blkspade

Literally what it says. One is an option to use mouse for TDC, the other is a joystick axis.

There in lies a major point of contention. Every module is basically locked in to a feature set adhering to a particular time-frame, of which doesn't work out for JHMCS in the Eagle. The F-15C did have the 9X well ahead of JHMCS. You can track down procurement info of the AIM-9X Block I by the USAF well ahead of the AIM-120C5 the DCS F-15 has, which to me is a logical argument for giving it to Eagle. You can't do the same for JHMCS. However in the case of the Mig-29, they removed datalink to comply with real life which in the case of contradicting timeframes of 9x and 120c5 could equally see the 120C removed from the F-15.

What size planes are you spotting though? Spotting an airliner and a fighter jet would be drastically different. IRL a F-16 for example can be really hard to spot beyond 2 miles. I've seen both the thunderbirds and blue angles (small jets with high visibility paint) at beach front airshows, and they are very hard to maintain visual or acquire at shallow angles around that range.

That's kind of a huge point for Vulkan, in that render phase doesn't have to be trapped behind the single threaded parts.

I believe that the logic required for this relies on a datalink implementation (no way for AWACS to know what you're locking otherwise), which is currently absent in the F-18. Then there is a the separate issue in that the AWACS doesn't always answer this request from planes that do have it. Having it fail outside of burn through range isn't as urgent as needing to IFF something much closer. Heck it would be useful having AI aircraft report buddy spike, to maybe mitigate some tanker/awacs fratricides.

What's I'm saying is that a single core flight model would still be appropriate. It doesn't matter if its however much more than those, as its still just plus or minus this or that from a base configuration. It's still just a digital approximation of behavioral changes.

It should be literally no different than any other stores effecting flight performance. So they should be able to model it once, and the presence or absence of CFTs result in a static change.

They wouldn't need to though, since the F-18 actually sees contacts at further range than the Eagle, without being effected by jammers. Its not advantageous to nerf any aircraft in this way as it would't actually aid the hornet at the ranges I've noticed this happening at.

This might not be a Su27 specific thing, but a FC3 aircraft failing. I have noticed that this also is happening in the F-15, where I have a contact hot in under 60nm not maneuvering suddenly vanish for 10-15 seconds just to show up still hot but closer. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that its lag related.

Yeah I fly solely in VR and own in multiplayer, so I find most negative comments null and void in reference to VR.

My first computer was TRS-80 Coco, have used every version of Windows since 3.11, and used Apple/Mac OS since at least OS 7 (between school and 15+ years in IT). Didn't really get into Linux until Gentoo came into existence, but have used various distros since. I only currently use linux in brief instances for specific purposes. My only reasons for using Windows is familiarity for work, and gaming (previously used Media center for DVR before it was deprecated). I'm on Windows 10 (besides work) because of DX12. If not for gaming, I would likely only run it in a VM. I'm playing less and less games lately outside of DCS. My argument is mostly about how flawed using the steam survey to disprove Linux viability because its tainted data. Even with DCS being on Steam, many in the community warn other away from investing in DCS on the platform. Many DCS players aren't really gamers, they're simmers. I'm well aware that Linux is a relatively small market, yet the world's largest computer games distribution service provider (who's statistics are being considered meaningful on the topic) is doing everything they can to support it. Steam only has had a peak concurrency of 18.5 million users. Does that mean there are literally no more than that many PC gamers in the world at any given time? I'm gonna go with no, but Valve is possibly considering their only attachment to Windows is gaming. That 1.25b Windows users includes a very large pool of non-gamers, and EOL versions that current games don't support. Its largely business machines, which is by far largest group actively choosing Windows specifically, still not gaming. A lot of people didn't want to upgrade to Windows 10 when Microsoft was literally giving it away. The handling of 10's various "features" have been very unpopular, and Windows as a service (when it comes) is not likely to be any more popular (for the end user). The PC gaming market is basically made up of companies fighting over scraps anyway. The most successful video game pretty much ever (COD:MW3) sold just over 30mil copies, but a fraction of which were for PC. While the most successful PC game (Sims 3) has sold 7.96mil. It might be more of a disservice to small developer with a niche product to completely ignore Linux. I know a certain mil-sim has chosen to support Linux.

Your last statement, while obvious, completely makes my point. Barring the fact that most people don't actually choose an OS in the first place. They realize they need/want a computer, decide on it being a PC (considered synonymous with Windows) or a Mac, and accept whatever their pre-built machine comes with. There are way more linux users than what one can gather from the Steam survey. However being focused on those that would be gamers (the point of the debate), some of them are likely to be gamers with either a complete dislike of Steam, or zero desire to bother with it in Linux. There are many gamers who's only attachment to windows is the absolute reliability of game compatibility/support. These gamers aren't showing up as linux users in spite of their interest because they haven't bothered to even install Steam in Linux when there is only a handful a worthwhile titles guaranteed to work. This is the exact reason (well one of) Valve is bothering. Heck its why in the past Microsoft did what it could to hamper the adoption of OpenGL. The market is there in spite of what the Steam survey would tell you. Canonical alone claims to have at least 20 million Ubuntu users.

I already know about that initiative, but they aren't quite there yet. DCS using Vulkan in the first place may largely remove the need for ED to build a native Linux client. ED are already changing their DRM scheme to something that might work seamlessly via things like Wine/Steamplay. If Valve was relying on that metric themselves, then why would they bother investing the effort to make Linux a viable option. The market seeming to not be there is largely influenced by the fact that the games aren't there.

Well benchmarks put the 2080 performing at around the same as a 1080ti. Sometimes a little better, sometimes worse. It would be sensible if they hadn't shifted the prices up, but I'm actually quite sure that prices are what they are to help move the overstock of 10 series cards.

And yet the two main maps available represent theaters where you would absolutely need SEAD.

Its still a broken metric, because of the perspective you're looking at it from. Not every gamer likes the ideology of Steam, and hardcore Linux users are even more likely to be that kind of user. Then there is the fact that so few AAA games have Linux support, that why would even bother to install it on Linux. The steam survey doesn't check to (or have the means to) see if a person dual boots between Windows and Linux, so they're excluded if they haven't installed the client on Linux.

Well with the question being if Vulkan would extend platform support, there would be no reason to stop work on Vulkan. While no one knows absolutely outside of ED, sticking with DX would mean absolutely no, where as Vulkan makes it plausible even if still unlikely. Vulkan would probably make it easier to run DCS in wine though with less of a performance hit.

Its just the nature of Windows vs the average user. Average Windows users are their own enemy, on a platform that's specifically targeted for exploits. Linux is more challenging to get messed up in a passive manner. You only need the command line in Ubuntu to perhaps fix certain out of the box issues, or an occasional update breaking something. If you're not looking to do anything more advanced than internet/media consumption, on a Linux build that works fine out of the box there should be little CLI work. Doing actual work might take more work though, depending on the case.

This is actually not true. Virtual machines can in fact work with GPU pass through, that gives native access to the GPU. In such cases the performance hit as actually quite minimal. There is a separate problem where Nvidia choses to block the driver from installing in a virtual environment (but there is a workaround), because they'd rather paywall that function behind workstation/server class cards.

Has nothing to do with graphics. The problem is the lowest common denominator, users with limited memory. Its already pushing up against 16GB of RAM that most people are going to have. It'll be a harder to market game with a 24-32GB system memory minimum. Like to choice of Vulkan over DX12, expanding not narrowing the audience.

I get why a lot of these things feel so important to so many. The hornet is currently a collection half measures. It only has dumb bombs which are lackluster, since the area has to be sanitized of anything even remotely threatening (or not present in the first place). The broken countermeasure totals limit your survivibility to basically a single strela. The only appeal in using the hornet for AG is that its faster in and out, and that it has standoff self-defense capability(Air to Air). Even the F-5e and Mirage can drop GBUs without the help of a targeting pod. So literally everything else is better suited for AG. Air to air is mess where anything you lock up has to be centered on the hud to confirm friend and actual enemies turn friendly just by flying low. Having to pull up to a 70 degree turn at 1.5 Gs to confirm a contact is non-sense. Being on SRS/TS can help (when you can get people on it), but AI tankers and AWACS can't call "Buddy Spike". Buddy spike has to be given with altitude since everything in the azimuth thinks their being locked. AWACS declare is broken/absent for the hornet. So the Hornet needs at a minimum to have NCTR, to both improve SA and greatly reduce air to air fratricides. The alternative is having an Eagle on comms.

This is not accurate. We don't need JHMCS to get the benefit of the 9X, and the fact that USAF procured them before AIM-120C5 that are in use in the game.

My point being that the core coding would be fundamentally no different, other than the target viewport being a radar screen. The 2 being exactly the same IRL means the computational work is also exactly the same, probably less so for a radar simulation. Furthermore anything added to the DX API becomes a vendor agnostic spec, that any GPU maker can build hardware to address. At that point it'll be the tessellation shenanigans all over again. Along with Gameworks competition nerfing.

Actually Radar waves are light. Visible light and radio waves are all electromagnetic radiation, just in different wavelengths. One of those just happens to be visible to humans. As Nvidia described their raytracing, they are doing it inversely from the eye/camera, to target a handful of rays that would be hitting the eye. The newer radar modeling is ray-casting which in theory could would physically the same way, just not to light the scene. The problem here is that its both explicit to Nvidia and DX12.

So the issue I was experiencing with commands not going to the intended target seems to occur at version 2.5.2 and after, if you've done a clean install of the plugin. I had to start with 2.5.1 and update directly to 2.5.4 to get everything working as intended.