blkspade

While I agree in general about the most important stuff being there, its still broken. The PRF for example, interleave should not be reducing the detection range like it does, which subsequently feeds into the next problem. PRF is supposed to be auto adjusted according to selected scan range, with 160 on high and 10 on med and interleave for everything in between. There isn't even a manual control for PRF in the actual F-15, so in sim its just an extra button to press that should't even exist. After that the landing light have always been broken in the FC3 jets (independent of deferred shading bug), where there is zero illumination until you are basically on the ground land in formation with any full DCS module at night and see that there is basically no light coming from the FC3 jet on approach. Worse is that this has been an issue since FC2.

Youtube added live chat replay, so that you can still "enjoy" it at a later viewing.

What I found really interesting about the AI F-14 can maintain lock at long range even when you turn cold. I've tried engaging them in the F-15 and basically you just evade the 54s while the F-14s close in so that you can get missiles off to force them defensive or get the kill. At least with 120s, though you could probably pull it off with ETs.

The obutto works just fine for FPS use as well. It has a large adjustable padded tray for the keyboard and mouse. The forward humps in the back rest do function as arm rests.

In game, it alters your sense of scale. You can make the cockpit and environment larger or smaller.

There really shouldn't be any real trouble involved. When the AIM9-P5 was added to DCS for the F-5E, they added it to F-15C. So it should just be a matter of if they want to give it to the Eagle.

I don't even see the point of the captive missiles in the first place. They don't work, and do we need to pretend to shoot each other whilst already pretending to shoot each other.

While I am still ultimately still going to get the hornet, I am personally getting irked by the progressively developing business model with these modules. $60 now for a product I might receive in 4 months, or wait to pay full price to have it still not quite compete. I wouldn't be so put off if bugs weren't introduced into already paid for modules and unfixed for upwards of 6 months.

https://uploadvr.com/gdc-2017-fove-amd-take-aim-improving-vr-rendering/ https://videocardz.com/61557/rajas-super-secret-cigar-stash The hardware/software is roughly in place on the GPU end from both companies. The VR headsets to take advantage of it don't exist yet. We need higher res panels and higher FOV headsets, and of course built-in eye tracking.

Everything hitting the headset is governed by the VR API. In games that have a single executable for non-vr and VR output, the normal resolution setting does nothing in VR, as the VR API is setting the render limits. The Rift API for example already supports the option of Adaptive Pixel Density that will adjust the rendered resolution according to available performance headroom. So its not exactly far fetched that foveated rendering could be handled API and/or driver side.

It should be noted that foveated rendering, is a generic rendering concept that is not solely owned by Nvidia.

It is absolutely possible that its just the cable, I've seen this happen on someone else's rift. They cost $50 to replace though.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/you-will-want-to-force-your-cpu-into-high-performance-mode-for-vulkan-games-on-linux.9369 I think there is some confusing when people talk about CPU load. In a single threaded scenario one core is worked really hard, vs multithread where spreading the load is potentially less taxing over a period of time from work getting done faster. Using more cores is more load on the CPU as a whole, but for less time.

The most obvious point behind Vulkan being chosen over DX12 is that it doesn't cut out users still on older versions of Windows, more so than say something like a Linux build. There isn't much Microsoft can do (legally) to stop the potential success of Vulkan that would hamper 3rd parties adoption of it. Like OpenGL has always been an option and works just fine on Windows, but most game Devs are likely to use DX if they are targeting Windows.

DX11's MT ability barely works as it hampered by additional overhead induced by secondary render threads still having to wait on the main render thread that's still stuck behind the rest of the engine. Some instances of attempting to leverage MT DX11 have shown negative scaling compared to ST. Multi-core support is still a significant factor of the API as has previously been displayed by Mantle scaling in performance with additional cores.

That's not how it works. Vulkan's advantage is purely about multi-threaded rendering. Everything slows down because rendering gets the lowest priority, when shared with everything else on the same thread. Everything else will likely stay exactly the same, but with render having access to alternate threads it won't have to wait its turn. Also it deals with large object counts better for the same reasons.

While it might not quite be implemented yet, Vulkan is supposed to have vendor neutral muti-gpu support.

https://www.f-117a.com/Missions.html

It's literally what they were used for in the opening night of Operation Desert Storm, and subsequent attacks. The Radar sites could not detect them while they dropped LGBs on them. They paved the way for basically all non-stealth aircraft.

The problem with the F-117 in DCS, if you're trying to be realistic, is that its only use would be for disabling ground radars in an IADS network to open the door for other strikers and CAP/escort flights. And to do so completely uncontested. I personally find air to ground pretty boring already, where the greatest challenge comes from spotting targets due to engine limitations more than game play elements, or from actively doing things wrong. Online at least there is always the risk of being intercepted by CAP, but most strikers get frustrated being shot down by fighters.

The F-15C does actually have an incremental speed brake, but for some reason they made so that you have to hit the button again where you want it to stop opening.

Yeah that's pretty much what happened, nothing specific to the AI as human flanker pilots do this all the time. You simply have to be aware of the aspect of target and manage throttle and counter measures accordingly. It looks like you didn't even see the launch, which should have been visible at that range. You didn't dump any flares or even attempt to maneuver.

Well that's a separate problem, of clouds being drawn as a figment of our imaginations.

I think the IR missiles are the only air to air missiles simulated correctly in the first place.

Vulkan's mGPU doesn't rely on either of those technologies.