bkthunder

I also noticed the unrealistic behavior of the rudder, but to be fair the Mirage has come a long way in the FM department, so I hope the same happens for the Harrier. At least Razbam has been very open and receptive of feedback in the past, hopefulyl they'll keep the same attitude with the Harrier :music_whistling:

I wonder if there is actually anybody left at M3 except Rudel...

See screenshot taken during a crosswind approach. The engine smoke trails also have the same issue, making it look like the aircraft is in a constant side-slip.

So can we call this a bug then?

The average GPU load in every other situation hardly exceeds 60%, so no, DCS is not filling my GPU all the time. I did some more testing, and with terrain shadows set to FLAT, in the middle of the forest, there is hardly any noticeable performance drop. In fact the GPU load is ~75% with shadows on flat. Some people were indicating MSAA as being the culprit for the low performance in highly dense forest areas, but in my case MSAA on or off didn't make much difference, while the shadows seems to have a tremendous impact. Since I have a fairly modern PC (and also a common configuration i7 7700K + GTX 1080), I doubt it is a matter of bottlenecks or low specs. DCS runs brilliantly considering the incredible gfx quality of 2.5, it would be great if performance regarding shadows and trees were improved to have a fully consistent experience :thumbup:

Wish I could get my money back, haven't used the MiG-21 in ages because of the subpar modeling of pretty much everything except the 3d model and textures.

I just did a test by placing a free camera (F-11 view) in the middle of a forest, and couldn't get past 45-46 FPS (no units moving, single player, no AI). The GPU load was 99% all the time, CPU load about 15%. This is with the following settings: Visibility Ultra MSAA 2x Deferred shading ON Shadows Default everything else maxed out. GTX1080 and i7 7700K at stock speed, 16 Gb DDR4. It seems there is something with the highest LOD of the trees that really brings the system to its knees, and no amount of overclocking makes a difference. Moving a few dozens feet higher, FPS go back to 60 (locked)

In my case, I tested with 0 wind on a stationary pad. According to Natops, Hover stop is 82 +/- 1 degree. It also says, the hover stop is made so the jet hovers with the nose wheel slightly higher than the main gear. In my testing, at 82 degrees and witch hat on the horizon, the aircraft goes backwards. From external view, witch hat on the horizon, the nose gear is slightly higher than the main gear, which seems accurate. I think the witch hat is more or less ok, but the nozzles are not (meaning they are pointing forward, instead of being perfectly vertical) EDIT: just done some more testing: I can maintain a perfect hover with nozzles at 80 degrees. Something seems a bit off, in that at 82 degrees and hat on the horizon, the nozzles are pointing slightly backwards, yet the plane fly backwards.... at 80 degrees, the nozzles are even more backwards, and the plane shoudl fly forward, but it stands still. Maybe the actual thrust vector doesn't match the visuals of the 3d model and the gauges??

Hi, I have a question which I couldn't find a straight answer for, in any manual: I gather the Hover stop is 82 degrees. However, at 82 degrees, if I keep the witches hat on the horizon (as prescribed on the Natops, and a seen in some YT videos), the aircraft starts to fly backwards. The question is, should I keep the withces hat lower than the horizon, or rotate the nozzles forward a bit?

I hope that whine will be included in the final version :thumbup:

After further testing, the rolling forward seems to depend, to a certain extent, on the landing attitude (keeping witch hat on the horizon is the ideal landing attitude), but there is no doubt in my testing, that unless I wait 3-5 seconds, the aircraft tends to roll fwd when I set nozzles to 0. On top of that, you can listen to the sound of the harrier in DCS compared to the real one, and see that the real one reaches idle more quickly. I don't think it's there's a dramatic discrepancy, but IMO it's definitely there.

Thanks for the clarification, if blast damage is modeled I guess, as you say, it's the lack of visual representation that tricks people (or me at least). In any case, I still find it hard to believe that a Mk-82 exploding so close to a tank causes no damage at all (see screenshots, I tested several distances, health bar at 100% all the time).

Hello, while landing on the Tarawa, I noticed that spool down time for the engine is longer than what it appears to be from RL videos. In RL, as soon as the aircraft touches down, the engine goes idle very quickly and the pilot sets the nozzles forward almost immediately after touching down. Currently, in DCS, as soon as I touch down, I go idle, but if I set the nozzles FWD immediately (with brakes set), the aircraft still rolls forward because the engine takes a long time to spool down. Compare video below with in game DCS: https://youtu.be/YVfTZxt6UWE?t=3m8s

Oh that's great! Thanks, and thanks ED for modeling this. In 1.5 they just came up automatically with engines on, has this been an addition of 2.5 or just a change in the default position of said switch?

With shadows set to "Default", trees in the distance have a weird and ugly black outline. Look closely and you will notice it (open the screenshot in full screen!), it becomes very distracting when looking at isolated trees, or trees growing in the towns

After using the airbrake for the first time, it never closes completely to be flush with the fuselage. Images are before and after.

In 2.5 the engine intake grilles are not working. Should be closed when on the ground. Update: same problem on Su-27 as well.

I should probably do more testing with bombs, but anyway it seems very strange that a soft target doesn't receive any damage from a rocket exploding less than a meter away (provided blast damage is simulated as you say). Maybe blast damage is not modeled for rockets, while it is for some other weapons?

The new explosions don't seem to work, at least on my system. When firing a rocket at a fuel truck for example, I see a big (and beautiful) explosion effect, but unless the rocket itself directly hits the vehicle, no damage is dealt even though it was clearly engulfed in the explosion. It seems that there is still no damage from the explosion blast, even though it's visible as an effect. Can anyone confirm this?

I would prefer a Gr.9

The problem with doing that, is you are also reducing the outside noise that you can hear inside the cockpit, so you won't be able to hear other aircraft next to you, or explosions etc. +1 on having separate controls for F2 view volume, and in-cockpit volume.

Same issue here as well. Anything above idle and the lights switch off.

Yeah, tried with 3 different driver versions (including the latest one) but the issue is there. And this is not only limited to the horizon, in the screenshots above it's very noticeable but for example, ship trails have the same issue: from a distance they are pixelated. I have seen the same problem with ship trails in videos on youtube, so I guess it's a general thing.

Could it have anything to do with this bug here?? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=201838

Notice the horizon and water reflections. Settings are all maxed out, with MSAA 4x and no forced gfx options (through Nvidia control panel) PC specs: i7 7700K, GTX1080, 16Gb RAM.