schmiefel

In "Gespeicherte Spiele" Verzeichnis Deines User Ordners zur entsprechenden DCS-Version (Stable "DCS" oder "DCS Open Beta") sind das die Inhalte von fxo metashaders2

Hast du es mal hier versucht: http://www.saitek.com/uk/down/drivers.php Da sollte eigentlich der passende Original-Treiber dabei sein, oder?

^^genau das! Für mich war das jedoch auch der Hauptgrund die paar Euro gleich mehr auszugeben, da es diese Combat Style Version leider weder alternativ zu der "Airliner-Like" (oder wie auch immer man das mit der Fersenstütze nennen wil) der ACE1-Version noch z.B. zum einzeln Nachkaufen gibt. und ich bin mehr als happy damit und fliege diese mit der kürzesten Montage-Weise:

I don't get what's so "silly" about the attempt to replicate what one has the necessary data for and not having to guestimate how something should work or even how users would like to have it to work. I very much like the approach ED is following in DCS to get as close as the real thing and make study level kind of simulated aircraft. If one just wants to have shiny models that just look like the real ones and somehow behave like an airplane plus have all the fancy stuff on board for easy kills then maybe there are other common titles out there?

I like this attempt very much, too. How about some thoughts, if and how this could work in VR? As I still like the actual presentation, I really would like to have some choice maybe to represent my aircraft modules in a kind of a hangar or airfield/flightline. If one looks at how well some racing titles represent their cars, that's something DCS maybe could take ideas from. VR in mind I even could imagine some day that one virtually walks along his personal flightline and get in the aircraft of choice and start your mission/campaign from there... or enter a mission briefing area prior to this and during the mission gets loaded one is transferred via crew shuttle to the shelter, etc... Nothing of that should have a high priority, but improving the immersion factor from the start wouldn't just please the younger folks. Sure, DCS has some much more important things to fix. But if they themself already think about doing a walk around, entering the plane etc. some day, such ideas are not that far off. Just my 2c

Vielleicht für den ein oder anderen nicht nur, aber auch, wegen des Aufmacher-Foto von Spiegel.de interessant: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-israelische-und-deutsche-luftwaffe-ueben-erstmals-zusammen-in-deutschland-a-e69a2885-c282-4835-b3ca-adbff2cb3472 Fehlt künftig nur das typisch deutsche fliegende Nachtank-Equipment ...:pilotfly:

Puh, da bin ich glatt froh noch die Finger davon gelassen zu haben ... War gestern, nachdem es nun für meine Hardware auch verfügbar würde, schon gezuckt, es zu installieren (v.a. wg. Alpha-Test eines neuen FlightSim), aber nachdem BigNewy schon im engl. Threads zur Performance dezent negative Rückmeldung gab (er gibt die neue Hardware GPU Scheduler von 2004 als Ursache an) und nun du auch, lass ich das doch besser... Zumal ich mit vergleichbarer Leistungsklasse unterwegs bin.

Many thanks for these informations. As this latest feature update is now finally available for my PC I was thinking about updating if it will make things - and esp. DCS - run better. Seems it would be better to stay with 1909 feature version for now? And could you tell if and where this GPU scheduler could be disabled?

I am still not convinced if MS realy has a long term commitment for its WMR stuff - heck even their own brand new flightsimulation still has no definite road to VR but a vague commitment to implement it somewhen after release. I really would like to see a VR headset someday using the hardware of the Reverb G2 (or even better) in the same price range but based on at least Steam VR or Oculus VR or even some open VR system instead of using WMR as the basis.

There are several reports that TrackIR may be the cause of those stutters when not perfectly synced with monitor refresh rates, maybe take a look over here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3711080&postcount=34

Das wäre dann ggf. ein neues Problem, aber kenne ich aus meinen Flugversuchen mit DCS nicht. Kannst du mal Screenshots Deiner Ingame-Settings und von den Rift-S-Einstellungen posten?

Zusammen mit der Desktop-Halterung und der gekrümmten Verlängerung (etwas fummelig im Zusammenbau, aber mit Hirn und Geduld machbar) von denen ist der TM Hornet-Stick ein wahrer Traum ... Nicht billg, aber ich finde jeden Cent und auch etwas Warterei wert https://imgur.com/a/4xqVEin

@Vertigo72 again you should simple check the facts (again Wikpedia helps getting those facts together as not only the release years you compare are not correct) before you start instructing others how the world (should) work like in your mindset. Edit: But as mentioned by BigNewy those things have basically nothing to do with DCS and the topic over here

Thanks!:thumbup:

Forget it! Thats why it was cited in quotation marks as its not about the grammar but about how software doesn't consist of a single code but it consists of several modules that have to work together to build the whole thing we then call a 'flight simulator'. Basic understanding of how these things have to get together would let you get the knowledge that there is no simple porting from one to another. Even inbetween the already mentioned FSX-P3D world it gets nowadays very complex to transfer from one to the other despite the fact that both share some common code base - simple because the latter moved on with version 4 to 64Bit as the programming adress space - even Wikipedia can help you get more basic knowledge on this.

Sorry Sir, its 'codes" not singular 'code' like you think as it is not simply one code that needs to get adapted but several parts make the whole thing. - And that example simple shows quite well that you have no clue how software design and development works. The example with Razbam that had Harrier modules still ready for other simulations and couldn't port this simply over into DCSW was already mentioned. And if that would be that simple and easy like you think a few other studios that have already some military aircraft in their programme would have adapted them to DCSW as well already. That's the same vice versa. I am finally out of this now as it doesn't make any sense to argue further with someone that is that clueless and it gets boring debating this on and on with someone that lacks simple basic knowledge and completely refuses to learn some stuff and get a better understading how things work...

Well I am quite sure that I am too dumb to get the genius behind the many ideas you already developed over here.:music_whistling: But I am quite as sure that you don't have a clue how software development and software business works. The DCSW core IS the business of ED as all their own modules base on it - without their own DCSW core there is simple no more business. Everything else - even MAC development - is a complete new business. So if they don't have the incentive to develop this core futher more we are already lost :huh:

Now it finally gets complete out of order: 1st you state that ED has much too few ressources to develop in a certain way the necessary basics further more - now you demand that they use their critical low (by your thinking) ressources to develop 'mods' for other flight simulations to expand the business ... come one ... that's the most senseless idea you already had...

Everyone that denies any 'help' or kind of 'easy AAR mode' as unrealistic, too game-like etc. should maybe take a look at, what the industry is working at: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2020/04/airbus-achieves-worlds-first-fully-automatic-refuelling-contacts.html Looking ahead with new air defence concepts like FCAS (https://www.airbus.com/defence/fcas.html ) such concepts had to be implemented as then e.g. accompanying drones need to AAR completely automatic ...

I just wonder were yout got the system requirements for VR in the mentioned MS flight sim to compare it with DCSW? Everything I could state on this is under a strict NDA and I couldn't find any public informations on VR for it so far? Another guesswork out of nothing ...

Oh well, that's the internet folks of today I like that much ... making assumptions on YT videos ... that are the same folks that can derive a simulation from an arcade driving or flight model by watching a video :doh:

I think you'll have to accept that there is no point for ED while having all the tools themself for aircraft creation, 3rd party SDKs, EFM and PFM, terrain creation tools, mission editor tools, scripting engine, ... to redo this to use the tools another developer (might) offer ... Edit: That would be the real waste of money, time and effort

Not much to add from here ... @Vertigo72 : it seems you had started running deeply into a deadlock and just can't stop running right in the same direction until hitting a wall very hard instead of turning around... that's realy like a vertigo moment when the pilot does controlled flight into terrain with never knowing what had happened. You simple can't accept simple facts, make one pure assumption on the next without having basic knowledge of nearly anything you're talking about and mix it with guessing and hopeless dreaming to one more pointless cocktail after another. - Wasn't it all about a wrong business model first that you would like to tune for the ED amateur stuff based on the professional knowledge you have from your vast business experience? If that's all that simple just get on one of those several plattforms, get or buy a 3D model from an aircraft of your choice there, port it over to whatever suits you (errhh ... if those, that you assume are just waiting for other well trained software developers to port their things over, let you do so ...) and make your own bestworking flight simulator with all those fluffy clouds, real time global weather and 3D graphics you think make a real simulation instead of the crap we use as DCSW ...:joystick: I am out of this pointless debate...:pilotfly:

I start to be convinced that you have no clue how software design works. ED has developed the complete design of what we have now as DCSW over the last 30 years. Basic calculations, functions etc. are working within their software design not that of someone else. Its not just throwing some c++ code in an editor, compile it and bingo you get what a DCS plane makes in another environment. Yes they are working on moving away from an DX-based 3D engine to a Vulkan/Mantle based one for years now. Can you remember how long it took to get from DX9 to DX11. And moving to Vulkan is quite not only a trivial job in replacing one graphics library with another. It means re-coding and re-designing a lot of the graphics work already done. Now, I advice before you make another wall of pretty useless assumptions that yout get better informed what software design means, what it is based on, what the basics using different graphics libraries are etc. That maybe will happen or not ... my crystal ball for all that guess work is currently getting inspected and recalibrated to follow your pink pony thoughts... No, I personally had never thought about doing military stuff within a civilian flying focused simulation software ... and no one with a professional attempt would even look at this public gaming stuff. LM is in the professional market for such training devices and the development they took over is focused on this part and if you just take a look at the different licences one can buy there is a special licence just for this professional market. The goal in mind is to provide a PC-based and therefore very cost effective plattform in addition and not to replace those multi million dollar full featured simulators that one needs for professional flight training. And that's the kind of business DCSW comes from, too, if you refer to the roots of the A-10C we can get in a downgraded version for pure entertainment - that's what maybe the french Armée de l’Air is looking for with the advanced development in cooperation with Razbam for their M-2000 pilots or cadets training. You are just playing with assumptions based on what - pure guessing?! Or do you have any hard facts to add here? And real military plane developers have quite other and focused tools ... man, get out of your childs room and just take a look at what those professional companies offer as training devices for their stuff. Now I will come up with a real hard to get fact: This new civil flight sim you have a sketchy idea of that its such a professional tool that every company on this planet will soon switch over to offer their professional training devices with it just because it has nice shining graphics and it runs on an average PC device - it is a GAME. Well, maybe they will sell a nice bunch of game packages to professionals as well as those like to get good entertaining software from time to time as well. Same goes for DCS ... Fun fact 1: Did you ever see professional military pilots giving real Case I instructions for one of your other civil flight simulators? Fun fact 2: There is a market for selling Forza like racing games - and its by millions bigger then that for all the other simulation focused racing titles that even have professional branches (like rFactor pro that was derived from the simulation game (!) rFactor) - but the simulation market is big enough for several other companies not equipped with the million $ budgets a Forza series title gets to coexist. Same goes for the flight simulation branch.

Me and 80% that voted in that poll.... How blind we must be not to see the holy grail you and "some" are offering generously for our relief ... Please excuse my misbelief