Shahdoh

With the CE2 now on Open Beta, will the template for liveries be made available soon? Please? :pilotfly:

You are talking like this is a black/white issue. It is a matter of translucency with near unlimited levels of variation between clear and solid. I ask you, how does the Mustang's prop appear to you in VR?

There is a pretty large difference in the translucency of the graphic files for the prop blur of the WWII aircraft, with the 109 and 190 being just barely there and the P51 being a bit more visible. The spitfire on the other hand uses considerably less translucent graphic files, but there are more of them with varying amounts of translucency from near solid to barely there. I assume this is to show more variance in RPM levels than what is currently available with the other props. Whether this is fully implemented yet, I do not know as I do not have the spitfire to see for myself.

After looking at the graphic files for the 109 prop blur, I found that they are dated 9/16/2014. So, they have not changed since the 109 was first introduced. I usually fly the P51 and it has a more pronounced effect. When I seen this thread and jumped into a 109 in an online mission. I could not really see the effect, as it was considerably smoother and subtle in comparison to the mustang. Spending more time testing and actually looking for them from various lighting angles, it is indeed there. I think some of the new lighting changes ED has made may have made the effect even less noticeable, without actually changing the actual graphic files, depending on peoples hardware. Some differences to keep in mind, the Mustang is a four bladed prop and by default has yellow tips. We can see that color change in the blur, but if you look for the black portion of the prop, it is near invisible. The 109 and 190 props are a consistent black color and 3 bladed. No color change to key off of, thus harder to see.

Home Fries, I usually see this when people take a track file and convert it into a mission. The track stores the view settings in a config folder which can/should be deleted when converting it into a mission. Otherwise those view settings are forced upon everyone if used as a multiplayer mission.

After taking a closer look at the 109 prop situation, Non VR, I have found that it IS there, but BARELY. Internally, after looking VERY hard in just the right light, background and see the edge of the arc. Guessing, would be it around 1-3 percent visibility in comparison of how visible the P-51 is. Externally, it was a tiny bit better, in the right lighting. Estimates again about 10 percent of the effect from the P-51. Its obvious, the effect from the Spitfire is to heavy, but many consider the P-51 to be just about right. Surely there is a happy medium between how the P51 is and the current 109.

Confirmed as well, non VR, the 109 prop is not visible from either internally or externally.

Hmmm, Well, I run DCS on my Win 7 machine with similar specs and it is running just fine. Granted I do not have PG map, so it might take a bit longer to spin up, but it shouldn't cause that type of crash. One thing is that it may take quite a while for DCS to load with that kind of setup. If you try to do something and it is not ready, you will get that DCS is not responding. If you do not overload it with commands it is not ready, in my experience, it usually will eventually catch up. For me, it sometimes takes 2-4 minutes to load up. Whether this is your situation or not I am not sure, what seems more an issue are those errors in the DCS.log So, exactly when is the crash occurring? DCS loading to the main menu? ME? Mission? Have you ever gotten DCS to successfully run before? If so, what changed with the system or software that caused it to stop?

The link is also for problems, just not bugs. They prefer that you attach the log file so they see everything in case there was something you failed to paste.

In order for them to help you, they need specific information. The link he posted lets you know what they need. If you have a question on how to provide what they need, ask and someone will help you.

New releases always show up on Open Beta first.

My guess is that the majority of these reports of servers not being seen is due to the Release vs Open Beta versions and people not understanding the difference. For instance, Steam users only get the release version, BUT they can go into the properties of the game and choose an option that updates them to the Beta version (do not have it, but I believe it is even called something else). When they are both on compatible versions, everyone will see "all" of the servers, but when Beta gets updated to a new revision, it may or may not be compatible. When it is not, those servers will disappear from the Release mp list. Right now, the majority of servers run on Open Beta because of early release aircraft and that the fixes (hopefully good ones) appear there first. The thing to remember though is that it IS beta and meant for TESTING. Sometimes things get broken. When they do, it needs to get reported as a bug instead of complained about so it can get fixed. There are times though when there is an issue with the ED master server and there is a reset. When that happens, a server may not be seen until it resets to see the master server new again. Those running the server may not know this is required and to them it looks like their server is running, though most likely, empty because no one sees it. (though if there are people already on the server when this happens, they will still be in the server just fine, confusing the issue even more) For now though, it looks like it is a release vs open beta version issue. Verify version numbers and all should be good again.

In a way, I believe we have our answer. It is what it is for a $40 piece of entertainment software. I know I have gotten great value for my purchase and am willing to accept it as is. I have flown some combat in it, many hours racing it and flying in virtual airshows. My cost ratio is now in the pennies per hour or even less. Could it be better? Certainly, everything can always be better, but you know what, it will never be the same as flying the real aircraft and I for one am willing to accept that.

Do realise that there are TWO different 2.5 versions. Both Release and Open Beta versions are on the same revision at the time of this posting (currently 2.5.3.24984). Obviously, both Release and Open beta will see all servers, but there are times when Open Beta advances to a new revision for TESTING and they NOT compatible. A majority of the servers now utilize the Open Beta revision so if you are still on Release version, all of those Open Beta servers will not show up on your list. So, just by stipulating that you have 2.5 is not complete enough information. Be sure to pay attention to the WHOLE version number and identify that in your posts.

Zimmerdylan, That would be a recording of the flight instead of a track. Difference being, with the track file you can change perspectives where a recording you can not. Lots of options to get recordings, not so much for tracks, other than the extra computer logged in to observe.

Another thing that has helped me before is to use the track from another computer signed in to observe only (or the server if no one flies an aircraft on that PC). Obviously this takes additional hardware, but have seen the tracks to be much more reliable than from a computer that does NOT have an a/c flown from it.

I use Winrar and do not even bother extracting the files, I just edit them while they are still zipped . Once the edit is made and I save, it prompts me if I want to update the file, which I confirm and all is good. All without the hassle of extracting the files just to zip them up again. EDIT: Have set Winrar to open *.miz and *.trk files

Thanks Yo-Yo. Back to the issue at hand though, how accurate are the effects of drag displayed in the tests for the prop aircraft in DCS.

Thanks for the correction. I used the term induced in the manner that I had introduced it by causing the slip with the rudder trim. Research on the term "induced drag" shows that is has a different meaning (that part of the drag on an airfoil that arises from the development of lift) and that I miss used the term. My apologies for any confusion it may have caused.

Here is the next round of testing with the mustang going slower. I wanted to use some established power settings so I used "Cruise - Max" setting with 20 degrees of flaps (2 notches) that gave me 180 mph instead. I felt those numbers provided a better baseline for stability of the test then a real low manifold pressure setting. I then did the test at the same cruise setting without flaps, getting the mustang to a midrange speed of nearly 280 mph. Results were similar, though the slower the speed, the more pronounced the induced drag was, but not by much. I also ran some quick and dirty tests with the 109 and 190. I have not flown those as much so I just used a low to midrange power setting. Even still, could see similar results due to slip drag. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/335869562

Thanks. I will try to do more tests at 200mph as well as testing with the 109 and 190. Unfortunately, I do not have the Spitfire yet. Sacrilege I know, I really do like the spit, just not in the budget currently. For those wanting to test this for themselves under your own conditions, look for the VARS racing server currently on the release version. Look for the SOCHI aircraft and there you will find the dragstrip race course that I flew in the tests. I am using a modified version providing an airstart for faster and more consistent starts. PS: You will need the VARS Pylon mod by Grinnelli that can be found in the User Downloads: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3196986/

If the person does not have a custom skin, it reverts to a default skin for that particular aircraft. Probably best if you provide a link to the custom skin in the description for the upload or readme for the mission so people can choose to download it or not.

Here it is, flying a straight, 6 mile course at around 200 ft agl, code shows the airspeed as the a/c passes each mile marker. I input rudder trim to cause uncoordinated flight, ailerons to keep it straight. All other controls were set and untouched. As you will see, half a ball out of trim seems to do nothing. There was some variances in speeds as I struggled a bit to maintain the course on a level flight. Once the ball was a full width out of trim, then you can start to see the speed degradation, but it isnt much, and some might say within the variances of the altitude changes. Full, out of trim conditions showed larger degradations of speed as expected. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/335549700

I think the real question is, how much slip should induce how much drag? Half a ball out of center? Full? How much airspeed SHOULD be lost under those conditions for the Mustang? My initial testing DOES show speed loss starting to be noticeable at a full ball out of center and increases greatly from there. Will try to have a video up soon showing the test parameters for evaluation of the situation. EDIT: Oh, and flaps? yes, they induce a good amount of drag. I have mine on an axis, and even minimal setting you will see speed degradation, which I will also show in the video.

Very true, but it is also nice to know that that extra speed is available when you might need it and able to take advantage of it! And as far as reduced drag airspeed increase, it is considerably more than 3 mph. Will try to get some video of the speed differences later on today.