klem

I didn't intend to SiThSpAwn, there are already many other threads on the subject. It was just a hope for Edge. But as I'm typing - and I don't need a reply - I'll just tell outlawal2 that it's not 'below' but at the end alongside the 5900x1080 Surround in Windows resolution giving overall 7820 x 1080 in game. EDIT: and it's not HELIOS it's full blown game graphics across 4 monitors. I'm really waiting for Edge now to see what happens.

You are running four 1920 x 1080 monitors? I have been twiddling with settings for some time :( @xaoslaad. I guess there most be then. I've been looking through the forums and tried adjusting graphics.lua. Turned off HT. Only using in-game settings not Nvidia CP. It did surprise me that I got no more fps with the four screens and GTX980 than I did with my one screen and GTX570. Anyway we're in danger of going OT with talk like that :)

Well, that's a little worrying. I am happy with the general quality of Medium at the moment but with my system (under-used on both CPU and GPU) I can only get about 20fps at Batumi and around 30-35 in the air. I am hoping Edge will give a significant fps boost at those typical settings which might even let me increase them. I am however running 5900 x 1080 Surround plus 1920x1080 below (instruments) or about 8MPixels so I don't expect miracles even from the GTX980.

OK. Actually the three views with that montor setup .lua uses all three monitors in the Nvidia Surround configuration just like yours, DCS just splits the three views across the 5760 pixels to 3 x 1920. @Weltensegler. I lied. I actually have three monitors in Surround just like empecks plus a fourth monitor below for instruments, that way I can be zoomed quite well in for the flying view as you can see from my screen shot where I have deleted the the bottom part (4th monitor) from the screenshot so as not to confuse. I edited the lua for empeck as he only has three monitors. So I'm running 5900x1080 plus 1920x1080 on the end (as seen in Windows Screen Resolution). Total in-game setting of 7820x1080. Full .lua here inside spoiler. Personally I love the 3 view setup with the instruments below.

Have you tried 3 'views': Left, Forward, Right ? Here is a suitable MonitorSetup I named TripleScreen.lua Let me explain two things: 1. It looks really weird in a screenshot with wings pointing forward in the side views but when you are in that 'surround' environment and close to the screens it doesn't notice. Views to left and right are already there on the side screens but you don't really see it like that and turning your head to look at those screens somehow brings the side views around just right. Also, looking round with TrackIR simply gets you to the rear view more easily on the side screens. 2. Don't get hung up on the x values. I left them there to show what you have to do if you use bezel correction in surround and need to add in half the bezel pixels to each screen side. My left hand bezel allowance is 55 and right hand is 85 (I know that's odd and caused by the bezel shaping on one side). You could just use x=1920 and y=1200 if you don't use bezel correction.

I think I found the answer. My problem was with the VEAO Hawk and the faceful of seatback I was getting. It seems the Hawk View.lua is stored under CoreMods not Mods. I had some success in there tinkering with the F-86 View.lua although not so successful with the Hawk. The ProperNeck Server.lua "default_fighter_player(t)" values don't seem to affect the Hawk (and perhaps other 3rd party cockpits?). Eventually I created a Hawk section in the ProperNeck Server.lua, in fact I copied the P-51D section and named it "Hawk". This gave a much better response. I still have to turn my view of the centre screen to 90 degrees before the view moves out (I'd rather it began to move around 60) but at least I now get a decent rear view - well as much as you'll get in the Hawk. I still may tinker with the settings a bit more but so far so good.

The Mustang III was an RAF version (NA called it the P-51C) so lbs instead of inches. Max boost and rpm was time restricted, 5 mins IIRC. Putting my box of rivets away now. :P

25lbs means 25lbs above normal atmosphere (generically 14.7lbs @ S.L.), i.e. (25 + 14.7)/14.7 atmospheres = 39.7/14.7 = 2.7 ATA And = 30" * 2.7 = 81" With the right fuel P-51Ds/Packard Merlin could go to 75" and possibly more ( http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html as we're talking sources). Back to the MkVb / LF MkVb they used different versions of the Merlin 45, the LF using the 45M and known as "Clipped"(wings), "Cropped"(Supercharger) and "Clapped"( probably the pilots' opinion?). Just one source of many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rolls-Royce_Merlin_variants The LF was intended to combat the FW190 but it still couldn't really do the job until the MkIX came along. Fortunately ED will do heir own research and hopefully we'll avoid the acrimony of 'another place'. Not that the MkVb is in the frame yet.

Mine still works. Just change the server.lua in Saved Games\.......

Great news!

Hi PeterP I've searched this thread but don't seem to find an answer so... I have triple screens and Properneck does it's job but not until I am screwed around so far that in effect it is only working for the middle screen. My left screen is just full of seat back. Is there a way to get the shoulder movement working a little earlier in the rotation so that my rear view is visible on my side screen instead of the middle one? Thanks,

Thank you.

I don't want to start a discussion here - just a simple question. Will Edge resolve the problem of flickering LODs?

With respect, in a way you're coming at it from the opposite direction and accepting the worst of conditions as normal. Bearing in mind this is a combat sim and we're all supposed to be determined to come out on top - and just as determined not to get jumped - we aren't likely in RL to fly around with our eyes in a relaxed state. It's possible to focus your eyes out to infinity and, as the line goes, "search for the bastards". Looking at the 'Defences' in that link: Defences To counter the weakened ability of the eye to maintain a distant focus, good practices are to: Focus frequently on distant visible objects, e.g. on outlines of terrain at or near the horizon; this helps to stimulate the eyes to establish long-distance focal points; With flat screens we don't have that opportunity or capability. A compromise is necessary to give us "pretty good eyesight" (or we would not be 'fighter pilots'). Stimulate the eyes by focusing at own aircraft wing tips; Same argument Consider flying above a haze/smoke layer if possible; OK if present It may be preferable when scanning the sky for other aircraft to use peripheral vision to detect movement. Peripheral vision responds better in terms of detection of weak stimuli associated with slight movement than the central vision. Peripheral vision is not available to most players unless they turn their heads away from the screen. Probably a daft expectation. "In the sim world it would seem we have it better than in real life because provided we have decent eyesight and our monitors are a reasonable distance away, we can usually see something as small as 1-2 pixels" Not if those 2 pixels are constantly swapping from a pale sky-blue to nothing. One of the things you notice when you watch an a/c say 2nm away is that the atmosphere has merged the a/c colours into a grey or pale colour but it holds steady. It doesn't wink weakly in and out. I watched a Cessna 172 this afternoon about 1.7nm away approaching the local airport in a blue sky, it was a mid-grey and quite small but I had no problems following it or looking away and picking it up again. In contrast I follow my Hawk wingman until he is 1nm away, giving marginal broken pixel winks, almost invisible and certainly looking nothing like that Cessna. There is the lesser argument about size/distance but a greater argument about distance with colour and constancy. It is impossible to see anything beyond a couple of nm in DCS. If we are going to have a compromise we may have to choose between the unrealistic near impossible and the unrealistic slightly exaggerated and we have to remember we are trying to entertain ourselves. Trust me, many years in these sims tells me people will not come and play with something that is impossible to deal with (it's already happened with DCS for several of my long-term sim friends). "Where'd he gooo?". "Sorry, he's over a mile away now, you won't see him". As far as non-radar a/c are concerned it could kill DCS. With the Cold War jets it didn't matter so much with radar systems that give you bvr kills or the ability to track the target on radar until you are on top of it but in the WWII types and even the Hawk it's all eyeballing and there's no pleasure in not being able to see a reasonable representation of the other aircraft.

All true but at the end of the day, in RL, I can see a small aircraft against a clear sky when it's 2 miles away and if it's turning it's that much easier but in DCS that just does not happen. It's just vague almost invisible flickers. Yours and others' arguments about what can and can't be seen in RL are also not represented in DCS. There's a need for some kind of compromise.

If only the AI were this blind! Unfortunately they seem to have radar not eyeballs. EDIT: I meant to say that I am not even thinking about see aircraft below me. In DCS, against a clear blue sky the black-skinned Hawk just 1nm ahead of me is reduced to a near-invisible flickering ghost. At 2.0nm it's gone. That just isn't any where near realistic, I can see clearly an a/c, even a small one, at over 2nm against a clear sky. It's an argument about how they are rendered. I would expect it to be more difficult when looking down against terrain.

Problem there Crump is FOV again. You have to shrink the .pdf on your screen to the physical size of the paper it was printed on (assuming the author thought that far), presumably about what we used to call 'Quarto' in the UK, and then view it at normal reading distance. Here in Europe that's about A4. Then the 1/8nm (250yd) might look about right. You can consider what a fighter might look like on a motorway slip lane when you're at the 300yd/metre marker from it. There's no way USAStarkey's "two miles" is correct as shown on screen. Perhaps if it's a 4"x6" photo at arms length? I live 2.2 miles from my local airport and there's no way a, say, Harvard fuselage subtends that kind of angle to my eyes at two miles. Even so I think there is a visibility problem and the LODs are incorrect. The physical sizes and the distance images are viewed from make a huge difference. Perception is everything. Attached are photos of a Spitfire at estimated ranges of 400yds and 200yds (argument #1, I estimated the distances myself). At its 55mm focal length the lens has a FOV of 22deg 20'. That's 1/3 of what we have in DCS 'normal' view (60 - 80?). The photo looks right for distance because we adjust our perception to suit our knowledge of the image but if we triple the canvas size to FOV66 and slap it onto a screen without changing the image size the result would be ridiculous. So how should that be viewed on-screen to give a true impression of what we see in RL? What it seems to come down to is 'what angle does an aircaft subtend to the human eyeball at a certain distance' and then 'how do you represent that on a screen'. Consider this: a 37ft Mustang wingspan at 2 miles subtends (is covered by) an angle of ~0.0035 radians or 0.200 degrees. On a typical human FOV to screen of ~70 degrees that's just 0.0029% which on a 1920 screen = 5.5 pixels. Now look at the attached DCS image from the Mustang. The circled (centre) dot (a Mustang) is 3km (~1.9miles) away. Without splitting hairs it should be about 5 pixels but is in fact only 3. The grey line I added at the bottom of the circle is 5 pixels. I expect there's some technical argument why 3 pixels is used (perhaps it was almost 4 and rounded down). What I can say is that what I see in RL at 2 miles is nearer those 5 pixels than 3. Also, if you zoom right in, a/c at 5,6,7,8 and 9 km are each one pixel. And that's the other problem (apart from pixel count), the screen resolutions are too coarse. Whilst my three screens deliver about 6MPixels across my full field of view for about 40% of my visual height range the human eyeball has about 576MPx covering the same area. Even 4k screens can't compete with that. So much for the 'size' problem. How about rendering? Even if 3 pixels is correct, the graphics engine does not render it clearly and at 2 miles it should be very clear if small. Remember, I had to move my view (Trackir) around just to get the pixels to show as they do because the pixels come and go, the attached image is the best I could get. Also, zooming in you can see the jumble of coloured pixels used in an attempt to stay faithful to the aircraft colours in just three pixel blocks instead of more consistent averaged colouring across the pixels to overcome the problem. The LODs simply do not deliver. Conclusion? There has to be a compromise to compensate for screen resolution shortcomings of size and colouration. LODs have to be rendered more consistently and, at nearer ranges, darker to compensate for Graphics shortcomings. What we really want is to see that something is there at a range where we would be able to see it in RL. If that means consistent colouring and darker pixels for nearer objects then that's what it needs to be. Put simply it's a conjouring trick. You cannot have reality.

Ignoring the two rows of white dots in the ZX81, the bland attempt on the Sinclair Spectrum and a really simple Battle of Britain PC game, I'd have to say Air Warrior, the original on-line air combat game.

Well, I got my sums wrong too, 1280 + 1600 + 1280 + 1400 + 1024 = 6584 so I guess one of those res's is incorrect if you have 6624. By the way aspect ratio is width/height so they are not all 1.3333 Assuming you are running Nvidia Surround, it still sounds to me as though you have all 5 screens included into one Surround 'monitor' of 6624x1024. Is that right? If you only have 3 monitors in Surround as a 4160x1024 monitor that's all you use in DCS. The Surround monitor should be the most left or top left monitor in the Windows 'Screen Resolution' screen so that DCS screen positions start at 0,0. Monitors as they would appear in Windows Screen Resolution: --------------------------------------------------------------------- |......................No 3.............|.........No 1......|.......No 2.....| |.....................4160.............|.........1400......|......1024.....| |.....................1024.............|..........900.......|.......768......| --------------------------------------------------------------------- Helios is 'outside' DCS and assigned by it to the separate monitor "No 1". Monitor numbering is not important. With 4 x 1920 monitors I was able to run this for DCS (without bezel correction) with Helios dealt with outside DCS:

Hi i3dman, I know your fixed now but I'm curious. I don't know anything about UltraMFCD but I assume it's 'outside' DCS, i.e. running on exported data. I assume with total screen res's of 6512 you are using bezel correction to take you to 6624? Even if that's what you have I think you still shouldn't need to set DCS to 6624 if you are only using three screens for wideview. In your widescreen setup do you have only the left three monitors included in Surround? I have four monitors (1920, 1920, 1920, 1920) and when I was using Helios for P-51D insts I did not include the 4th monitor in Surround or the DCS screen res (my Surround is 'one monitor' at 3x1920 + bezels = 5900 with #4 as a separate monitor. My Monitor setup lua was the same structure as yours and I only had to set the DCS res to 5900x1080. The Helios element was entirely separate and 'outside' DCS. I'm now running all four in DCS with #4 as a 'bottom' inst's monitor all at 7820 in DCS (but still only 3 monitors in 'Surround'). So perhaps it's to do with how you have Surround setup?

oops

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2272536&postcount=130

You don't need a 4k monitor. Mine are 1920x1080 but lower res's may even help dot spotting. If you really want to know what kind of aircraft dot visibility you can achieve use the attached mission file. When you spawn you have about 12 aircraft ahead of you at 1km distances. According to your graphics/monitor settings you will see more or less and can count off the dots to see your km visibility range. It uses the TF-51 so anyone can try it. When you start have the throttle half open and when you actually spawn close the throttle. Take a screenshot for later examination. Keep your speed around 216kph and look. On my normal view (top yellow instrument line just in view at the bottom of the screen) I can see 6 or 7 dots fading away, more if I really stare. On full zoom in I can see just about all of them although I have to look hard for the last of them that tend to group together in the distance. Use the mission to adjust and test your settings. I leave aside the argument about how far away you can see an aircraft but for reference I live about 2.5 miles/2.2 Nm/4km from the local municipal airport (Cessnas to a Harvard in single engine types). On a clear sunny day my old eyes can follow a single engine type at around 2000 ft passing near my house out to about 2 - 3 miles (4 - 6km) judging from the circuit and know distance to the field. If I'm seeing the sunny side it tends to merge into the blue sky earlier than if I am seeing the shadow side. Sometimes my eyes will follow them a little further out. Picking a distant one up from scratch requires knowing where to look! More distant 'Dots' in a blue sky are much harder for me although cloudy days are a little easier. Contact_Spotting.miz

Yes you need some right aileron. I assume you use full stick back to lock the tail wheel. In that position I have the top of the stick near the right hand edge of the arming panel. At 100kph ease the stick forward to neutral position, though still with that right-aileron on, so that it doesn't try to lift off early under stick-back. Above 100kph and stick-back removed you should have enough rudder authority but don't 'stab' the rudder, add right rudder positively, progressively and as quickly as necessary and if you put too much on ease off the pressure, don't hit the left rudder pedal to correct. You can dab at the right brake to help if necessary. If you put on too much rudder it will indeed push the nose to the right putting the left gear more sideways relative to the left/forward direction you are trying to control and it will 'trip over'. By that stage you are probably already beyond recovery so don't let it get too nose-left in the first place. When the tail wheel is locked and you are under 100kph/stick-back you don't have much rudder authority which is why you feel you have to put in massive amounts of rudder. During that early phase dab the brakes as necessary to keep it lined up, if you put in rudder ready for when the tail comes up don't put in too much. Be ready from the off to input (hopefully) small amounts of control to keep it straight from go. Stay right on top of it from the start. Pick a spot ahead (cloud etc) as a reference point or watch the runway edges. Act immediately you see the smallest directional change. If you let it get away from you you'll end up over-controlling to compensate and probably crash.

It really does depend on what you are looking for. WWII (and early jets - Korean War) is still maturing in DCS and while there are a handful of servers to choose from they are mostly 'dogfight' servers, there does not seem to be a broad base of WWII "Mission Objective" servers yet where organised Squads can battle against each-other over the Objectives and win or lose the map that way. Of course a WWII map might encourage that. In MP combat "Objective oriented play" attracts a smaller niche of guys in an already small niche of the genre as a whole. Actually, Squads are still at an immature stage in DCS WWII. Our Squad has quite a few flyers in CoD and so far only a handful have joined DCS (although it's rapidly growing). We just need to find DCS servers supporting 80-100 players, some organised opposition and some decent missions. I know, I know, we don't have a server and we don't do much in the way of making missions (because we have no server). I admit we are mission flyers not mission creators and greatly appreciate the server providers. When you see the low numbers in servers on-line, AI has value in that at least it pads out the combat opportunities. As already mentioned ACG intelligently balances the sides by spawning and de-spwaning AI to keep numbers balanced. I use GCI scripting I found in these forums to do something similar on my own small missions.