some1
-
Posts
3444 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by some1
-
Oh, we can be certain of that. We wouldn't be in this mess otherwise.
-
Wonder how much breathing room do they need. One year was not enough, so... two years? Five maybe?
-
Doesn't sound like that from what the Russian devs were posting on the other side of the forum. They don't seem too keen to be taking over development of any 3rd party module, they just sell them.
-
DCS bomb fusing update from ED broke some of the bombs in Razbam modules. A2A gun sight in the Eagle still doesn't work. Not counting other issues, plenty of them in the Eagle bug section. Also you remember wrong about what Razbam said regarding AV8B before this whole thing blew up.
-
Are large monitors still relevant?
some1 replied to MJY65's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Technically a 49" monitor is only as tall as a regular 27" monitor, but as wide as two of them. These proportions are quite suitable for racing games, but for flight sims you may feel it's a bit cramped in the vertical, certainly not better than a regular monitor. Personally, I use 42" OLED TV as a monitor for most of my leisure flying in MSFS, but for DCS and IL2 it's VR only. 2D is still unbeatable for graphics and image clarity. VR for immersion. -
Yep, huge improvement with this patch. It took a long time but at last the game looks good in VR again. So far I settled on 1 pixel setting.
-
Skepticism about what? That he's not being paid, that the products are not being updated, or that he isn't working on Razbam products any more?
-
- range. The radios require beacon to be in the line of sight. Flying low like a helicopter does most of the time, you're not getting much reception. - weight. The radios add extra weight and space requirements, and this helicopter is overweight even without them. - operational considerations. In the middle east, where the helicopter operated in this configuration, there's not many radio beacons to begin with. Risk of GPS spoofing was very low and GPS/INS system was much more suitable for the job than tacan based navigation. Still, it's mostly GPS/INS nowadays, with radio navaids network being gradually shut down.
-
To be honest the liveries situation is what is holding me off from buying and installing the module right now. Thing is, I haven't installed any repaints for F-5, and I still have (in my vanilla game) something like 20 liveries for USA, 16 for Switzerland, and a dozen or two spread between other countries: Iran, Greece, Turkey, Norway, each have several, other operators at least one. And now we're swapping all this for 7 liveries in total, with a promise for 5 more coming "soon" in some undefined future... that doesn't sound like an upgrade. I really wish ED reversed their priorities and put those 7000 (or whatever) manhours into remodelling the cockpit and just bumping exterior textures, instead of remodelling the exterior and just bumping interior textures. More than 95% of my time in DCS is spent in the cockpit view. Couldn't care less for 3D ammo feeds and opening service hatches. Ah well, not the first puzzling decision from ED in 2024.
-
An OFF switch is not a simple matter? You can still turn the spotting dots off in 2D, you could turn them off in VR before the infamous "rollback" of spotting mechanics 6 months ago. 6 months we're dealing with this! And now with the new fog update it's even more broken that it was before. Seriously ED, this is embarrassing.
-
That's why i wouldn't read too much into what she said. It's the same "utmost attention and constructiveness" we've read from Mr Nick Grey eight months ago and repeated by community managers in various incarnations of this thread. Maybe things are moving behind the scenes, maybe they are not. We don't know. Even if things were bad, it's not in ED interest to announce that loud and wide.
-
This is the "don't worry and keep spending money on DCS" kind of "don't worry". ED may restart F-15E development from scratch, in-house, 10 years from now, and that would still count as "SE has a future in DCS, one way or the other".
-
It wasn't in the race to begin with, the aircraft teased first in the "next year and beyond" videos very rarely made it to release that year.
-
Yeah, the feature list is suspiciously light on details, would be nice to know what is improved/added besides better graphics.
-
Good news about F-5E remaster, the module shows its age. I hope it will be brought to modern DCS standards, and other old modules will follow. The price also seems reasonable.
-
no a lot. You need almost 1 kgf just for the breakout force, 6 kgf for maximum aileron deflection and 18 kgf for maximum elevator deflection. For reference, Moza at max settings is about 3 kgf. no no no no More detailed info here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hotas/comments/lm9lqk/how_stiff_is_a_joystick_of_a_real_fighter_plane/ The stick in the Hornet does not have a dynamic FFB, at least not to my knowledge. The magic happens inside the FBW computers, that translate pilot inputs to varying control surface movement depending on the situation. So the pilot can get a constant g per deflection, or constant pitch/roll rate, or whatever was programmed into the system to that phase of flight. While the stick remains a "dumb", spring loaded device, albeit with much heavier springs and dampers than our toys. Most of the effects you describe may be felt inside the cockpit, but rather as the whole airframe shaking and vibrating, not just the control column. So it would be more a task for something like Buttkicker than joystick FFB. But of course you may turn them on in FFB software for increased immersion.
-
It's not stupid, the dots are not really solid rectangles 3x3, but rather a bunch of pixels of different shades, that can be made more or less transparent. So you can get relatively smooth transition between different sizes. I'm counting the pixels in the previous posts, because they're comparable here in this particular example, but it's really about apparent size of the object in angular terms. So far in VR it's still about two times off the intended target (if the intended target is how it currently looks on a monitor).
-
These are the full resolution, pixel-for-pixel as seen on a monitor. I just cropped to the part that is the subject of the discussion, no point in posting the whole 4k cockpit image, it will only make comparison harder. If you have trouble seeing them on a phone, you can always pinch to zoom. And one more for comparison. Same situation, same zoom level, 4k monitor, this time Improved spotting dots - OFF. Target at 30 km is a single pixel. So a guy on a monitor may see this, while a guy in VR using the same settings gets a blob that is ~16 times bigger and can't be turned off. We are paying customers, not beta testers. This is not DCS "Open Beta" any more, this is "Unified Release". If you want to gather feedback about a new feature that is clearly unfinished and you have obvious trouble tweaking it since 2023, make it opt-in or opt-out.
-
Still awful. ED stubbornness in forcing this broken implementation on everybody is mind boggling. But let's repeat one more time. The dots in VR are at least twice the size of the dots on a 4k monitor. Which makes them more than twice as noticeable, because their area is 3-4 times bigger. 4k monitor, HUD lines are 4 pixels wide, dot is 2 pixels. VR, HUD lines are 4 pixels wide, dot is 4 pixels. In both cases the target is 30 km away. Since projected HUD image has fixed angular dimensions, it's a good way to measure apparent size of the objects regardless of resolution and display mode.
-
Ok, sorry, I misinterpreted your post
-
I try hard enough not to facepalm reading such responses. Instead of waiting for the perfect, not blurry photo of an American F-16C block 50 with OFP M4.2+ made on a Sunday Afternoon in August 2007 at Shaw AFB, coming from an unclassified source, ED can simply check their references. So far there is no evidence that ED version of this gauge ever existed anywhere, and it's just a simple modeller's error. Both older and newer versions of F-16 use the airspeed gauge as shown on the photos here.
-
Harrier manual was supposed to be finished after weapon and TGP system rework. Hence it lacks chapters about weapons employment, targeting pod, and a few others. BD didn't want to write the docs only to be undone by a later patch. Sadly, that never materialized. Out of beta or not, Harrier was not finished and Razbam was pretty open about that, planning further work on the module. Unfortunately not long after that message was posted, the current disagreement began.
-
And another good photo of F-16 airspeed indicator posted on the forum in another thread today. While it is from a different version, they all look the same. I've never seen the indicator looking the way ED modelled it in DCS, in any F-16 manual or real life photo.
-
Thank you!
-
Thanks @SaxonRaider The problem with range figures is that they are not really comparable between airplanes, especially airplanes of different type or from different eras. There's many ways range can be measured and it's not always obvious which method, or flight profile, was used to generate the numbers posted in books or wikipedia. Ferry range differs depending on if and how many external tanks were used. Combat range differs depending on what combination of external tanks, weapons and flight profile was used. Combat range figures can also assume X minutes of actual combat in max power/afterburner, or not. Etc. Not to mention the numbers may also be hard to find in the first place, wikipedia does not have them all.
