Brisse

Yes, I noticed those too, so I can confirm that.

I checked the "last modified" date of "missiles_data.lua" and it's an older date so I'm going to assume nothing happened to the missiles in this patch.

Sorry, I did it like that on purpose because I also posted it in another thread where I wanted to compare it to a graph another forum member did before the update and he had the axes like this. It's easier to make direct comparisons between the two that way.

After today's patch: Note: Didn't bother to plot the surpercruise area, but I tried briefly and it will supercruise roughly similar to the 5F flight manual graph in the citation. Tried 45 000ft but it isn't able to sustain level flight there currently. Overall, it looks much better than before. Still need some minor tweaking though :)

Just finished this graph. Does look a little underperforming at high altitude. Wasn't able to sustain flight at 45 000ft. It's still much closer than previous version though. Note: It will supercruise at certain altitudes if you use the AB to punch through the transsonic region, but I didn't bother to put it in my graph.

Maybe, but it was over-performing A LOT before, and don't forget they added transonic drag now too. Here's how much the envelope was off before: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2627991&postcount=135 It seems much closer to the blue envelope now. I haven't done any super serious testing yet, but I was barely able to supercruise with a clean aircraft at 35 000ft which seems to be correct behaviour. Performance at sea level seemed a bit underwhelming though. Barely able to go supersonic at full afterburner. Haven't looked at real envelope how it should be though. Edit: Did they remove the charts from the manual? I can't find them...

Aaaaah, finally I got time to test it out and it's pretty obvious that a lot has been tweaked. Flight model feels much better. Obviously a lot of bug fixes too. Thank you Razbam! This is shaping up to become a great module :)

Awesome! Then I'll have to schedule some flying later this evening :thumbup:

Nothing in official changelog, but we have seen before that they often sneak updates in there without mentioning it in the changelog. Has anyone had time to check the M2000 after the 2.0 update 4? I sure hope it has the updates mentioned by CptSmiley :/

Hmm. Changelog says it's fixed, but it ain't. Nice work Nvidia :(

Sorry, I read too fast. Thought you were on 358.87. My german is a bit lousy as well. Entschuldigung :)

Fixed in 361.43. Stay up to date people. Stop using ancient drivers. Right now you should be on 361.60

Your old one must have been faulty. It's really hard to get a single graphics card PC to draw more than 500W at full load, even if you choose the most power hungry components available and over-clock the components. A fully functional 850W PSU will easily handle a powerful PC with dual 980ti's.

The Su-33 currently has only a standard flight model, which could explain the problem you are seeing. The good news is that they have been working on a new flight model for a while which we will hopefully see soon. Maybe the problem goes away then?

No it's not. It's a British derivative of the earlier AIM-7E-2. It's of similar performance as the American AIM-7M, but it's not the same missile. Skyflash entered service in 78 while AIM-7M came four years later, in 82. The goal of the 7M was to bring the Sparrow up to Skyflash performance. I believe the initial RB71 in the Swedish Air Force were identical to the British variant, but sometime during the 90's Sweden made further upgrades the their RB71's.

The MK 108 is loaded using a pneumatic system. The button activates a solenoid valve that starts the loading process.

First question is a bit silly, because Pascal is an entirely new family of GPU's. There will be many cards in different price ranges based on the Pascal GPU's. Still, I can tell you that no pricing is available at this time and is not likely to be revealed in a while. Second question: No, they are not taking your money now. I think they will ask you to pay just before it ships out to you.

I doubt it will work well for that. The camera is unable to give you any depth perception, so even if you see your keyboard, you will have trouble hitting the intended keys.

Another one? We already have several of them! http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122517&highlight=hrtf http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=150125&highlight=hrtf http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151897&highlight=hrtf Speakers won't work for VR. 1. They don't follow your head. 2. They are heavily affected by room acoustics. 3. Anything heard through speakers are only 2D, even if you have a 5.1 system. With a pair if simple stereo headphones you can achieve 3D using software sound processing and proper sound mixing. Anyone who says "virtual surround doesn't work" just haven't experienced it properly. If done correctly, you should see results similar to binaural recordings. For the full effect it has to be implemented in the game engine (very few games has done this, but there are some). Stuff like Dolby Headphone or Razer Surround are still just 2D. They pretend to look like a 7.1 surround system so the game outputs 8 channels, then they simulate sitting inside a room with a surround sound system around you. It's not the same thing as simulating actually being inside the game environment, which is what Oculus is trying to do with their audio.

Oh we were listening all the time, and the answers were the right ones. You just disregarded them in a somewhat disrespectful manner only because I left out all the fluff about HRTF and spatialization, which you falsely assumed I knew nothing about. A straight up answer without unnecessary fluff isn't enough apparently. Well it doesn't matter now. You have your answer. Summary: DCS lacks any form of spatialization that could be deemed acceptable for a good VR experience. What you hear in front of your monitor is what you will hear in VR, and it is not good enough to create a sense of presence in VR.

You cant directly compare the resolution of a VR headset to that of a monitor. The monitor covers a very small portion of your field of view. With a VR headset, it covers a much much larger field of view, so if the amount if pixels are equal to a monitor, the size of the pixels will look absolutely huge in VR. Try sitting so close to your monitor that you can barely see it's edges without having to rotate your head. What you did just now was to change how much of your field of view that your monitor covers so that it is roughly equivalent to a VR headset. If your eyes can still focus on the pixels, they will surely look huge when you sit that close to the monitor, right? You might be so close that it's hard to focus though, depending on how big your monitor is.

Correct George. If Kuky was correct, binaural recordings such as the barbershop would never work, because the headphones are attached to your head, so they turn with you.

You meant to write "DCS" instead of "real life", right? What you say (that you have to move head or source) isn't true for the real world, and that can be proven by scientific facts.

Yes, but DCS does it in a very simplistic and fake way. It's been the standard in the industry so people have come to accept it, but once VR comes into the picture, it will not be good enough. It will seem fake and take you out of the experience. You say that you have to move your head to determine the direction, but this is only the result of how sound works in DCS. If it was done properly, you wouldn't need to move your head at all, and you would still be able to pinpoint the direction of the sound source fairly accurately. If it was done properly, and the sound was coming from 8 o'clock, slightly above you while someone was asking you "Where does it come from?", you would be able to say 8 o'clock slightly high. You wouldn't say 7 o'clock. That's how accurate our brain and ears are. Traditional games like DCS aren't able to use this to their full advantage, even though they could be designed to do so with technology that has existed for some time. With VR, proper sound spatialization (not old fake method) will be necessary. This is why Oculus has released Audio SDK for developers.

What you are saying is true for traditional gaming, but it's just not how the real world works. In VR, the traditional methods won't work (in the sense of creating a feel of presence in the VR world), because your brain will know the difference. Old methods of reproducing sound in games must be thrown out of the window if one is to create a believable soundscape in VR. Sound now has to follow the laws of physics and be affected by the virtual environment. Since headphones are attached directly to your head, there must also be a simulation of how your head affects the sound entering the ear canal (example: how the sound is affected by coming from the left, travelling around your head, and entering your right ear canal). The time difference has to be simulated. This is what HRTF (head related transfer function) is all about. It's pointless for me to sit here and go into details. Instead, it is better to just let a professional explain it: And if you still doubt how it's possible to simulate spatial sound through headphones, just go listen to an binaural recording (microphones placed inside a dummy head). The famous barbershop recording should convince you (MUST USE HEADPHONES): The barbershop demo is a good example of what we have to simulate to create a sense of presence in VR.