跳转到帖子

Bucic

Members
 查看个人空间  查看他们的动态

  • 帖子数

    7,250

  • 注册日期

  • 上次访问

  • 得奖次数

    9

 内容类型 

最新回复 发布由 Bucic

    Northrop F-5E Technical Description

    在 DCS: F-5E

    发布于

    On 10/29/2025 at 10:59 PM, nairb121 said:

    You're correct, knowing the "true AOA" is not relevant to typical piloting situations - all operational numbers are based on the gauge units. But the true AOA is relevant from a flight modeling standpoint, and as you know, there is fairly substantial evidence that the DCS F-5 has something amiss with its AOA modeling. I suspect that the root of this issue is an error in the correlation between indicated and true AOA - but I have no data apart from a single point, the stall AOA as mentioned above.

    For that there would have to have been ¿ a scenario where FM programmers had no data point for a specific flight condition available in plain AoA so they had to resort to AoA units gauge. Highly unlikely. 

    It's also problematic from a bug reporting standpoint. It's just compounding variables.

    There's a dedicated documented and acknowledged bug report on AoA capability inaccuracy. The error is significant, to the point any other discussion on AoA in higher numbers seems a waste of time until that modeling error is fixed.

    Northrop F-5E Technical Description

    在 DCS: F-5E

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Bucic编辑

    On 10/28/2025 at 2:52 PM, nairb121 said:

    Both, really - I've been unable to find much to correlate the true AOA and indicated units, only scattered references to stall AOA - stated in one report to be 23°, and in the -1 to be 27-28 units - Notably, this does not seem to match DCS, which places 27.5 units AOA at about 20°. This doc seems promising though, I hope we can see it in full before too long.

    Ok. So let me tell you this - neither correlation matters. You fly by the units. Not only F-5E real flight manual doesn't bother with a conversion table or tape. There used to be a thread on this citing FMs of even newer machines with the same caveat. I am aware of the subject, I'm allergic to arbitrary, vague units and I've never seen a single reference pointing to a conversion data set. Because it does not matter in real flying.

     

    Hell, you can do a quick conversion yourself. Note down 5 pairs of units vs aoa (from the in-game info bar) and just dump it into excel. Insert a trend line with the option to reveal the equation. Done.

    I'm guessing it's always linear, so you can draf t a quick conversion tape like this

    meter-to-foot-conversion-scale.png

    WOW!

    在 DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Bucic编辑

    On 9/27/2025 at 9:27 PM, NineLine said:

    Imagine how the real MiG-29A pilots felt.

    What?! Real Beryoza can't be used with the real aircraft's own radar operating?!

    • Like 1

    WOW!

    在 DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum

    发布于

    "Approved by Ironhand!"😉

    Get some bucks for that staple! Quite an experience to witness this kind of progress in flightsim fidelity, isn't it?

     

    On the ground handling. Can we get a confirmation that the 29 actually uses the new tire and strut / suspension modeling framework, please? 

     

    • Like 3

    EA release video from 1:49

    在 DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Bucic编辑

    To anyone dismissing the feature please watch Bunyap's walkaround/familiarisation series. He had one at least for the F-5E (original release). Engage the extended attention span and try to feel the flow. I'd Shirley use it with VR every time I have an even slightly unusual loadout. 

    • Like 3

    [performance] Trees - huge performance hit especially up close

    在 Game Performance Bugs

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Bucic编辑

    6 hours ago, Flanker35M said:

    S!

    @BucicYour frametime goes crazy with Vsync on at low altitudes, as seen in your picture above(white line). I have this same issue on my AMD RX9070XT since latest patches, if using IN GAME VSync the frame time goes crazy and stuttery at low altitude with trees etc. You run nVidia and why not try GSync without VSync enabled? Or use adaptive sync as nVidia should support it? At least on AMD side with FreeSync I did not need VSync ON for it to work as intended. For me to get rid of that "hacksaw effect" on frametime was to use advanced sync from Adrenalin software. That way the frametime did decrease, but the "hacksaw effect" was gone.

    Another issue for me is the green line aka Simulation thread spiking randomly causing a frametime drops accompanied with FPS drops. Frustrating as heck and made me stop flying DCS until finding a solution.

    Yes, there is a problem with the in-game Vsync. I wasn't much into DCS in 2025 so I didn't notice. Thanks for pointing that out.

    irfan_20250919_125659 dcs vsync vs trees.jpg

    But the trees are problematic, still.

    In a less dramatic manner, check out the attached comparison. Less objects/world visible (mostly filled with sky) - much less FPS. If that doesn't ring a bell I don't know what will. 

    irfan_20250919_125948 dcs bug trees.jpg

    • Thanks 1

    MSAA not working...hideous shimmering!

    在 2D Video Bugs

    发布于

    36 minutes ago, kl_koral said:

    seems like sometimes MSAA doesnt work on AMD systems. So reverting the AMD driver can solve it but how and to what driver version?

    I have to test, but it looks like its not that bad on my side: 6700xt (latest amd driver)

    It's not only on AMD.

    • Like 1

    Nevada New Lighting?

    在 DCS: Nevada Test and Training Range

    发布于

    1 hour ago, draconus said:

    No, exaggerating don't help the case, but making excuses (either from other users or CMs) don't help it either. Somehow Caucasus got the extended range lighting treatment shortly after PG. We also don't see any bug fixing for Nevada.

    Let's be precise then. Almost every late night flight in DCS Nevada is an IFR flight 😉 

    • Like 2

    Nevada New Lighting?

    在 DCS: Nevada Test and Training Range

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Bucic编辑

    6 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:


    🙂 but this is ED we are talking about, so we can make any unreasonable demand that strikes our imagination, like asking for a map to be rebuilt as an "update" ie at no extra cost to the customer, or else the map will be tagged as "abandoned" … the fact that it works on the current version of DCS is incidental and it does not prevent it from being called "abandoned"

     

    … sometimes the entitlement of some DCS users really leave one without words 😝

    I was talking about a specific bug (effectively limiting the map to daytime operations) and you are talking about rebuilding a map. 

    • Like 1

    Nevada New Lighting?

    在 DCS: Nevada Test and Training Range

    发布于

    48 minutes ago, NineLine said:

    NTTR is the second-oldest terrain (the oldest of all maps using new terrain tech, as Caucasus is a hybrid of new and old). Since the release of a map, improvements and changes to how maps are made have been introduced, making it much more complex to go back and make changes the older the map. 

    Even with that, it clearly states in Wags' video that the goal is to revisit these maps, but your use of abandoned is simply wrong. Nobody is shrugging it off, we literlay said we want to revisit when the schedule opens up, we do not have unlimited dev time. Please watch Wags' video again, it should make sense if you do. Thanks. 

    BIGNEWY: "but currently its not planned."

    OK, so not 'abandoned'. Merely left broken. I'm not so good with euphemisms. To me the 'left broken' changes into 'old but healthy' WHEN 'fix not planned' changes into 'fix planned'.

    • Like 1

    Nevada New Lighting?

    在 DCS: Nevada Test and Training Range

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Bucic编辑

    6 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

    Hi @Snoopy

    I get you want more and would like to see the lighting update, when time allows we will have updates, and we are looking at the requests for an expanded area, but currently its not planned.

    but it is not abandoned, it is feature complete, there is a difference and I don't think claiming it is abandoned is fair.

    thank you 

    When you have a map that has CITIES invisible in the blackness of a cloudless night I think it's a clear indicator of a map being abandoned. And honestly I don't understand the tendency to shrug such situations off. We've been through this with the F-5E. It hasn't seen any work (or no work topped with working features being broken with time) for what was what, years? And the situation got better not through denial (although attempts were made) but through actually delivering an update to the module, along with heaps of long-time bug fixes.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • 创建新的...