-
Posts
1227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by FSKRipper
-
Dusk/Dawn lightning -> horrible fps drop
FSKRipper replied to FSKRipper's topic in Game Performance Bugs
Could be many factors, I have attached my ingame settings. Maybe the longer dynamic shadows of civillian traffic or other effects could cause some issues... EDIT: Can't test it since I'm at work now but are clutter/bushes are projecting any kind of shadows? -
Dusk/Dawn lightning -> horrible fps drop
FSKRipper replied to FSKRipper's topic in Game Performance Bugs
Ok, made the test runs. 1. You are right, most of the performance loss seems to be connectedt to the shadow issue. As longer as the shadows are, the more loss of performance. I have to add that I have seen this issue only in the area east of Poti but this could be due to the GTX980 performance. 2. Even with Mustangs shadow removal I noticed a drop of 20fps during sunset (see picture 2 and 3). In picture 3 I turned cockpit illumination off to eleminate this factor but it had no effect on overall fps. -
Dusk/Dawn lightning -> horrible fps drop
FSKRipper replied to FSKRipper's topic in Game Performance Bugs
Do you mean you had also bad fps at 12:00 in my test mission? I was in the same position at both tests. There was no problem for me as seen in the first post. Almost 80-90fps. Will try a treetop flight at Batumi and report back. So far the tree shadows seem to hit my fps only at sunrise/sunset. -
Dusk/Dawn lightning -> horrible fps drop
FSKRipper replied to FSKRipper's topic in Game Performance Bugs
But could it be related to special places on the map? As you can see below I can make a flight over Batumi with quite a lot of trees with out there but my fps seems to be not very much impressed... Maybe only the masses make the difference? -
Dusk/Dawn lightning -> horrible fps drop
FSKRipper replied to FSKRipper's topic in Game Performance Bugs
You may notice a drop in fps with the cockpit lights but a drop by 75%? Are you serious? Also, sitting on the runway with cockpit lights on won't show such degraded performance. -
So most times I have flown at day or night but I created a mission east of Poti where I'm flying low over the woods. As you can see on the attached screenshot there is no problem with the trees, shadows or the weather. But switching to a daytime with intense lightning the fps drop from 80+ to 20!!!. fpstest.miz
-
For me the latest update (47025.99) had 122MB but I own all modules except the Bf109.
-
I can fully agree, great patch so far. A few known bugs still persist but from the performance side this is the best you brought us since the first 1.5 upgrade. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
-
1.5.1.46722.87 Model Visibility removal
FSKRipper replied to HornedGod's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Have not seen something like that before. Otherwise, ED gives us the room to use these options like we want to. So where is the problem guys? I intend to buy a rift next year, after watching several reviews I have come to the conclusion that every setting below medium enlargement would be wide more than unrealistic so please stop begging for a removal of this feature. If you want a server override option, well it's fine for me. but demanding to remove this feature is simply selfish and stupid regarding implementation of new features. -
Sure but I don't compared the RCS of a combat helo with 5th Gen fighter planes but with cars and even trains :music_whistling: Also for target tracking your TMS will ignore how fast the moving parts of an object rotate. This stuff is used for further analysis like non cooperative target recognition which is not a standard function of ground based radars (if there is any out there?). You will not always get a distinct stronger signal by these blades (especially when using rotating antennas with low rpm's) but more some kind of discriminated patterns of reflection which can be shown in spectrograms. They strongly depend on the radial velocity of the rotating parts of the aircraft/helicopter. Former the front helicopter blade will produce a larger rcs than the back rotor blade (from the radar line of sight). The more the radar LOS is orthogonal to the rotordisc the stronger the signal, from the other side if the angle between radar LOS and the rotordisc is Zero, you will get the weakest possible signal. When leaving the software out of this discussion all you will get is a simple dot on you screen, independent of how fast the blades travel. The speed of the "track" is generated by the movement of the dot on your screen relative to your position and not it's moving parts. For that reason even modern software is sometimes unable to discriminate between a swarm of birds (with moving wings) or a helicopter. With the according hard/and software (and perfect circumstances in a perfect world) you will be able to recognize a specific plane or helicopter type by his blade flashing profile. This will be most effective if your radar looks orthogonal to the disc (front/aft of planes, up/down of helicopters). Can't speak for the most eastern and a whole bunch of western radars but most ground based systems I worked on during the millenium years were not able to do this kind of stuff. Last but not least you can work with special materials and paintings. Remembering the Comanche prototype study they told about a front rcs 32 times smaller than of the Kiowa mast sight.
-
Unless you use a Track Management System without the right filters set (speed). And even without filters the most modern radars even track flock of birds, trains, cars on coastal roads, and even fog clouds. Maybe I'm a bit vintage style but the best would possibly an old tube screen without this modern software Gimmicks.
-
And here you show that you installed the beta for the wrong reason. It is not made to let you fly and enjoy the L-39 but to discover bugs and report them to the developers to help them create a stable DCS 1.5.x non beta. This version is not for your personal enjoyment. If you don't like it that way, stop complaining, delete your open Beta wait for stable release or change to whatever game you want. If you think you can be productive, stop complaining, write reasonable bug reports (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147710) and let us all wait patiently for the next release. That is the reason why betas were normally conducted internally before things like early access came up. It means reproducing Bugs, it's more work than fun.
-
Updated to Beta 1.5.1, needed to reactivate a module
FSKRipper replied to Atreides's topic in Installation Problems
+1 The MiG-21 asked for a reactivation because of a hardware Change. -
Recent 1.5.1 is a really nice patch for me. Only problem so far, it renders the A-10C mirrors useless. 1st Screen: Working mirrors in the Su-27 2nd Screen: the useless mirrors in the A-10C 3rd Screen: deactivated mirrors in the A-10C If you compare the 2nd and 3rd screenshot you will see that even the non working mirrors consume a fair amount of FPS. EDIT: AFTER A REPAIR THIS IS NOT HAPPENING ANY LONGER: FREE TO BE DELETED.
-
Maybe we will, but only after you bribed: 1. an actual pilot to talk about the new systems and their effectivity. 2. an engineer who is willing to talk about the specs and gives ED some FM and weapon charts 3. some ground crew members which will give more information on the construction related improvements 4. other russian pilots that saw this gunship in action and can provide information on maneuver/combat performance So if we find these People, not afraid of treason to bring us a new module we could start a kickstarter campaign for it. :lol: Ok, to come back to reality, we won't see this module and this is good from a realistic point of view. It's like the demands for the F-35 or the european Tiger helicopter. The problem with this new hardware is that 95% of the avionics, FM and weapons performance would be rough guesses or calculations by the developers since nearly everything about these platforms is classified.
-
Su-27 trim issue is in need of explanation
FSKRipper replied to Hummingbird's topic in Su-27 for DCS World
Sorry but this thread is leaving the point of justified critics. I have studied mathematics, I'm interested in aviation since 25 years and I'm a RL spare time pilot ( with only 150 hours I have to admit). Not that I would expect ED to share their information/sources with the public. But what will qualify YOU as a consumer to judge wether the right data is used or interpreted right to comment on the FM if you are not a RL SU-27 pilot? I admit that with all my theoretical and practical knowledge, I have no idea on how the real plane will behave until I fly it myself. You can try to compare it to other modules but what makes you believe you can give more than an educated guess about it? ED delivered a solid FM to you (which is still WIP). As in all cases you are the one to bring the evidence that something isn't right here. Not by your feelings, other modules or guys that talked to some other guys but by hard FM data, statements from actual pilots and official documents. -
I think this came up some time ago. It seemed to be some kind of field modification.
-
The question was rhetoric :music_whistling: Since this was a contract (years ago) for the Air National Guard (if I remember correctly) we could expect that ED would not receive any official information on further Upgrades which they are allowed to use. The same could happen to the KA-50 or the systems tested on this platform... I would expect that national security in Russia is at least as strict as in the US.
-
I really don't know what you want to show. The articles you are reffering to clearly speak of a system which was tested in 2004 on a KA-50 and were not ready for mass production. These systems were planned to upgrade the Mi8, Mi24, Mi26, and the Kamov Family. The arabian article shows (as much as I can translate and see) the KA-52 and the Mi28 as working platforms. But not the Ka-50 fleet. You can transfer this to every module, f.e. 1. Why has the MiG-21 no GPS like actual Bison variants? 2. Why we are flying an old (Suite 3?) A-10C and not the actual version? 3. Why are even trainers like the Hawk are not up to date with MFD's? The reason is the developers modeled a specific block or airframe. I think instead of begging for updates on a prototype and testbed for modern hardware (which would surely contain classified information) we would be luckier to ask for the development of a KA-52 or a Mi-28. P.S. The developers are always open to arguments which can be proved. If you can deliver actual photos and/or evidence about these systems are currently in use on the KA-50 fleet you may be lucky in getting such an upgrade in the future. Otherwise it is not more than pure speculation. You can't seriously speak of simulating something made only from information based on Wikipedia and some aviation magazines.
-
And it will be for sure not implemented in our Black Shark. These helicopters are a nice test platform and we have one. They were never build in such numbers to justify expensive upgrade programs. If some day we will see a DCS:Mi28 or a DCS-AH64D we can expect a lot more sophisticated defense systems but at this point... We all know that this is not 100% realism but this would be the situation of a 80's Shark pilot thrown into a high risk combat area. Learn to adapt or fly another module/mission :music_whistling: Remember, the missions in which you encountered such Problems are not historical missions, they were made to challenge your skills.
-
It was an example. As stated in your article the missile can also be guided without continous illumination. Another example is the Roland in it's optical guidance mode. You won't even see it coming... The take home message I wanted to give is that no matter what Helo you fly, you will always lack some defensive capabilities. BTW the link from my first post was not meant for Black Shark Training exclusively... See http://www.flightsimbooks.com/gunship/
-
Not to mention command guided missiles and laser guided missiles. None of them would show up on a western RWR (like in an Apache of that time). The Black Shark with his laser warning system makes up for at least one threat :music_whistling: As mentioned before, it's the mission that drives you crazy. Even a modern attack helicopter would never be so stupid to enter an area with half a dozen Tunguskas and SAM coverage in it without proper support from SEAD planes.
-
Oh don't get me wrong, I love realism. I would second your wish but only if we get the whole package...
-
In my opinion ED could leave the size at it is now. If you try to play around with "realistic" effects you would have to add all the strange effects caused by our brains :music_whistling: F.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion Not to speak of relativity of viewing perspective https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optische_T%C3%A4uschung#/media/File:Mond_a.JPG
-
So you got the ballutes even with the N/T setting is that correct?