Reticuli

Oh, and the very obvious collective/power curve difference. It's like the helo is much heavier than before or flying at higher altitude. That's probably an improvement of accuracy in some of these mountainous regions, though.

The yaw stability may or may not have been improved. I can't tell if it's wobbling more or less yet. The auto-turn and damping authority of the yaw certainly hasn't been noticeably improved. But pitch and roll seem distinctly less stable, almost closer to flying BS1 without the stability channels turned on. Anyone else notice that?

I think it's this fake "haze" that's used that comes in the form of water and terrain overlaid on top of the objects in the shkval. Intel integrated graphics don't seem to communicate properly with DCS stuff on how to do the transparency. So eventually either the water, the terrain, or both completely cover the objects.

They're gone, dude. No emails. No links. Nothing on my account. I used to be able to log in and find my BS1 serial. That's gone. I just bought BS2 48hrs ago and still haven't gotten a serial. I opened a ticket and haven't gotten a response.

Ditto with the BS2 upgrade serial. And my original BS1 serial doesn't show up, either.

I don't see my original BS1 serial or the new BS2 upgrade serial I just bought last night. Nothing. The tutorial for finding this stuff appears to be in error. No serials sent in the emails. No serials on the download screen. Nothing. And it won't let me log in with an extra "1" after my user name, either.

LMAO That made my day, dude.

AH-1Z. We need something to balance out against the Blackshark. And as for helos, the AH-1Z is the only operational one that uses a control interface similar to what 99% of flight simmers use: side sticks. You will never approximate real helo flight on convention cyclic helos unless everyone starts buying expensive pole cyclics from specialty shops or the Logitech G940 magically has all its problems resolved and even more magically it becomes the default stick everyone starts buying. Who knows, Bell might be happy to offer technical support considering they're trying to sell the thing to countries that would rather buy Block III Apaches. Free advertisement. And the quiet rotors and more advanced digital cockpit of the Zulu would have an excellent showcase in such a DCS sim. Not to mention sidewinders. Yummy. That would also be a nice balance to a Russian fighter addition to DCS later.

Because it's behaving like a slider in the game that directly represents the position of the TDC rather than an axis that adjusts the TDC and stops adjusting when the axis is centered.

It happens at about 2.65km from a target at an altitude of 1000 when I have everything set to low. Anyone know what values or LOD or something might be responsible?

Same thing. And I left everything at default without changing a thing after the fresh install. I even installed in the C directory outside of Programs (x86). The only difference is stuff starts disappearing at around 3km now instead of 5.

Just reinstalled BS based on advice in the forum after I lost 3d objects within a certain range in the Shkval. I have an extensive LUA profile I created in the last install. I copied that out to make sure I wouldn't have to do it again. It appears to be completely default, though. And that's not an error on my part because I saved it multiple times at every stage of the programming, without pedals, then with later. DCS BS just doesn't want to load it.

And another thing: Do you know of any method to force older sims to see or use the HOTAS you want them to see, even if they can't recognize Windows Preferred Joystick setting?

I just installed it on this laptop, actually. Where are these LOD settings and is there any way to manually change them? If not I could reinstall. I was trying to dial everything way down to improve framerates and there was a CTD once when doing that. Perhaps that caused these LOD setting to become broken.

So? What causes this and is there a solution?

Fascinating thread and article! As someone studying for an MBA, I can reiterate that it's as simple as EA having too many MBAs in charge saying "we can make more money putting the same people to work coding or marketing sports titles than flight sims. consider yours canceled". If you put people with a passion in charge of this stuff, you can still make money and make great, complex, unique, niche products with most of what you want. If you have too many people in charge who don't care about the products/services at hand and are just interested in getting more cash flow, you'll end up with those results. Sad, but true. You don’t need to be in the weeds to explain it. I think dynamic campaigns and all that other stuff might make it a little harder, especially if you’ve been sliding past niche stuff in a potentially hostile managerial environment, but at the end of the day it's the MBAs versus the non-MBAs battle, and increasing the latter and decreasing the former will let you get more of what you want and less bad outcomes (from the perspective of those passionate about the given niche). The more capital, more people, or more talents/equipment on hand that cannot simply be moved over to another product/service easily, the easier it is to get away from the scourge of the MBAs. We’re great for penny-pinching within industries that have been commoditized where there’s no differentiation and we’re great for making sure good companies don’t do something outrageously stupid (assuming we don’t incite something reckless to begin with), but we are a constant problem in many other regards with otherwise sane business models that get irrationally disrupted. It’s downright inhuman, sometimes. It’s also why a guy flipping burgers often has better ideas for his chain than the suit CEO who would rather be golfing and probably would never eat one his own (the burger; he’d eat the employee) unless it was a photo op.

I see you posted before I'd just edited and clarified my response slighty.

Yes, someone complaining that the Shkval doesn't realistically let you lock onto non-object points on the ground. I don't even care about that ground tracking thing. I like the spoofing of the Shkval into something smarter, especially considering the KA-50 version modeled is so out of date. It boosts its capability nicely. But while I was looking for a remedy to my mysterious Shkval objects disappearing issue, I stumbled on this thread. Is everything chill on your end?

"#1. Seen any other sims which actually implement image processing in order to accomplish target tracking?" Not that I need nor want that particular feature (i.e. the tracking of any point), but why would you need image processing to allow people to lock onto anything or any spot, and if it happens to be a moving object at that spot, it tracks that object when in ground or air track modes? Since the code is omniscient, why would you even bother to go through all the trouble of image processing to achieve a similar end? If you're worried about it locking too easily onto anything, anytime, with just one click, a simple percentage lock fail value could be added that occasionally necessitates moving it slightly and/or hitting lock again. The user has no way of discerning the accuracy of this or the potential pattern recognition issues that might be at play, and thus a purely random chance is all that is required. Multiple potentially-obscuring objects or power lines within that direct line of sight to the point/object of interest could easily increase that probability of lock failure further and with an anticipated increased failure in desired outcome; again, the code is omniscient in this regard. One does not need to code a complete representation of a hardware-reality interaction in every detail to achieve similar or sometimes even seemingly identical results. And the "seemingly" part is really what you're going for, as this isn't an optical physics or information processing lab simulation for scientific purposes.

"What's the point of the whole story? If you go for gimmicks instead of doing it properly (Il-2 Sturmovik)" Isn't Lockon based on the Flanker code? And isn't Blackshark based on the Lockon code? I wonder how much of this stuff is new code and how much is just tacked on or modifications of existing code, perhaps with the ED coders trying to squeeze stuff out of the old coding that was never intended and without having to write new stuff from the ground up. So essentially that would mean you're buying payware moddings of SSI's old stuff and finding issues that ED has difficulty resolving possibly because they don't know exactly how it works to begin with. Correct? Wrong? Are FC2 and/or Warthog completely original ED code?

Yeah, except it seemed to happen all of the sudden when the distance got to 5. I was picking targets off just fine and then they vanished as I drifted closer. What's causing that and why does it happen when you close to a certain distance? Is there some graphics rendering setting that my computer can't handle as it boosts to higher detail as you approach? If so, can I make it the same lower detail as it is beyond 5 out but make it at closer distances too?

Objects disappear. They were there. Then they're gone. Is there some config setting that I might need to change?

Would you mind doing a version of this with just X, Y, rudder and the left throttle active, with the rotaries and right throttle both invisible? Some sims, like Eidos JSF don't seem to like so many but appear fine with just the important four.

Ferrite choke cores work on the X-65F to drastically reduce interference, particularly with the twist axis. It should have them built into the cables, especially the end that plugs into the stick, but you can do this yourself. I'm using a bunch of small ones, but a single large cheap ring one would probably work with that cable wrapped around it a few times to get a similar effect.

Ferrite choke cores work on the X-65F to drastically reduce interference, particularly with the twist axis. It should have them built into the cables, especially the end that plugs into the stick, but you can do this yourself. I'm using a bunch of small ones, but a single large cheap ring one would probably work with that cable wrapped around it a few times to get a similar effect.