Jump to content

streakeagle

Members
  • Posts

    1727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by streakeagle

  1. I was flying the Nevada air-to-air combat tutorial and had expended all missiles. So, I was working on mapping some of the controls used in the mission to my USB panels. I was testing the normal jettison controls when I noticed that the 530D was lit up, while the fuel tank and Magic were not. I went to an external view to verify all of my pylons were empty. I thought maybe I can jettison the 530D pylons. So, I selected the 530D and pressed the trigger. I heard the "clunk" of a jettison release, but all the pylons were still there. Upon pressing the jettison button, the 530D light extinguished. So, for some reason the jettison logic acted as if I still had at least one 530D on a pylon allowing me to select and jettison the non-existent 530 pylons. I understand the mission is old and sometimes old missions cause bugs that wouldn't exist if the mission was opened in the editor and then saved or built from scratch. I assume that some aspects of the mission are out of date and that this one will be edited or replaced. That would be a good time to test and debug the jettison logic after expending all ordnance.
  2. I would assume that the developers are aware, but just to be sure: When I run the new training missions, all of the text is in Russian, whereas all other aircraft use the correct English localization for my install.
  3. VKB hasn't caused any problems for me with DCS. The only time I have had issues is configuring VRS TacPack. If I wanted that software to work, I had to go into the registry and manually alter the name to get rid of the spaces. But I haven't bothered with FSX/P3d/VRS for quite some time, so I haven't had any issues.
  4. I strongly disagree. You can play it out in board games or in pc flight sims. In 2 vs 4 or worse situations, the outnumbered aircraft can and should maintain mutual support. While inevitably some pairs will get separated in a massive fight, there generally have not been any massive fights since Korea. But in both WW2 and Korea, flight integrity was supposed to be maintained as much as possible. The most notable historical example is F4F Wildcats adopting the Thach weave tactics. The F4F had very little chance of winning in 1 vs 1 fights against A6Ms with experienced pilots. But using mutual support tactics, they not only survived but got better than 1:1 kill ratios against an aircraft that whose flight performance was superior in almost every way except in a high speed dive. F-86 Sabres could and did get separated, but if you read the historical accounts, you will find that they were still clearing each others tails even in massive fights where they were outnumbered by MiG-15s. The F-86s and MiG-15s that got shot down were usually the ones that allowed themselves to get separated. Aces are made by getting easy kills against lone, unaware targets, not groups of aircraft using mutual support tactics.
  5. This has caused issues for years. I have had to manually edit the registry to get the VKB stick to register correctly in third party software for another flight sim. I completely forget about the problem until some change makes it rear its ugly head again.
  6. The adverse yaw affects were a function of AoA, not speed. The slatted F-4E and F-4F models virtually eliminated the violent departure hazzard and was in fact the primary reason slats were added. The gain in max AoA and maneuverability was just icing on the cake. After years of flying hard wing F-4s in PC flight sims, I have a habit of using rudder rather than ailerons to roll almost every aircraft I fly while pulling back on the stick. It turns out it makes sense aerodynamically even if the aircraft doesn't have severe adverse yaw affects and using rudder and stick together can get the best possible result. Modern fly-by-wire systems (even as far back as the F-15's CAS) tend to take care of the rudder for you, but I still have a habit of using rudder quite a bit, always watching the slip indicator and gently pushing rudder to keep the ball centered.
  7. I have been using this with my Reverb G2, but my previous gaming PC is still operational. I use a Quest 2 with that one for guests and certain tests. I need to try Open Composite with the Quest 2!
  8. As I bought and installed new Winwing hardware, I ran the software and updated the firmware in all of the other devices. From the previous lessons learned, I never have more than one Winwing device plugged in while updating firmware. I haven't had any more problems since following that practice. Some of the firmware updates added useful features that allowed me to better configure my controls. So it turned out to be a good thing that I updated the firmware. But I haven't bought any new Winwing hardware in a long time, so I haven't run the software or updated firmware versions in a long time. Everything has been working perfectly. I am a big fan of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it!" So I don't expect to run the Winwing software or perform any firmware updates unless I buy the newly announced Hornet panel products (the three MFDs and UF).
  9. The silhouette of the F-5E looks remarkably similar to that of the F/A-18, and there is a reason for that. The F/A-18 is a derivative of the YF-17. The YF-17 used the F-5E as a starting point for its design. Technically the F/A-18E is an entirely new design that looks very similar to the legacy F/A-18C. So, the family has quite the lineage: T-38A and F-5A -> F-5E -> YF-17 -> F/A-18A/C -> F/A-18E. One of the engineers responsible for the F-5E was also key to the development of the P-51, F-86, and F-100, so Kelly Johnson of Lockheed is far from being alone as a huge influence on American military aircraft design. For some reason, Edgar Schmued never got quite the publicity that Kelly Johnson received.
  10. The MiG-28s were F-5E, which have leading edge root extensions and look like this:
  11. I don't know what sim you are playing, but I when I have flown the MiG-15bis on multiplayer servers, I used 23mm for dogfighting/ranging, but when an F-86 gives me a solid shot, I tap the 37mm and usually blow the F-86 out of the sky with a single tap if I hit. As for the data on the rounds, I have little doubt that this website is mostly correct aside from a few obvious typos: From 37mm to 40mm - The Russian Ammunition Page (russianammo.org) I never questioned the performance of the 37mm round in DCS, because in reality, it was that effective. What I am questioning is the relative effectiveness. Given the masses of explosive used in the rounds, why does DCS give the 37mm round a massively higher explosive value than the 23mm? It doesn't make sense. If two rounds use the same explosive material, then the energy released by the explosion is directly proportional to the mass of the explosive.
  12. You accept that the 37mm round has 37 times more explosive power than a 23mm round because of gun camera footage? There is no magic in physics. By ED's own numbers, the mass of the 37mm round is 0.722 vs the 23mm's 0.196. You don't get 37 times the power for 3.5 times the mass. Either the 37mm round has an erroneous value, or all of the other rounds is DCS have values that are too low. I would like to know the data that ED used to define their rounds and what the explosive value in the definition represents, i.e. mass? energy?
  13. Great news! I wish the people at nVidia and AMD would recognize DCS as a platform that needs to be properly supported.
  14. In the server missions I maintain, this breaks the scheduled spawning. Once a given group of targets are killed, they don't respawn. I can use trigger zones to work around this, but it would be much better if ED addressed this problem rather than having to do extensive editing to all of our missions!
  15. Same here: Frame rate and frame time stability. Image quality increase. Performance increase. Extra performance used to buy even more quality increase. SteamVR consumed resources, increased latency, caused stuttering, delayed DCS startup etc. Without SteamVR, my G2 works better than ever on a 5800X with a 6900XT.
  16. Exactly as the title says. Also, it would be nice of the tail numbers were at least white if not scaled to the correct size and font.
  17. Yesterday, I went to try out the new KG12 and discovered that there is no published software/firmware that supports it. So, I couldn't even use it. I put in a support ticket with the VKB website and requested help on the official tech support forum. Today, I was provided with unreleased firmware that works. Out of the box, the hat switch is a simple 4-button hat. It took me a few minutes to figure out how to implement an 8-way POV hat in the configuration software. I normally only want/need 4-way hats since the switches on real life sticks are often only 4-way. But some applications work better with an 8-way POV hat (especially older games), so I wanted to see how hard it was to program. I learned that I really need to pay attention to the physical button layer map versus the logical button layer map. During button tests, the logical button numbers are used for display. But the POV hat is programmed using physical button numbers. Strangely enough, the stock configuration has an odd mapping between the physical layer and the logical layer. Once I figured out the relationship, I was able to program POV 1. The stock configuration also has 0 POV hats configured, so you have to go to the global parameters tag and set the number of POV hats to 1. The configuration software looks complex and intimidating, but that is the price you pay for exceptionally good programming flexibility. It is amazing what can be done with the configuration. Most people won't need this level of flexibility, but I love having such a powerful tool available.
  18. The new KG12 stick grip just arrived today. It is a small, but nice step up from the original KG12. The key differences are: added twist axis added side button metal paddle in place of pinky button new shape for 8-way thumb hat textured grip Options I wish it had: As previously stated, the 8-way thumb hat should have had a center depress capability. The adjacent weapon fire/release button should have been a 4-way or 8-way hat with center depress. Button(s) to detect when the flip safety is in the safe and/or fire position. As the real grips were metal, this is one case where I would like to see an "ultimate" version with the above changes and a metal grip. Beyond the obvious WW2 fighter applications, this is essentially the same grip as the MiG-15. With the extra side button, it is now perfect as a stand-in for my all-time favorite B-8 grip. The standard B-8 had a 4-way trim switch, a trigger, a bomb release button, a side button, and a pinky button. DCS aircraft that utilize the standard B-8 include the F-86 and the UH-1. The F-5's modified B-8 grip has a fwd/aft/center depress button on the side button, which is beyond the available buttons on the new KG12. The twist axis could be programmed to provide fwd and aft buttons with the side button acting as the center depress.
  19. I have had the F-86 since it was available for purchase/download. It has been and remains one of my favorite DCS modules with countless hours spent flying it over the years. I am more of an air-to-air pilot, but in recent years, I have started playing online which often requires air-to-ground attacks. I can employ HVAR rockets with devastating effectiveness using the radar-ranging gunsight and single-shot manual release. But when it comes to bombing, the radar-ranging gunsight is difficult to employ. 1) It is very sensitive to the speed, dive angle, and g-load. Unless you fly exactly the right profile and press the buttons at exactly the right time, it doesn't ever release. I have found that the radar range indicator needs to be tracking (less than 5,000 feet) before the electrical interlock can be released to establish a target aim point. At the required 45 degree dive angle, this means the automatic release point is going to be below 3,000 feet if it releases at all. 2) Even when I can get the auto release to work, it hits long every single time. Most of the time, I have to aim about 1 or 2 reticle diameters ahead of the target to get a hit. Has anyone been able to use the auto release effectively? If so, what profile do you fly to get it to release consistently and accurately? i.e. speed and altitude at entry into the dive, dive angle, timing of when to press/release the electrical interlock and bomb release buttons, etc.
  20. Why doesn't the 8-way hat have a center depress? This was a big oversight on the original VKB KG12 and the same mistake was made again.
  21. I fly the F-86, the UH-1, A-4E-C, and the F-5 quite a bit. Helicopters and WW2 aircraft also have controls all over the place. So it isn't just MiGs. There are a lot of controls in each of those aircraft that are on the sides or down low and Leap made operating those controls very difficult. Whereas using a mouse, PointCTRL, or physical panels, I could get the right control in the right position quickly and easily. If it does the job for you, great, but the only thing Leap does for me is collect dust.
  22. After the update, I inadvertently went back to SteamVR, which gave me the chance to do an apples-to-apples comparison with the same graphics settings. With SteamVR: pegged at 45 fps with drops to 30-35 fps at low altitude with lots of ground units. In the same mission using this OpenXR mod, the indicated frame rate was 60 fps (I understand that it is really averaging the jumps between 90 and 45 fps) with drops to 45 fps at low altitude with lots of ground units (sometimes it did drop into the 30s). Not only did OpenXR run faster on average, but was far smoother no matter what the indicated fps. But for me, the biggest gain has been how fast I can start up DCS World and being able to quit DCS back to my WMR desktop without having to use a VR controller or peak out of my G2 headset. ED needs to provide built-in support for this as it is a huge step forward for flying in VR with WMR based headsets.
  23. While it looks cool, my experience with Leap is that it is too sloppy and suffers from field of view limitations. When operating controls high and centered, it works great. when you go low or especially low to the left or right, it has issues. Some controls are difficult to touch/operate which leads to inadvertent operation of nearby controls. Somehow canopy jettison switches or other critical controls always end up near controls I need to use and ruin the flight if they get triggered. I found PointCTRL to be a far superior solution as it is almost as precise as a mouse, but calibrated so that the mouse cursor follows your left and right index fingers, but only when you activate them. But even PointCTRL suffers from field of view limitations: you can only operate controls withing so many degrees of your viewpoint, so you generally need to look in the direction of the control you want to operate. I prefer a mix of hardware panels and PointCTRL. In combat, nothing beats having real panels/switches if you can find them in VR as you can keep your eyes out of the cockpit while you toggle important controls.
  24. I haven't had any of the issues. Installed and worked first try. The elimination of SteamVR is what I wanted most and it brought some great things with it. It doesn't take more than a couple of minutes to install: copy the listed files, backup the original files, paste in the listed files. I did run the repair prior to installation per the procedure, so that takes some time, but it was worth the wait.
×
×
  • Create New...