streakeagle

For hand tracking to work as well as it needs to work, multiple cameras at very different angles are needed. But well designed gloves are the best way to know the hand gestures. With gloves to handle the gestures, a two camera system could accurately know hand position. But to date, none of the gloves work very well if at all with DCS. Gloves with two or more cameras and an activation button on the side of each index finger similar to point control would be the ideal for me: get nearly 100% accurate hand position and gesture, but only interact with controls after pressing the activation button. Then I could see the animated hands/arms but instantly and reliably toggle between real world controls and virtual controls with a click of a button.

The problem I had with using gestures is that the angle you have to reach for some controls obscures leap motion's ability to determine the gesture. So, I had to use the opposite hand or some unnatural poses to get the gesture to be recognized correctly, and in the process of fighting that, nearby controls were subject to random operation, including the canopy jettison. Some critical controls are often very close to some commonly needed controls: bad news when trying to use hand tracking or any other system that is so imprecise, including VR controllers. This is where pointCTRL shines: you won't damage anything until you wake up the finger you want to use and even then, only when you click one of the buttons. So the error rate with PointCTRL is comparable to or even lower than using real panels in VR with muscle memory and find by touch.

Leap Motion has fundamental issues. Mix it with the DCS implementation and you get a mess that makes me uninstall it and put it back in the drawer every single time I bother to try it. Once you have used PointCTRL, you know where VR hand controllers need to go. PointCTRL tracks very reliably. Because it has buttons, your pointer is inactive until you click a button, then it stay on until you stop using it for a delay you can adjust to suit your needs. So I have no problem mixing physical HOTAS and control panel operation with virtual button pushing. I simply use whatever is most convenient. I almost never accidently bump a control with PointCTRL. VR hand tracking has a long way to go before it can compete with the simplicity, reliability and immersion provided by PointCTRL. Physical controls are still the best for me. Whether you use a mouse, PointCTRL, VR controllers, or VR hand tracking, you have to be looking at what you want to control. Whereas I can be padlocked on a contact that is overhead and still reach down and flip switches, press buttons, pull levers, etc. when using control panels and HOTAS. If PC VR headsets ever start supporting mixed reality to an extent where you can see the real world controls as needed, perhaps with user controlled transparent areas, I would be very happy.

The F1 is effectively a Mirage III with a conventional tail and trapezoidal wing. It provides solid performance data on why most aircraft still have conventional tails and don't have pure delta wings. The trapezoidal and/or clipped delta wing dominates US designs, which is a compromise between a delta and a swept wing. The F1 outperforms the Mirage III in almost every possible way despite having a very similar fuselage and engine due to both its conventional tail and its swept wing which is very close to the trapezoidal design used by many other Mach 2 fighters. Tail-less delta wings are great for supersonic interceptors like the F-106 and Mirage 2000. They are not the best option unless top speed is the primary consideration. On a tangent, the F-104A is not a 2nd gen fighter in any way shape or form. The F-104 was the US equivalent to the MiG-21, but with even less drag and more power. It is a Mach 2+ fighter with tremendous acceleration and climb performance. The F-104 is to the F-4 as the F-16 is to the F-15: single engine and two engine versions of the same tech level. If Lockheed had not crippled the F-104 with the small wing, it could have been a great WVR air superiority fighter in Vietnam to counter the MiG-21 and it would have had the option to carry more ordnance as a multirole fighter. Lockheed waited too late to realize that with its "Lancer" program.

I can use the Flak 18 with the range finder and it works as it should, but when creating online missions, I don't want to require visitors to have the WW2 assets pack. Without the range finder, I can't get the free Flak 18 to fire. If I add some sort of search/track radar, like fansong, the guns will traverse and elevate to point at a target, but they won't fire. I tried using barrage fire and still couldn't get them to fire. What is the point of making an asset freely available if it doesn't work until you pay for it?

I have that very model hanging from my ceiling, too. My copy went together just well.

One advantage the WinWing hardware has is that it was clearly designed to be repaired. I haven't asked for any help yet, but I have seen others able to get the parts they need from WinWing to solve many basic problems. So, if you if your mechanically and electrically apt and WinWing stays in business over the long haul, the experience is somewhat similar to the old CH Products support before the original owners sold the company. The main problem I see with WinWing is that they are based in China. This allows them to produce high quality products at fair prices, but also means they sometimes have trouble getting supplies they need for manufacturing and/or being able to ship stock globally between Covid related supply and shipping restrictions as well as political constraints caused by tension between China and Taiwan/USA/Japan/Korea. Most consumer grade electronics need parts from more than one of those countries, so Covid and saber rattling have really affected the global market for electronics.

And so it is being used as best as possible until better is available on the Forgotten's Vietnam PVE server. But having the correct geography would be a much bigger improvement than tweaking the MiG-19, MiG-21, and F-5 to have proper versions. If the correct aircraft were available, there would be almost no change in the end-user experience: the aircraft would look nearly identical at combat ranges and have only slightly degraded cockpits and/or performance. But having cities without Eastern European names as well as having Thud Ridge, Hanoi, and the Red River would be amazing. Ground support missions are more about navigation and geography. Air combat can take place over an empty ocean and the experience largely remains the same. But attackers and defenders exploiting terrain features to their advantage is a big part of trying to get strike packages through the most heavily defended airspace in history.

The weapons aspect of the UH-1H is little different than what was on UH-1B gunships. The main advantages of the DCS UH-1H over Vietnam aircraft are a few newer/better instruments as well as a flare dispenser. In 1972, SA-7 man pads were somewhat effective against the UH-1H, so if you look at photos from that era, you will see many UH-1Hs with the IR suppressor. Australia had UH-1H gunships in Vietnam that were nearly identical to our version, which is where the forward gun mounts/aft rocket mounts loadout comes from. US UH-1Hs were always slicks with at most door guns. If you fly the Forgotten's Vietnam PVE server in DCS multiplayer, you will find that the only thing really missing is the correct terrain. The overall feel of operating A-4Es, F-5Es, and UH-1s on interdiction and close air support missions while fending off MiGs is both fun and not too far off from history. P-51s and P-47s are permitted as A-1 Skyraider substitutes (which the P-47 does really well in an available free SEA camo skin). AI F-4Es are on patrol as well.

For Vietnam, DCS World has: Free period correct A-4E-C that is as good or better than many payware modules. MiG-19PF that is almost perfect as a VPAF MiG-19S. MiG-21bis that is almost perfect as a VPAF MiG-21MF. MiG-15bis that is acceptable as a MiG-17F, just lacking some power and speed. F-5E-3 that is acceptable as the F-5E-1s that served just before the fall of South Vietnam and is an acceptable stand-in as an F-5A. F-8J, A-6E, and A-7E currently in development will make Vietnam very doable. VSN mods are good enough for AI eye candy providing the F-4, F-105, and A-6 for now. VSN F-104G is close enough to the USAF F-104Cs that operated in Vietnam. UH-1H that is close enough to UH-1Ds and UH-1Hs from Vietnam, and is acceptable as a UH-1B/C gunship. There are long term plans to develop the F-4, which belongs more than any other aircraft on a Vietnam map.

DCS World has: F-86F-35 that is very close to the last model used in Korea. MiG-15bis that flew in Korea. Two P-51D variants that are very close to those that flew in Korea. WW2 troop assets that are a very good approximation of US ground units that fought in Korea. WW2 A-20 that is a passable approximation of the WW2 A-26 that flew in Korea as the B-26. On the horizon is the F4U-1D with a WW2 aircraft carrier, which together is a passable approximation for the F4U-4 and upgraded WW2 aircraft carriers that participated in Korea. There is a free B-29 mod that fits perfectly in Korea. The Sunday update just focused on Korean War air combat. Would Korea not be a great terrain to have even if no other assets were added? The popularity of WW2 sims pulled ED into spending as much time and money on WW2 as modern jets. Like most people, I love WW2 aircraft, but there has always been plenty of WW2 flight sim options. Korea hasn't really been done commercially since Rowan's MiG Alley in 1999. I would bet a decent Korea map would sell better than "the Channel".

Unzipping the textures does not solve the problem. I tried moving the unzipped files to the user mod folder and the bazar folder where AI liveries are stored, but nothing worked. I can only see default textures on Magnitude 3 LLC modules on multiplayer clients.

I can see the liveries in the editor, but both the MiG-21 and Christen Eagle do not have their liveries show up in multiplayer clients. All I get see are the default skins. This is only true for the MiG-21 and Christen Eagle. I made a simple test mission and hosted it on my server: a MiG-15bis, MiG-19PF, MiG-29A, MiG-21bis, and Christen Eagle all sitting on a ramp side by side. All of the aircraft had skins other than default selected in the mission editor. On a multiplayer client, both the MiG-21 and Christen Eagle did not show the selected skins, only the default skins. All of the other aircraft worked correctly.

So how do we set the AI to have no chaff or flares to represent MiGs from the Vietnam and Arab-Israeli wars?

I can't wait for the fix. You don't know how important cockpit sounds are until they suddenly stop working. In a dogfight, I can't stare at gauges, so I count on the sounds to provide feedback, such as hearing the engine respond to throttle changes and the changes in wind noise with speed/angle of attack.

Whatever the current open beta version was last Sunday still had two people experience the problem, so I don't think it was fixed. I haven't had the problem for a month or so, as I have been spending most of my time learning to script missions and use MOOSE, MIST, CTLD, etc.

These kinds of posts worried me because I have a G2 and was planning on getting a 6900 XT. I decided to get the 6900 XT anyway. I don't have a 3080 to directly compare fps, but I have not having any problems using motion smoothing: generally stable fps and no artifacts. Compared to the 1080 I have been using for years, I can now choose between a lower fps with insanely high quality (60 fps motion smoothed down to 30 fps with the steam VR slider set to 110% and MSAAx2 in-game) or keep the same or better quality I had before and shoot for 45 fps in multiplayer or even turn off the forced motion smoothing and go for 90 fps in Nevada type missions where there are few clouds. When I first go the new gpu, I was having performance issues that resembled the complaints, but I found that I had accidently let the Winwing software creep into my export lua while doing firmware updates a while ago. As soon as I commented out the Winwing exports, my performance and stability shot up to match what I had expected to see. However, when using higher quality settings, my VRAM gets pegged to 16 Gb, so I would still be interested in a 3090 to get more bandwidth (faster RAM and a bigger bus) and capacity. Will DCS code chew up all the VRAM on a 3090? The 3080 and even the 3080 Ti seem to have too little RAM for DCS. My 1080's 8 Gb was always pegged and that was using SteamVR at 52% (roughly 1:1 pixel density) and at most MSAA x 2 and a PD of 1.0 in-game.

We had two people go silent during this weekends co-op mission. They seem to think the dropout is occurring during throttle shifts.

This is the kit I built when I was in the 3rd grade: Then I built it again circa 1996: So any guesses at which two skins I usually use when I am flying the F-86?

I have flown the F-86 for quite some number of hours. I can go weeks or even months without the sound bug... or have it happen twice in the same session. I haven't logged any information, so my memory is suspect, but I think I experience this bug more when I am flying multiplayer.

This skin is already available here: S-3B - Skinpack (digitalcombatsimulator.com) The available skin is a CAG version after the switch to lo-vis paint. It doesn't have the name "Forrestal" on it, but it is still 95% or more the skin you want.

Whoever is doing it, it hasn't even been formally announced, which means many more years to go.

SME is subjective. The manual is hard engineering data. When the two don't agree, I generally favor the hard engineering data unless there is a valid reason to dispute it.

It would really be great if the Skynet dev and the Electronic War Jamming Script 2.0 dev could make both scripts compatible with each other. I am in the process of learning to script missions, particularly for the 1972 Vietnam Air War / 1973 Yom Kippur era where IADs and EW were used extensively. SEAD would be a lot more interesting with both running together replicating the battle between radar operators leaving their radars off until needed and jammers trying to degrade them when the radars are turned on.

As mentioned in a previous post, it would be amazing if this script and the Skynet-IADS script were integrated together or at least made compatible. I haven't tried the Skynet-IADS script yet. Maybe they can run together without conflicts? I am using stand-off jamming, which toggles the green/red state of SAMs, but from what I have read about Skynet-IADS, it manipulates the same green/red states. So, I expect conflicts between them. Perhaps the easiest way to make them compatible would be for each unit under IADS control and Jamming control could have a flag that could be to indicate whether or not it has been jammed so that Jamming would override IADS control of green/red states.