streakeagle

I am not here to argue or debate but to simply state my experience with this mod (all perception/impression/opinion): 1. I followed the manual installation instructions to the letter, so it worked first try. 2. Even if there were no measurable or perceptible improvements in performance or quality, simply eliminating the overhead of SteamVR is enough to keep me using OpenXR. I can transition from WMR with the desktop open to DCS or from DCS to WMR much faster than before. 3. I didn't perform benchmarks prior to installing OpenXR, but my estimation from flying on certain servers for months is that I may have gained 5 to 10 fps with the same graphics settings I had before and after upping the quality the frame rates were comparable if not slightly better. 4. The image quality without MSAA looks very good. MSAAx2 is only slightly better. It is the one setting that brings the frame rates at or below what I typically saw without OpenXR without MSAA. Even with MSAAx2, the indicated framerate typically falls between 50 and 70 fps. With a target of 45 fps, MSAAx2 is clearly usable. MSAAx2 seemed to make a bigger difference without OpenXR: i.e. the image was more aliased/shimmering with SteamVR and no MSAA, whereas OpenXR makes it much harder for me to notice any improvement after enabling MSAAx2 other than the loss of performance. I will continue using this unless I encounter some kind of showstopping bug. So far, I haven't encountered any bugs.

I didn't say never, just very rare. Of over 5,000 produced, 200 F-4's were lost in Vietnam to departing controlled flight because they had stability issues at high AoA. I have never once read of an F-4 lost to pulling so many g's that a wing fell off despite having read many accounts of F-4's pulling about 12g during the same kind of situations that led to departing controlled flight: dodging SAMs and pulling out of dives to avoid hitting the ground. How many F-5s were produced from F-5A to F-5E or to increase the sample size, include the T-38 and F-20? How many incidents of the wings failing have been documented? I have no idea, but have never read of even structural deformation in any F-5 pilot accounts. What that means is that the incident rate is low enough if any occurred at all, that it didn't fold like a paper airplane every time someone pulled the stick or it would have been labeled a "widow maker" and attacked by the press. So, to be fair, all DCS aircraft should use a similar model for determining when structural failure occurs based on documentation or else aircraft that had similar design limits in reality will have very different limits in a game that is supposed to tend toward as much realism as possible. Since there is really no in-game incentive to prevent simulator pilots from pulling loads that most real pilots would almost never intentionally pull, I can see the value of making aircraft more fragile than reality to keep people honest -- but all aircraft need to be bound by the same rules, not randomly make some aircraft break at the touch of the stick while others pull insanely high loads with no penalty at all.

F-4s could and did pull 12g in Vietnam while pulling out of dive bomb attacks and evading SAMs. They did not disintegrate and flew home. They didn't fly the next day, and in many cases never flew again. F-4s that never exceeded load limits but flew extended hours during Vietnam were falling apart by the late 70s. My friend's father was an F-4 WSO that flew in Vietnam and was still flying them out of MacDill AFB in 1977-1979. He commented that nearly every single flight, rivets popped on every aircraft he was aboard. On the one hand, it is rare to hear of any fighter aircraft suffering catastrophic failure due to g load (notwithstanding high hour F-15's with defective longerons snapping in two where the nose attaches to the engines). On the other hand, pilots are pretty careful to avoid exceeding limits unless it is a life or death situation. DCS doesn't have any way to penalize pilots for overstressing aircraft. Real pilots won't pull 9g any more than they have to, either, because it results in rapid exhaustion and a risk of gloc. The main point of this thread is that the F-5, unlike all other aircraft in DCS, was shedding its wings pretty darn easy. The F-5 was a fairly sturdy aircraft compared to many others. Its history would indicate that it wasn't any more likely and perhaps even less likely than other aircraft to shed its wings. If other aircraft wings aren't modeled the same way, why single out the F-5? One other comment: I have quite a few hours in the F-5. I think I have shed my wings once since the failure was modeled. But one of the other pilots I fly with in multiplayer has a ton of hours in the F-5 and he had shed wings more than once when this was first implemented.

Everyone in the immediate group of about 8 regulars has the assets, but on many Sundays we bring in 2-8 new people. If we include WW2 assets, we don't get anyone. One of our regular visitors has the money and just doesn't see the value in buying it. So any time we include WW2 assets we lose one of the better pilots/flight leaders in our group.

I purchased it, but I cannot use it. The value is zero if I cannot put WW2 assets in missions because the majority of people playing co-op missions can't or won't buy WW2 assets. If you are playing single player only, I get your point. But after years of playing single player only, I found a group of people that I get along with really well online with similar interests, but in the effort to bring in more players, we can't use WW2 assets which are critical to missions set in Korea and Vietnam because 1950s and 1960s assets don't exist and WW2 assets are the only things even close or in some cases, WW2 assets were still being used in Korea and Vietnam. In particular, flak is a big issue. The free flak 18 was broken when the flak upgrade requires the director that isn't free. There are other cases, but that is the big one since Soviet 100 mm and 85 mm flak that was used from WW2 to the present isn't in DCS World at all. So German 88mm is the only thing even close. A must have WW2 asset for me is the Douglas A-26. It served in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. If it was available, I would have it flying in weekly co-op missions and persistent server missions, especially in Korea. Fortunately, the A-20 is available and is close enough to reduce the urgency.

The best way to increase the value of the WW2 assets pack isn't adding more units of any kind. Make it free. No matter how many useful assets are added, they are worthless if I can't use them in multiplayer missions because most people refuse to buy it.

The original AH-1G was extremely similar to the UH-1. For some that is a negative thing and makes it a bad choice. But for me, I am a fan of the Vietnam Nam war era. I want both a UH-1B/C gunship and an AH-1G. The benefit of being so similar to the UH-1 is a lot of the work is already done aside from the 3d model, just a matter of tuning a few variations to comply with the design differences. I like the progression of the original post, but I would rather see the Vietnam era AH-1J after the AH-1G. After the Vietnam era, I want the late 1970s/early 1980s TOW cobras. My preferences aside, I think the AH-1W is actually the best variant for the DCS environment since it favors 90s era aircraft. But it is the last variant I would worry about since the AH-64 is already here. I would buy an AH-1Z, but it doesn't really fit with any of the other generations of DCS aircraft. The AH-1W is already beyond what I would actually want to fly. If I could have only one, I would want the AH-1G and would settle for the AH-1J.

I can't go into details, but I heard some pretty interesting things. Biologics have even more interesting sounds that any manmade systems.

I was a submarine sonar tech in the US Navy, and the submarines have a device called an AN/WLR-9 that functions almost identically to this type of RWR display, but you don't get raw audio, only digital beeps and boops depending on the threat type. However, we always had headsets on and therefore heard the raw audio if we happened to be listening in the direction of the transmission and the source level was high enough to hear. I can assure you that radars are like sonar and therefore many systems have unique pulse patterns that are easy to distinguish, even if the frequency range is similar. Some systems are designed not to be heard at all, which gives them very unique signatures if you do happen to hear them. What really helps is that Soviet and NATO systems often used different approaches to solve the same radar search/track problem, so even if you can't make out which particular system it is, it will be distinctive from allied radars operating in the same band. In the time frame of the F-4, there weren't that many threats and they tended to operate in unique frequency bands and different pulse repetition frequencies depending on the radar's intended application. The PRF is what you really hear in the above audio, particularly when it shifts from pulsing to continuous wave.

You are welcome. The A-4E-C developers and quite a few end-users live on that discord channel. For any problem that you might have, someone has probably already had the same problem and will volunteer assistance. But the developers are pretty quick to help even when it is a question being asked and answered over and over.

I don't know what other people see that I don't, but FSR only lowers my image quality and gets downright ugly for me to see any performance gains.

MSAA has always worked the best for me in terms of shimmering and reading instruments/CRTs. The problem is MSAA x2 is the most I can afford to apply.

The way the script is written, it shouldn't appear on the map until all of the values have been configured. But clearly, it has to create some sort of object first, before it can set the values. Somehow, the changes aren't being executed, or at least visible to the active game engine, until it has paused when all clients have left and then it starts up again.

Use a bracket mounted under/on the stick base to place a block with semi-soft rubber on the side facing the stick with adjustment screws to limit the forward travel of the stick to exactly the desired range.

LABS is not functional. The computer setting is the one to use. It must be used in conjunction with the radar. In attack mode, all the radar does is provide a range to the ground, so as you dip your nose the radar has a shorter path to the ground, so you can see the strobe move in proportion to your slant range to the ground. The radar needs to be all the way clockwise to the attack position to use it with the computer mode for dropping bombs. When you have both the computer mode selected and radar in ground attack mode selected, use the gunsight at 0 degrees depression to point your nose at the target. While maintaining your nose on the target in a stable dive, hold down the weapons release button. The computer solves a simple ballistic arc based on your radar range, pitch angle, and speed. Gently pull out of the dive. As you pass through the correct release angle, the computer will automatically release the bomb(s) and you will get a beeping sound to let you know the release has started (it may take a small bit of time to complete the release depending on the number of bombs being released and your ripple settings). Once all of the selected bombs have been released, you can stop holding down the weapons release button. The computer does not take into account wind, slip, or any problems caused by roll/yaw, so make sure you are wings level with no sideslip/yaw from the moment you hold down the button until the bombs are released or they may veer to one side. If you pitch up too violently, they may fall long or short. You can pitch fairly fast, but it must be smooth. Sidewinders work just fine. AIM-9Bs need a stern position on a hot (preferably afterburning), non-maneuvering target. The AIM-9P is still a stern missile, but a lot more maneuverable. The AIM-9P5 is nearly as capable as an AIM-9L/M. I have been flying the A-4 for quite some time through all the many release versions, I haven't had trouble with the AIM-9s with any release. This is really the wrong sub forum to get help on the A-4. The best place for help is directly from the developers on discord, where you will also find the link to the latest release version. The discord channel is named "A-4E-C for DCS" https://discord.gg/jrQ5PeFu

I have done further testing. Even if I don't start any of the scripts until after a client has joined and the mission is already running, "resume with client" breaks some of the scripts. I created separate triggers to start one every 10 seconds. MOOSE is loaded at 10 seconds, MIST at 20 seconds, Skynet at 30 seconds, and finally the mission at 40 seconds. But the problem persists.

The Forgotten's early cold war servers ( Vietnam, Korea, and 1970s themes ) uses the "resume with clients" option to conserve resources when no one is actively on a server. However, this has recently (some time in the past few months) started causing a problem with scripts. MOOSE is used to spawn recovery tankers. The MOOSE scripting can use a single template to generate multiple tankers. The scripts can specify the call sign, tacan, radio frequency, and modex number. When using the "resume with clients" option, the call signs are not assigned correctly after the first client logs in and starts the mission. All the tankers end up with the same call sign or the call sign of the template. As soon as the first client logs out and logs back in again, the scripts take effect and all the tankers appear as scripted. If the mission is run in single player or is run with "resume on load", everything works as it should from the first time anyone logs in.

I have the original release of the Winwing Libra.

I hope you enjoy yours as much as I have enjoyed mine. My experience with the VKB Gunfighter II/III and MCG Pro/Ultimate has been so good that I have never even tried Virpil. It recenters perfectly and has exactly the feel I want. As I fly center stick position and have a specific range of motion I desire to match some real-world sticks, I always use an extension. The smoothness and precision might be matched by a competitor, but it isn't going to be exceeded.

It can be used without the software and as such works without any issues. The software is only needed if you really love animated lights following the screen animations.

I bought the first run of MCG Pro/Gunfighter MK2 sticks. The only problem it ever had was I killed a bearing on the roll axis by using 2 x #50 springs. I have used it almost daily since I got it and everything works as it did when brand new. I rotate between several grips, and the MCG Pro was replaced in rotation by the MCG Ultimate. But it still had quite a few hours of nearly continuous use on it. I actually have all of the VKB grips and none of them have failed in any way. I understand others have had worse experiences. I forgot: there was one other problems the MCG Pro had: on arrival the connector on the base of the grip was not screwed in properly, so it was a little loose. After the problem got worse, I found 1 screw missing and the other one had worked its way loose with usage. I got another screw and fixed it. But that is the only problem I have experienced out of the box with a VKB product. I have 2 x Gunfighter Mk 2 bases, both having had the full Mk 3 upgrade packages installed, MCG Pro, MCG Ultimate, F-14 Combat Grip, SCG and SCG Pro, and the original KG12, I also got the adapters to make my TM Warthog and TM Hornet grips compatible, and I have both the 200mm and 100mm extensions. That is a lot of hardware to have had for so many years with only 1 manufacturing defect (missing/loose screws) and one operator induced failure (roll axis bearing).

While there was nothing wrong with my MCG Pro, I found the swappable axis/hat switch options of the Ultimate very appealing, so I bought it. If you can afford it, the Ultimate really is better: everything the MCG Pro with some very nice upgrades. I am not a huge fan of metal grips, but the weight of the metal combined with the comfortable soft rubber grips make it feel great. I swapped in both hat switches, too. The hats are only 4-way plus center depress, but that is normally what I need. I prefer the feel of dedicated hat switches to the feel of analog sticks mimicking a hat. But I can always pop the analog sticks back in if I need an 8-way hat or axes.

If you can figure out how to use the software, there isn't much you can't do with the mini-sticks. You can make an analog stick function just like a 4 or 8-way hat plus center depress button AND keep the analog axes. So, for aircraft that need a hat, you can map those points. Those that need axes, map those. The default programming for the top center mini-stick uses the center depress to switch between hat mode and trim mode. I needed the center depress function, so I just reprogrammed it to be exactly how I wanted it to be. The key is reading some of the documentation, then playing with the software to learn exactly how it works.

What I have observed is that you have to alternately key the SRS/Vaicom PTT and the comms menu button to get the UH-1 to work. It wasn't always like this. I wonder if it has to do with the new built-in voice comms mixed with the UH-1H being a very old module. If I turn off VAICOM but leave SRS on, the menus work perfectly using the comm menu button or cyclic trigger. But the moment VAICOM is running, voice commands and manually keying the comm menu stop working unless you toggle both types of buttons.

If this map could be made without a performance hit, then it would do a great job for Linebacker I era missions. It permits flying the historical USAF routes from Udorn and Ubon over the "gorilla head" as well as USN operations from Yankee Station. Having both Da Nang and Nakhon Phanom is just icing on the cake.