Katmandu

This tiny app presents the same line of text (same size and font) at progressively longer distances. In my Oculus CV1 with default pixel density, I can read up to line 11. How good is YOUR VR set?:) This should be a relatively objective test of differences in across models and manufacturers. Different LCDs combined with different optics are a pain to disentangle otherwise. No need for screenshots, just post the furtherst line you can read without guessing and the VR set you are using. (the screenshot is just to show what the app looks like, it does not really convey the actual sharpness you get in VR) Download the app from the description to this video. More info about the app at 3:00

Read the first post in the thread :smilewink:

F-16 would be terrific, but lets face it - whatever it will be it is at least 4-5 years away. Plenty to enjoy until then :)

People who play online are about 5% of people who have bought the product. That is how I remembered it, I'll see if I can find the exact quote. And online and offline both have their pluses, but lets skip at least that can of worms in this thread :) Not that I disagree with "Multiplayer should be a gem and the main stay of this sim". EDIT (off topic):

I never said about majority, only that sizeable amount of people like FC1/2/3. I *suspect* that FC remains to be the most profitable module for ED, but I have no proof link. Would be interesting to know for sure. I don't understand what you are saying here. Su-33 was to all intents and purposes made from scratch as SFM is about as much help in making AFM as using a 3d model from Ace Combat to make a new hi poly model for DCS. My point was that Heatblur would accomplish an FC3 module without having to build it from scratch, and it would be marketed not to the elitists who "do not care about FC3 any more", but to other guys who "want to fly and not work" (description of FC3/IL2 by one RL Airbus pilot). Both groups get their products, Heatblur gets more profit and spends more on its current and future module development. Win-win for everybody.

Server politics are always tough, but online only accounts for 5% of all users ( or some similar number, from what I remember Chizh saying at some point) so this topic should not impact yourself or the broader online community. ;)

Economics definitely do matter. Thus my original suggestion was to bundle the FC3 mode with the full sim module, like ED did with the game mode in Ka-50 and A-10C. Without such bundle, the module is only bought by hardcore fans who are confident that they have what it takes to learn the module. With such bundle, the module will be bought by the hardcore + the FC3 crowd who are less confident (not all of FC3 guys as the price of the full module would be too high for them). The projected sales of a separate cheaper FC3 module should also be substantial as flight sim "hardcoreness" is likely normally distributed and there are more customers for every step down in hardcoreness - ending in Ace Combat shifting millions of copies :) FC3 is long way up from AC series of course, but the increase in customer base should still be sizable and profitable for the little amount of extra work that is needed. The devil may well be in detail, but if ED can turn a profit on a standalone FC3 module like SU-33, with all the modelling and physics done from scratch... Heatblur MUST make profit from converting existing module to FC3.

Thanks! I am an old timer here and know about Chuck’s guides (they’re awesome!) and “it is not as hard as you think” arguments (heck, I’ve posted them myself in the Ka-50 thread that I linked in my OP where somebody wanted an FC3 level Ka-50) ;) DCS Ka-50 was out in 2008, A-10C in 2010 (?), and there was Falcon BMS of course. many people continued to enjoy FC1/FC2/FC3 during those years, and still do - as evident by the post count/views once again. And, this FC3 VS “trainer modules” mentality is not necessary. ED have bundled “game” arcade versions of their sims (much-much cruder than FC3 unfortunately, they even went as far as create simplified flight models just for Ka-50/A-10C “game modes”). I am all for full fat full simulation modules, but having an FC3 version of the same plane would be great too. Great for FC fans and great for the developers who can sell to a broader base without having to do a huge amount of work.

Вообще не копия. Вот сравнение пилота который отлетал много лет на разных блоках Вайпера и Хорнета (интересная статья в целом, гугл переводчик не слишком портит даже). https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/ Имхо Ф/А-18 (да и почти любой другой истребитель кроме Ф-16) - это спортивная машина. Ф-16 - это спортивный мотоцикл. Обзор из безрамочной кабины, откинутое назад кресло, малый вес, тяговооружонность... :thumbup:

In an ideal world - yes. But in a real world AFM, 3D+texturing, systems development at FC3 level are very significant. Adapting a hardcore module to FC3 is much faster/cheaper than developing from scratch, there is no doubt about that. The reasons for bothering were listed in OP. Interest is a scale, not a black and white thing. Some people/ some modules have/generate enough interest to invest more time, others less - but the interest is still there. I never said that FC3 is an arcade game. It is a full on combat simulator as opposed to full on trainer of a hardcore module. Now look at FC2 post count ;) Of course we could simply ignore/explain away the numbers and reduce everything to "it's just your opinion, man"... Lets not:) This community consists of many types of modern air combat enthusiasts. Also, I was never suggesting to replace A-10C style modules, but lets not minimise the significant interest for FC3 style simulator in DCS.

My system is identical to that of OP, but I OCed my CPU to 4.5, and run 1080ti. Oculus runs pretty well at 45fps with ASW on mostly high settings (with flat shadows and civ traffic low). Imo 45fps and Oculus's ASW feel very good in modern setting (i.e. DCS), for WW2 combat you really do NEED higher fps. I say go for it and upgrade everything once gen2 VR sets are out.

That is good to know. I wasn't suggesting to develop a stand alone FC3 module, I was giving an example of ED's own A-10C and Ka-50 that have "game" mode bundled in. Only I suggested to replace the "game" mode with the "FC3" (or equivalent) mode. That is it. If you look at post counts for FC2 and FC3 forums here you will see that "everybody you know" may not be as representative of the DCS target market as you thought ;) And yes, I would buy a full module like M2000 if it had a FC3 mode bundled in. In my OP I've linked a thread by somebody else who was ready to buy Ka-50 if its "game" mode was FC3 level. When people consider buying a hardcore module, they know that if they do not learn it their money would be wasted. If FC3 version was in, they would know that they can have fun learning, and if it ends up being too much, they have FC3 to fall back to. Plus, there are sales prices. Plus, some modules are special enough (cough, F-14) to buy even at RRP price... Plus, getting a licence to sell a standalone FC3 version that is a fork of a hardcore sim may also prove possible. But the biggest argument is the FC2/3 popularity and its untapped niche.

I've posted a similar thread in the F/A-18 forum and do realise that this topic is sacrilege :), but imho it would be a great addition to DCS if "full fat" modules also had FC3 versions. ED bundled their Ka-50 and A-10C with "game" versions, but imho it's the FC3 versions that are really needed. There are a few reasons: 1)Not everybody is willing to learn the full set of real procedures, but a lot of people are interested in experiencing the flight dynamics and air combat in some particular aircraft. 2)Having a FC3 version makes returning to a module easier, if one had a few months away from DCS. 3)If I am not interested in the plane enough to learn all of its systems, I do not buy it. In my case, I like the Mirages, Mig-21s, F-5s and the Viggens - just not enough to learn all their systems. This is further compounded by point number 2) which is only more likely to happen here. BUT! If FC3 versions of these planes were bundled with the full sim modules (or available separately), I would be more likely to buy them. Some would become a definite buy (M2000, Viggen and Harrier) in my case. 4)From the developer's view point, FC3 version also makes sense as this would allow to sell their module to a broader audience and maybe even "sell it twice" - like ED is selling FC3 and its standalone planes. Here is a thread just to show that I am not alone in such thinking: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=112030 Cheers! PS I do own Ka-50, A-10C and the Huey (as well as Falcon BMS), I have studied them in sufficient depth to complete several of their Campaigns. So I am not a pure FC3 guy who "doesn't get" the attraction of a study sim.

Hey, it was not a dig at FC3, quite the opposite. The OP stated that he does not want mind boggling complexity and my "one button commentary" was aimed at showing that there is little mind boggling in terms of control scheme. FC3 is fantastic and has great depth in terms of flight dynamics and tactics of course. I wish there was an FC3 version of every DCS plane - including M2000, Harrier, F/A-18 and the Tomcat :)

Su-25 has one of the best single player campaigns in the entire sim. Revanche it is called I believe. Professional voce overs with lots of interesting situations.

FC3's complexity is as follows (I'll use the F15 as an example, but it's pretty much the same for all the other birds): For cold start any of its planes you press one button to turn the electrics on, then two buttons to turn on both engines. Once in the air, turn on radar with one button again. Radar can be set to different ranges (two buttons for + and -), it can change elevation (two buttons for up and down) and to track single or multiple targets (one button to switch between these modes). Finally, radar can switch between modes for tracking incoming aircraft or moving away, or leave it on auto (one button switches between all of these). You can change between long distance and short distance combat modes (4 buttons, but really only use two: one for "long range" and one for "vertical scan short range"). One button to change missiles, one button for guns. Then you can engage flaps (one button), airbrake (one button), raise/lower gear (one button). You also have chaff/flares (I set them to the same button) and jammer (another one button). That's pretty much it :pilotfly:

Отлично, спасибо что пошли навстречу! :thumbup:

При команде нескольким ведомым включить радар, занять строй и тп, все отвечают в унисон поверх друг друга.

Ормуз выглядит все интереснее и интереснее. Звучит хорошо!

Ужасная новость :( Спасибо ему за то что он делал и за его наследие.

По Неваде я бы сказал что Вегас отличный, а пустыня "отстает". На средне-дальных планах много мыла (размытых текстур которые слишком однородные), на низких высотах - слишком плоско и без микрорельефа. И тут понятно что вручную строить микрорельеф то еще занятие, нужен автогенератор кочек, камушков, пятен, трещин, пучков травы и тп. Без него текстура "пустыни" натянутая на плоскость сразу выдает себя. Тот факт что фпс вне Вегаса сразу улетает в потолок дает понять что ресурсы есть :) Как будет в заливе - посмотрим.

Aggressor Squadron https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hornet+aggressor&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUv4aZofHZAhUHCcAKHdmqBssQ_AUICigB&biw=1307&bih=873 используется для тренировок в том же ТопГан и РедФлаг.

Про АФМ А-10А понятно, не знал (но я и писал что не знал). Надо же, от Петровича не только Су25 оказывается) Но это одновременно и жалко, я думал уже был прецедент переноса части тренажера в ГС3, а получается что не было. Про ускорение процесса - уже Рик (ЕД тим как-никак) выше ответил. Термины "игра", да и "ГС3", мне самому не очень, я просто пользуюсь официально принятой в ДЦС терминологией, чтоб было меньше недопонимания)

Су27 уже приносит удовльствие фанатам в ГС3, причем ему спецом делали АФМ. Не знаю как с А-10А, насколько его АФМ заимствована от тренажера А-10С, но Су27 делался и потом доделывался под ГС3... Не понял твоего примера :) Но про отдельную продажу - это ты весомый аргумент добавил. ЕД продает части ГС3 в розницу, но совершенно разумно не стал продавать в розницу часть модуля А10C "А10С игра" например. То же самое с потенциальным "Ф/А-18 игра". То есть даже если разработка формата ГС3 на существующий полный тренажер дороже чем разработка формата "игра" для него же, "ГС3" версия все равно cможет добрать в продаже розницей отдельно от тренажера.

Справедливости ради можно заметить что в ДЦС не было и нет радара В-З, так что ГС3шный Хорнет тоже не мог выйти.