttles are behind you at what would be your hip. I refuse to believe, without some accurate diagrams and comparisons with the DCS model that this is correct. So when you get a more realistic eyepoint through using the CTRL/SHIFT NUM keys.... your hud is now messed up and too big because of what appears to be a collimation error. My conclusion is that either... some compromises were made to make the HUD viewable on a flat screen monitor, or that the HUD is not projected at infinity but rather on a plane, some arbitrary distance in front of the aircraft which I think would increase the error when moving your head fore and aft. All that aside, it's still not right when you use the Rift. Which is a shame, as the A-10 was a favourite to fly, but in the rift it's my least favourite now.

Thanks guys, VR is a bit of an experiment for me. If it works out then I'll invest some more money in to power. If not I'll see what I can get on ebay for it :-)

That was a really useful video! Very clear. So I could save some money, hit the maximum potential performance with a cheaper card. Food for thought.

What is that based on, value for money or raw frame rates?

So I have an i7-4790k overclocked to 4.6, 16GB of RAM, and everything running off a solid state drive. Currently I have a Standard GTX970 too. My Rift is on the way and i'm hoping to just try it out with my current system for a bit before I spend some more money. So when that moment inevitably comes in a months time and I wan't to buy a new card. Which should I go for 1070 or 1080? I have read a few posts that I didn't really understand, that the 1080 isn't so good. Does that mean the 1070 is giving better performance? Or is the 1080 performing better but not as much as it should? As I say, i'm a complete novice at VR, so can someone break it down for me in a way my idiot-man-baby brain can understand? thank you muchly in advance.

Cool story brah. I'll "get on that immediately" :megalol: I guess that at the altitude you're flying at on that high horse, the air is a bit too thin to understand that entitlement and demands of developers aren't that respectful. ESPECIALLY as it's mentioned in the release notes and that they are working on it. But that's cool... you go ahead and kick the straw man. I'm sure you'll have a few more ad hominem attacks to get in. But seriously... Do you need a nap? A cookie maybe? Stick in champ, you'll get there. I'm sure once you feel better you'll be handing out self entitled and opinionated development imperatives to all and sundry like the forum pro that you are without anyone picking up on your rudeness. Happy times. Oh! Almost forgot... :thumbup:

There was a very good link on the Mudspike review of the F5 about manual bombing. Have a hunt about on there. Sorry, I'd link directly to it, but I don't think we're allowed to link to the particular site here.

There are roll in references in both the quickstart and full manual for you to get an idea of where the cockpit references are for both 20 degrees and 30 degrees dive angles. That is providing you have set up your approach speed and altitude correctly travelling at 90 degrees to your bombing direction. You may want to just spend some time learning how to keep given speeds and altitudes first. The F5 certainly wouldn't be employed as a high level bomber. With a bit of practice you can get your bombs close and with a bit more you can plink tanks in the turret quite nicely. :-) Have a look around on youtube the 476th have some excellent videos on how to perform a roll in dive bomb attack. While it's in the A-10C the principles are the same.

Yes, much better. Entirely more respectful. Appreciated. Well all except for the personal insults... but hey ho. I should have guessed that would be the form given your original attitude. But thanks for trying.

:megalol::doh: I'm sure they'll take that under advisement.

Have this issue too, we've noticed it on the warthog, x-55 and x52.

Ok, so deleting them and redoing the patrol routes hasn't fixed the issue. Vehicles both stop at the end of the route. :-(

Guys, apologies, was out for the evening. I'll try deleting and redoing the patrol and let you know what happens. Again, much appreciation for your time on this.

Thanks for looking into this guys. I will correct my vars as I didn't realize it inherited from the mission editor. It's just hard starting out as the extent of my programming knowledge is a bit of python so I'm never sure if i'm doing something totally wrong or if it's a wider issue. Many thanks.

Thanks Wrecking Crew. I updated to mist_4_3_73 unfortunately the vehicles are still stopping at their last waypoint. I am stumped :-(

Nope :-(

Right I am trying to do something which I am assured is very simple with MIST. I just want the two vehicles to patrol but I have been trying for three hours, I don't really understand scripting but I've followed as much as I can on the forum and everything I have tried doesn't work. The vehicles get to the end of their route and just stop. MIST is set to run at mission start and mist.ground.patrol is on each unit's last waypoint using the vars as specified in the documents. Can someone take a look? This is beyond aggravating. I am about ready to put my PC through a wall! Thanks! Patrol_v2_0.miz

It's a good suggestion, but not what I am wanting. We're wanting aircraft to launch from the apron.

Basically, in multiplayer... Players pop into existence on the apron in a defined parking position as specified by the mission maker for a cold start. I want there to be an aircraft already in place and empty so that other players on the server see a full apron rather then an empty one with aircraft popping into existence as players join. Bonus points if it can be worked out that a player taxis to a parking spot at the end of the mission, joins spectators and their player aircraft is then replaced by a static aircraft again. I'm trying to my best to create an immersive airfield environment that looks a bit more then an operational deployment.

I am looking for exactly this. I second the question.

Not to fuel the fire or pointing particularly at anyone, more a general observation of the community as a whole, but why do we assume it's a zero sum game? Visuals v Gameplay... Do both. ED are a clever bunch, they have crammed an amazing amount of calculation along with some already great visuals in to a pretty tight space and with each patch seem to do it even better. Great graphics AND great AI/experience is possible, one doesn't have to preclude the other. It just requires some very clever development, which is already evident amongst the ED team. We should all just un-rustle our collective jimmies and realise that everyone is probably going to get what the want given a certain amount of time.

Once resolution is lost, it is lost forever. You need a higher resolution source. Or better yet, create it in a vector format and rasterize it at the required resolution.

The pickup to hover and getting light on the skids without sliding forward that people seem to be having... could it be nothing to do with the FM but actually more to do with the cof between the skids and the ground? Maybe too low a value or something to do with the way it's applied?

Great aircraft and exciting possibilities with multi-crew for sure. :thumbup: Not to be the "Debbie Downer" but the only problem I have is that the maps we have are all relatively small. Might have to fly around in circles over the black sea for a bit to simulate the longer mission times for a strategic bomber.