streakeagle

I tend to fly instant action or custom made air-to-air dogfight missions which typically only have 2 to 8 aircraft, so I can fly vr fairly well without this kind of trick. But in multiplayer or in certain missions that require a lot more horsepower, I have to turn a lot of settings down. A particular instant action mission I use as a benchmark for judging if my settings are good enough for multiplayer is the MiG-15bis instant action dogfight over Normandy. The Normandy terrain is not particularly kind on performance, but this is a high altitude fight with lots of aircraft on both sides and contrails everywhere. With high settings, I get a slide show. Even with setting dumbed down as low as I am willing to go, the fps can get low. So, I tried this MiG-15bis mission with this 27fps override. I am impressed. It doesn't solve everything, but I can run the settings up much higher including shadows and mostly maintain the 27 fps steady. There can be some ghosting, but it seems like a lot less than with 40 fps. I expected the 27 fps to look choppy when rolling at high rates. I can easily judge refresh rates from 30 to 45 to 90 by how they look at max roll rates. I am impressed. 27 fps would normally look like a slide show to me, but this looks almost as smooth as 45 fps. Overall, I can enjoy this mission a lot more with higher quality and fairly steady 27 fps rather than at low quality and an unsteady 40 fps. I just wish DCS World could be optimized to for multi-core so that rock solid 80 fps would be possible at max settings... because Aerofly FS 2 is utterly amazing in VR with its photoreal world at a locked steady 80 fps with max quality settings. Of course, they have no AI of any kind unless you get a mod for the Florida Keys, and the terrain is 100% texture based: no waves or wakes, just hi res photos. But I so badly want to see DCS World run at that level and do so with a headset that has a full, natural field of view and pixels so small I can't see them. One can only dream. In the mean time, I have to choose between quality and fps to enjoy DCS World in VR. Or be bored flying circles with no one to dogfight in Aerofly FS 2.

That is a great sales pitch for this headset. Makes me want to pre-order one. But then I would also need a new top-of-the-line PC and gpu. But I may get one anyway, then save up for a gpu, then build a new PC. I have this little magic helper called overtime that pops up every now and then. I just had a bunch of overtime and spent it on things like a Winwing HOTAS and Leap Motion controller. Hopefully I get a lot more overtime real soon.

While I prefer authentic panels, I also like flexibility. My current setup doesn't support a right hand console, because my dog lays there next to me while I am on the PC. The existing startup panel included some key switches that should be on the right: generator and battery switches. Those extra switches have come in real handy for almost every DCS module I fly. What I typically need for most modules are a dedicated, obvious landing gear lever, a flap lever, and to a lesser extent a drag chute and/or tail hook lever. Having such with distinctive shapes and/or unique locations within easy reach but well clear of the left console panel would be a huge advantage in VR. So, at the moment, I am willing to buy less authentic panels for more practical cross-module flying in a VR environment. Over time, I intend to have dedicated panels for each DCS aircraft module I typically fly that are as close as practical in size, shape, and arrangement to the panels you see in DCS World (which may not quite match real-world panels as pit builders frequently discover). If I ever get very far in achieving this, I will have very little use for generic or even semi realistic panels. But until then, something like this is perfect for me, especially since it is designed to fit on the Winwing throttle desktop clamp-on mount I am currently using.

In the VKB, I use the soft cams even with the heavy TM grips. My Super Libra has whatever it game with, I didn't see any options.

This is a great idea. This will make the Super Libra a much better option than the Warthog base since existing Warthog owners will get to enjoy the superiority of the Winwing mechanics, add the great Super Libra Hornet grip and still use their original A-10/F-16 grip. The losers will be those that have the TM Hornet grip, because it will probably collect dust after they try the Winwing Hornet grip. I already have both the TM Warthog and Hornet grips with VKB adapters, but I still have one TM Warthog grip that does not have a VKB adapter. So, I will certainly buy this to make my Super Libra equal to the Warthog in grip options.

I would love to see any variant of the MiG-29 or Su-27 modeled as realistically as possible in DCS World. The PFMs were a huge step forward, but I am spoiled by the full systems modeling of most DCS addon aircraft.

DCS has focused mainly on the LOMAC time frame / plane set and rightfully so as so many people want the current fighters like the US "teen" series and their MiG-29/Su-27 opponents. But the real fun is from Korea into the 1970s, before everything was digitized, before AMRAAM and the all-aspect IRMs like the legendary AIM-9L. The F-100D would be a great match for the MiG-19 and more importantly a great addition for a future Vietnam oriented plane set. I would love to see it in this game. I love Third Wire's Strike Fighters series of games. The plane set was exactly what I would want out of any flight sim with so many great aircraft including so many minor variants of them, especially the F-4 and MiG-21. With addons, you can fly almost every significant aircraft from 1950 to 1980, including the entire century series. I can only hope that DCS World will eventually have a somewhat comparable flyable plane set with at least one variant of each aircraft that saw significant production numbers and/or actual combat. The upcoming F-8 Crusader is a great step in this direction. The MiG-23MLA is a bit more toward the LOMAC plane set, but still a great addition. With the MiG-21bis having been long available, the absence of the F-4 is my biggest complaint, especially since it is my favorite aircraft of all time. In the mean time, the F-86F/MiG-15bis and F-5E/Mig-21bis are great cold war matchups I love to fly. I would also love to see the early "teen" fighters". The F-15A, F-16A, and F/A-18A are far more interesting to me than the much more capable F-15C, F-16C, and F/A-18C that we have. I enjoy flying the F-14B, but the F-14A should be coming very soon, which is what I would prefer to fly. If DCS can only afford to provide one variant, either the best F-100D that served in Vietnam or the variant that was flying escort missions at the very start would be my choices.

The stick does not feel sloppy at all around the center. My problem with the stick is that you can feel when you hit the center. I don't mind the centering force. It is light enough to be precise, but I much prefer the much smoother, almost effortless transition across the center I get from my VKB base. If you consider the Warthog the worst case and the VKB the best case, the feel of the Winwing stick is about halfway between the two. The Winwing is a huge improvement over the Warthog, but for me, feels distinctly inferior to the VKB. It may be just a matter of being able to change springs/cams in the Winwing. Unlike the VKB, the Winwing did not come with any alternatives. If I use the "hard detent" cams and/or increase the spring tension on the VKB, the feeling becomes very similar to the Winwing. If you have a Warthog and upgrade to the Winwing, I am pretty sure you won't regret it. The hardware appears to be very well engineered and it moves with very high precision. It is merely my personal preference for the feel around the center that makes the VKB so much more appealing to me.

My all-time favorite F-86 skins are "The Huff" and "The Paper Tiger". The first F-86 model I had as a kid was a birthday present I got in the 3rd grade (1977). It was a 1/48 Monogram with "The Paper Tiger". Many years later while on a submarine cruising up and down the Pacific coast, I bought the same exact model when we pulled into Eureka, CA for repairs (1996). But this time it had decals for "The Huff". It is hanging form the ceiling over my head as I type this. I love flying in DCS World with your renditions of these two skins.

I love the quality of this build. I can only hope to end up with something like this over the next few years... but in the form of an F-4E.

The Sabre is a joy to fly. It is cool to have both the F-86 and MiG-15 to see how two aircraft designed around the same time with almost the same performance fly so very differently. The MiG-15 may have better acceleration and climb due to its superior power-to-weight, but the F-86 simultaneously feels both more agile and more stable: much easier to fly, especially in a dogfight. As for the F-86F being the best DCS module, I would put the F-5E right up there with it: just as easy to fly and just as simple of controls. I have quite a few hours in both of them.

I have the whole kit. I have yet to mount and try the stick. I will eventually get to it. I like the grip. I think their take on the Hornet grip is a little better in terms of keeping a more authentic appearance while also squeezing in a few more buttons/hats. I love the adjustable extension. The combination of the variable height desk mount and the variable length extension if very appealing to me: you can match the height of the top of the grip to heights above the cockpit deck of real aircraft while also adjusting the extension to replicate the range of movement possible on the real aircraft. The stick feels really smooth when you move it around, but unfortunately for me, the feel around the center is still too close to the way the Warthog feels. I can use my VKB gunfighter base with heavy TM grips and cams that don't have a hard center to get a buttery smooth feel around the center and I don't have any problems with centering despite the heavy weight and the offset of the 20 cm extension. But even if the cams were as smooth as the VKB, I have way too many grips I like to use with the VKB base to give it up for just the hornet grip. If I end up making a dedicated Hornet pit, the Winwing stick would be the perfect choice for it, leaving my VKB bases free for the generic multi-aircraft type application. At some point in the near future, I am going to test the Winwing stick and its deskmount. I think I can also get the VKB base to fit on the deskmount or possibly make a simple adapter plate to make it fit.

On paper, the G2 looks like it combines the best features of the Rift CV1 and Rift S with a huge jump in resolution. That sounds really great. But if I can't get DCS to run reasonably on a Rift S with 2.5x less pixels, how am I going to realize the benefits of the higher resolution and have any kind of reasonable frame rate? Aside from the ghosting, I can live with the 40 fps ASW I typically see with the Rift S, so if I could build a rig that would run DCS on the G2 with a minimum for 45 fps, I would love it. But I really wish there would be some kind of breakthrough that would allow DCS World to perform better in VR and for hardware and drivers to improve enough as well to permit a steady 90 fps with decent quality settings.

Yes: warthog grip, 20 cm extension and #50 spring works fine for me. The warthog adapters come with a heavy detent cam. I tried it once and immediately went back to the smooth cam. Maybe the detent cams feel better with lighter springs, but they feel horrible with #50.

I understand an F-5E-1 isn't on the table no matter what anyone posts on the forums. It is not economical to make variants of the same aircraft type when a completely new type will garner far more sales. But how about this either: 1) Make the F-5E-3 100% identical to an F-5E-3 in USAF service as an aggressor. If that means no radar, no rwr, no decoys, etc., then so be it. If they can find at least one example that has a particular feature, then go with it. But model that example, don't mix features from separate examples to build a fictional franken plane. Provide checkbox options to add missing features like RWR and decoys or provide a second variant with the fictionalized extra options. or 2) Choose a real variant that is very close to the setup of the current F-5E-3 and make it 100% compliant with that variant in appearance, features, and functionality.

I can't stand cams with a center detent. Using one would defeat the purpose of me replacing the Warthog stick with the VKB GF. I use single #50 springs and have no problems with self centering. I haven't tried lower springs because I was already using #50 with the MCG Pro and 20 cm extension from the day of delivery. I have tried 2 x #40 and preferred the single #50 on both axes.

A single #50 on both axes is what I use with the 10cm and 20cm extensions. It works just fine with both TM grips. The extra weight makes it a little easier to move than the plastic grips, but I have no problems with self-centering.

The jetseat is a self-contained product. You plug it into a wall outlet for power and use a USB cable or an audio jack to feed it vibration signals. Everything required to operate it in DCS World is provided by the jetseat, so no amp required.

Those pedals are clearly from Slaw, which I don't have but understand are absolutely the best you can get for air combat simming. That style of pedal puts the arch of the foot resting on the pivot axis with the heel resting on the floor. You can see the rails holding the pedals are more or less centered on the pedals, so the heel can slide on those if you aren't comfortable with having the weight of your foot on your arch on the pedal. Real aircraft that have pedals like this typically have wear marks on the deck from heels sliding back and forth on them.

Apparently, the real Airbus stick controller has a trigger:

I have played DCS for many years. I can start up and take off as fast as anyone. I had been flying alone and ran low on fuel, so I returned to base to land and leave the server. Someone entered the server while I was flying home. I didn't have the fuel to stay and fight. Once I was on the ground, I was rearming and refueling with the intention to come back to dogfight. I was stuck on the apron for so long because you caught me rearming/refueling on the first pass, then I had to wait for the eternal repair cycle which also requires shutting down and restarting. Every time I was repaired and got my engine started, I got strafed again. I was the only other person on that server at the time. It was great to have someone show up to fight. But it is a waste of my time to sit there repairing or respawning. If you expect me to stay on a server where I will be killed every time I repair a plane for 15 minutes or more, I won't be playing on that server at all. I come to fly, not be a static target on the runway while rearming/refueling... then while repairing/respawning. I have had no problems flying with anyone else on that server on the rare times anyone has bothered to show up. I sport red paint, turn on my nav lights, contrail, announce my position and altitude via discord and/or chat, and wait for the inevitable stern attack. I don't even mind being outnumbered. I like being the underdog. I don't complain when I get shot down. As long as I get to a reasonable amount of ACM between shootdowns, I enjoy the overall experience. But I had done nothing wrong at all other than be stuck rearming and refueling when the only other person flying vulched me repeatedly. I could care less about my stats, but there was nothing fun about wasting time on an empty server and then being stuck on the ground soaking up bullets when someone else finally did show up.

Supposedly, gameplay and game balance have nothing to do with the actual features/modeling of DCS World modules. It could and probably should affect which variant is selected to be modeled, but they are supposed to model the selected aircraft as close to 100% real as possible with available documentation. Having said that, the F-86F is another case of ED making a franken airplane to fit their marketing goals rather than model a real aircraft as accurately as possible. How about providing a 100% accurate variant and have checkbox options to provide the extra features than enhance gameplay but don't reflect reaility? That way, I get what I came to DCS for in the first place: maximum realism possible within current technology constraints while at the same time satisfying those looking for "play-balance". If the goal was to provide a historically accurate opponent for the MiG-21bis, ED missed. It should have been an F-4E or a Mirage III, not a fictional suped up aggressor with a RWR and decoy dispenser.

I flew on this server all evening with a handful of great guys. Best time I have ever had with DCS multiplayer since the F-86F was originally released. I am getting very familiar with MiG-15bis handling. Unlike playing offline against AI, the F-86F and MiG-15bis are very well matched. The in-game flight performance seems close enough that pilot skill is far more important than the minor differences, which pretty much matches reality. I thoroughly enjoyed learning to fly the MiG-15bis against player controlled F-86Fs. I was using a Rift S to fly online. I had been using VR offline and switching to the desktop monitor for online. After the experience I have had the past couple of weeks, I am reversing that. When I want to relax and enjoy great graphics without a bulky headset smothering me, the desktop/TrackIR is the way to go. I can sip on a drink, alt-tab to mess with anything I need to adjust, and just sit back and enjoy the 4K show. But in an aggressive dogfight with real people, VR gives me the ability to keep track of multiple aircraft because I can rapidly look around and maintain the complete picture without becoming disoriented. The main problem with flying VR was visual spotting range, but something changed in one of the recent patches, so I am spotting aircraft at realistic long ranges. At range, aircraft are a blurry little blob of just a few pixels, but I can see that little blob especially if it is moving compared to the background. I do lose contacts in dark ground clutter like trees and water, but if the sun is positioned right, I can see an F-86 reflecting light even when it is otherwise masked by clutter.

If you are the only other player on the server and you keep strafing me before I can take off, then you become the only player on the server. WTF.

One of the advantages of Strike Fighters 2 is that with free mods, I can fly every MiG-21 variant with fairly accurate cockpits with decent texturing. The avionics library doesn't quite support the proper operation of the radar, but it was close enough. It wasn't until the DCS MiG-21bis was released that you could get a better combat simulation of the MiG-21 anywhere else. I am spoiled. I want ALL of the major production variants of the MiG-21. I love to try out the different combinations of airframe, weapons, and avionics changes that occurred relatively quickly from the time the F-13 went into service to the time the MiG-21bis was delivered. I want the same for the F-4 Phantom as well. But I know it isn't going to happen. I still don't even have a single F-4 variant years after Belsimtek starting posting screenshots of the F-4E they had started. So, I have to live with reality: I almost never get the aircraft I want and certainly not the variant(s) I want. I always have to settle for what I can get, which has been very good overall with the F-86/MiG-15 and F-5/MiG-21. The AJS-37 and Mirage 2000C are nice, too. But I would much rather have had the J-35 Draken or JA-37 and a Mirage IIIC or Mirage F1C.