streakeagle

[rant on]I have elected to wait for PointCTRL v2.0. Perhaps a bad decision since Miles has run into some technical issues and stays busy keeping up with orders for the old version. I tried the LeapMotion hand tracking system. The demo application is awesome, but something gets lost in translation when it is imported into SteamVR, where it is not nearly as accurate and also costs too much performance. If LeapMotion hand tracking was natively supported in DCS rather than having to be modified to pretend to be a Vive controller, I bet it would work better and cost lest cpu overhead. I also tried using the Touch controllers from the Rift S. They are far more precise than the LeapMotion, but still were cumbersome compared to simply grabbing a mouse. While the LeapMotion caused more problems, I still had inadvertent control operations while struggling to reach and operate some controls, i.e. while trying to turn a knob or flip a switch, I might hit a canopy jettison lever or some other critical control that would ruin my flight. So, based on what everyone else has said and demonstrated in videos, I am sure pointCTRL will finally provide a solution superior to a mouse for operating controls while in VR. But whether I fly VR or flat panel, I still want an operational sim pit. At a minimum, I want all the physical switches working and in the correct geometrical positions to match the in-game cockpit (which may not exactly match the real-world cockpit). But I also want working gauges and MFDs. The problem becomes whether I want to simplify a panel (i.e. flatten it) to support using a single monitor to provide all gauges and MFDs or stick with proper geometry and either have no active displays or deal with driving multiple screens. I favor Mustang's F/A-18 Hornet kit, which goes with the flattened main panel to use the single monitor, but I would really like proper geometry that mimics the in-game cockpit, which would work much better with VR. But the question is moot for the moment. I need to get through some real-life issues before I have to make a decision and move forward on multiple sim-pit projects.[/rant off] Back on topic: for those who have the means, there is no reason not to keep both flat panel TrackIR and VR. Why not have the best of both worlds even if you mainly use/prefer one? I currently use a 49 inch 4K TV for my flat panel. It looks great, but I would like to go as large as I can afford. At least 65 inches. When I am ready to move forward on cockpit building, I will figure out what size I can afford. Maybe by then 8K will be the standard and most high end gpus will be able to handle 8K really well.

I haven't bought any of your products, yet. But I am a big fan. The key word is "yet". I need to sort out some "real life" things over the next few months. Once the dust settles, I should be ready to start working on cockpits, that's with an "s" an in more than one. 1) Finish my real F-4 throttle integration and re-mount/re-integrate the real stick, which doesn't involve your products. 2) Build an F/A-18 pit, which could use a lot of your products. I may also end up getting your F-16 stuff, too.

While I still enjoy flying in 2D with a giant 4K screen with the impressive graphics quality and steady 60 fps, I am far better at flying helos, flying formation, air-to-air refueling, dogfighting/situational awareness, and carrier landings in VR. The 1:1 head tracking and wide field of view in both the vertical and horizontal give me a much better sense of where I am looking versus where the nose of the aircraft is and the relative motion. My big problem with VR was visual spotting range and DCS patched that up a while back so now I can see a little blurry dot at decent distances (further than icons on multiplayer servers with icons). It still needs much higher resolution so that I can see what I am spotting and judge its aspect at reasonable ranges. I am so used to VR, that I have difficulty maintaining a visual track in a rolling dogfight with TrackIR. I become disoriented. It wouldn't be a problem if I went back to TrackIR exclusively, but I am not doing that, so I generally reserve TrackIR for training, sightseeing, and recording video/taking screenshots. I do find it more relaxing to use TrackIR when drinking/eating while flying. I don't have to reach out blindly for my glass/bottle/food and I don't have to tilt my head back to make up for the VR headset blocking me from titling the glass/bottle any further.

The problem is that what I like and want is the opposite of what most people want. I prefer the 1950s to 1970s era aircraft and weapons by far, but most people with cash in hand always want the latest fighters. The F-16, F/A-18, and F-22 were in game after game for the past two decades. Only two games covered the F-4 Phantom, and then only at a survey sim level. If I am going to fly the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, I prefer to fly their earlies service variants with their original, least capable armament. F-14A, F-15A, F-16A, and F/A-18A with AIM-7E/F and AIM-9H/J/L, though I would prefer not to have the AIM-9L available. Early to mid 1980s would mean the F-4 was still flying in large numbers in the USAF, USMC, and USN. The A-10A was practically brand new. I much prefer this time frame to the 1990s/2000s era ED has been covering all these years from Flanker to LOMAC to Flaming Cliffs to DCS World.

The MiG-15bis has been around for quite some time. Yet, the available control mapping options for realistic simpit type controls are very limited. It would be nice if the MiG-15bis were brought up to standards for allowing maps to two position switches in various configurations instead of simple toggle commands intended for keyboards or momentary pushbuttons on lower end HOTAS controls. As I have and use both the Warthog throttle and Winwing throttle, it would be nice for most if not all two-position switches to have options to handle both the Warthog on-else-off style switches and the Winwing on-on switches. Any/all three position switches should have options for on-off-on for the Warthog or on-on-on type switches for the Winwing. It would also be nice if all analog knobs were available as analog axes. Pretty please!

If you have money to burn, why not get the fastest card with the most VRAM. I was planning to get it. But I am grounded in reality: heat, size, and cost effectiveness are huge disadvantages. Double the price for 10-15% over the 3080 doesn't cut it. The main thing that makes it better than the 3080 is the VRAM, and the 3080 will almost certainly be updated with more VRAM. If AMD is competitive with the 3080, I may go AMD, especially if it uses less power and runs cooler. But that is a big if because of the 256-bit bus and slower, regular VRAM. I am principally interested in driving a Reverb G2, so the 3080 with more VRAM may be my best option if Big Navi turns out to be all hype.

Very nice. Hopefully you get the paint color figured out.

The writeup you circled makes it clear: the real system doesn't pause for unselected stations or empty positions. The circuit is supposed to fire in sequence starting with the first filled position on the first selected station with the selected interval between each available weapon. So, call it a bug that a modern, digital simulation isn't as advanced as a 1970's firing circuit, which clearly knew how to drop the selected weapons at the specified interval, skipping unselected stations and empty positions.

If you think it wasn't a good fighter, you need to read what Andy Bush had to say at SimHQ back in the day. He flew F-104s and F-4s and preferred the F-104. He beat F-15s flying the F-104. The lack of BVR capability wasn't a huge problem in the 1960s. The Navy hardly even used the AIM-7 on the F-4 all the way up to 1972. They much preferred the AIM-9. Of course, the F-104S got AIM-7 and Aspide. The F-104G is pretty much a single engine F-4 with no AIM-7 capability and corresponding reduction in hard points/payload capacity. Flown to its strengths, it can engage and disengage at will. But it cannot win a sustained turn fight, but then neither could the unslatted F-4. The contemporary MiG-21F-13 is probably its worst nightmare because of its much superior agility, but the F-104 still has the excess power advantage and will only lose if it engages in a pure horizontal fight. It is similar to WW2 where US fighters never had the agility of the A6M, but clobbered it with a combination of power/speed/coordinated tactics. The F-104 was a much better fighter than the F-105, and the F-105 had a good record against the MiG-17, but the F-105 was disadvantaged in both power and agility against the MiG-21F-13. All the F-105 could do was outrun the MiG-21 as low level. The F-104 didn't do well against the MiG-21 in India/Pakistan combat, but that is partially do to the tactics/skills of the pilots involved as well as the initial conditions at the start of the engagements. Because if Andy Bush could beat F-15s, it means the F-104's performance is good enough that pilot skill/experience is what determines the outcome, and air combat history shows that is all the performance you need if you have good pilots available from WW2 to the present.

The server is up, but the times that I log on it is almost always empty of other players. If you play at 2100 UTC every day, you catch "the crowd". Both sides have some veteran players that are very skilled. But if you use voice coms, they will fly as a team and help you get better.

The F-104 did not have horrible performance other than turn rates, and those were only marginally worse than the hard wing F-4 Phantoms. It had outstanding acceleration, climb, and speed. It was much cleaner than the F-4, which made its performance superior for a given thrust/weight loading. What it did have was a horrible accident record with Germany. But many other users didn't have that issue at all. I can understand the ED's main stable of jet aircraft is centered around the "modern" 1990s core that came from Flanker/LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs. The F-5 is in the game to support the Nevada terrain. But since they are doing WW2 and Korea, why would they stop at the F-86 and start at the F-4 and skip the Century series? Variants of the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, and F-105 all served in Vietnam. But the highest demand and profitability in flight sims has always been for WW2 and modern jets. Never Korea or Vietnam era and barely enough to produce a few WW1 sims around.

I never found a fix. I am using a headset on top of the Rift S. But I have a Reverb G2 on the way and I am looking forward to not having to wear an extra headset to get decent audio and a working mic.

Which left me no choice but to download them as singletons :P Great skins!

There is almost always some bug in the stable version that I want fixed. The open beta version almost always fixes the bug but adds one or more new ones. Given that neither version is 100% satisfactory, I tend to run the open beta to get to fly the early access aircraft as soon as possible. I got tired of burning up so much hard drive space maintaining both versions. So, I only use the open beta for now.

It may not be possible to keep an aircraft's bugs to a minimum because DCS World is a moving target, but it is possible to release it with very few bugs and no serious ones. Because this mod works so well within the limitations imposed by non-third party status, I have confidence that the final product will be head shoulders above many other third-party products. But the transition into the full SDK might have a few surprises for new developers that derail my expectations.

I was very impressed by what was accomplished with the mod version of the MB-339. It would have been a shame to see all that great work wasted with the limitations imposed by not having official third party status. I can't wait to see the end result. Take your time and do it right. I would love to see a DCS module released with almost no bugs from day one.

VAICOM Pro logs radio messages, but it would be annoying shifting the window focus back and forth.

This was a design choice. Back at original release it was much more pronounced. It was greatly reduced it after customer complaints about realism. If they wanted to simplify nosewheel steering, they should have had a check box for simple steering, much as WW2 fighters have the option for rudder assistance.

Thanks for the info on the updates!

Oculus was still suggesting that the RIFT S may eventually get this. But their total focus on stand alone headsets for the past year tells me otherwise.

I am betting on the Zen 3 being the most cost-effective upgrade path for me and in the not too distant future, maybe flight sims will really start taking advantage of multi-core cpus, which will only make AMD's cpus an even better choice. But AMD has disappointed me for so many years, that it won't surprise me if Zen 3 and Big Navi fall significantly short of my hopeful expectations. In which case, Intel / 3080 gpu here I come!

Because this problem only exists after a particular gpu update, it would seem to be less of a problem with the MiG-21 or DCS and more of a problem with what nVidia changed from that release forward. Identifying that change and understanding why it is bogging down MiG-21 radar performance would be the key to an effective solution. In the mean time, I have decided to go with the latest nVidia driver most of the time, which means I have stopped flying the MiG-21 for now. I really wish the problem could be identified and solved quickly.

I didn't realize there were updates. I don't normally run the app. But I had checked recently (maybe a couple of weeks ago?). So, I pulled the trigger. I didn't have any problems. Updates installed quickly, first try. Does anyone know what the firmware changes fixed/added/removed?

If you look down on other people for not playing a video game with the same options you prefer, is that not being a snob? If you aren't belittling people for having a simple gaming preference, then I am not calling you a snob. The auto start option is there to be used and it shouldn't be a stigma of any kind to use it.

If those numbers are accurate and it was at 4K resolution as I saw in one of the settings images, 10% for nearly double the price is a horrible statistic. Add to that the problems with size, power draw, and heat generation, I think I will take a pass. What I am seriously considering is picking up a used 1080Ti now that the prices are down. I am running a stock 1080 and I think $350 for the extra VRAM and resulting VR performance of the 1080Ti might be worth it. But I have racked up some overtime. In order to really improve my DCS World VR performance, I think I need to build a new PC first, then pick a new gpu. So, now I am waiting for the release of the new AMD CPUs to build a PC and by the time I have that sorted out, the gpu market should be a little more clear with the arrival of Big Navi and the stabilization in the supply/demand/pricing of the 30xx series. So how long will I be in this "limbo" waiting to build a new PC with a modern gpu? Would $350 for a 1080Ti really be worth it when I can keep playing on my 1080 Duke until I have a new PC that won't be bottlenecking my gpu performance? Used 2080 Ti is still > $800, so if the 3080 is ever actually available in quantity for $700 or $800, it is by far the best choice unless Big Navi steps up to the plate or a 3080 Ti surfaces.