Snake122

Thanks for that! Have you used fpsVR or something else to show CPU frametimes with DCS? Yes, DCS using more cores will help, but on my system it's still my video card limiting the frametimes even though it doesn't get up to even 90% GPU load. It is GPU pipeline problems in these simple missions that is showing the engine's issues. I agree in more complicated missions it becomes more CPU bound, but there is something with how the GPU is utilized at the basic level with VR+high resolutions that is bottlenecking the GPU.

Have you tried not having the JetSeat Gametrix software open? I know it's not required for it to work and while I'm away from my computer, I think it interferes with it working. After you do that does Sim Shaker's test vibe motors work?

Hook it up and go! Really if you're already using the sound module it will make a lot of sense. I find I like to do things differently with my bass pucks than my seat. Some things I have stronger on the seat the pucks and vice versa. Andre had a adapter for the US, not sure about the UK.

So if don't get a "you have already voted for this poll" when I click on the link and filled it out in Chrome logged in to my Google account very shortly after it was announced, did my survey go through? I know it's just "one vote" but I still want it.

I agree that the director lights are not 100% needed. Now that I'm used to it, I find both boom and drogue refueling about the same in DCS. I would throw out that I don't feel like you get much boom stablization effect and the boomer is a little slow to plug in, but that's me just going off of what I hear are the advantages of boom refueling. Interesting to hear the commentary on that the KC-135 lights are notorious for being hard to see in real life. I would imagine that night AAR is where you would want to use them more since you have less visual cues and they wanted the lights pretty dim pre-NVG erw so they don't mess up your natural night apdated vision. One other thing is that the director lights were not designed for fighters, the sides are switched for heavies format so that left side/hand is pitch and right side/hand is throttle on the lights. I don't know if the heavies of the late 50s/early 60s were going further under the belly were the lights would be more visible to them. Seems like the #1 design variable of the time, the B-52, really has a port about the same distance back as a Viper or maybe even less. So maybe this theory doesn't hold true.

The SEAD suite wishlist would be for me HARM, ALQ-184, CMS Semi/auto modes, HTS, and ALE-50 in that order. HARMs (or even AGM-154A) are one part of the mission tools, but I'll take what I can get!

FYI, I get the I handled exception error when I accidentally open SSA twice.

Agreed, when it comes to weapons/avonics development, I prefer a SEAD priority.

I filled it out. I get making the aircraft function correctly first. When it comes to weapons/mission stuff, I put my priority on HARM/HTS/CMS/ALE-50 over Mavericks etc. The Viper is the USAFs SEAD aircraft and DCS doesn't have a well modeled SEAD option (yes the F/A-18 and SU-25 can do it, but not as well modeled as a HTS would be).

Agreed, level D sims usually have a beam splitter for their out the window display which gives depth. I was surprised the first time I flew one. Also agree on the VR comment, and love the FOV the Pimax gives me. I will also say that in real life sometimes my altitude perception changes from day to day even though I have flown around my current area for about 1000 hours. Granted, I don't get above 10,000' that often so I'm not getting big view changes of multiple 10k feet, but I will tell you focusing outside during big vertical change visual maneuvers, like chandelles, I can sometimes look inside and swear the altimeter is off by at least 1000 feet but the altimeter setting tells me it's right. In the landing pattern, I can generally tell you if we're low or high, but not by a specific amount other than a little or a lot and even then going to unfamiliar airports it will be much harder to tell.

Slight necro because I stumbled on this thread trying to figure when I can and can't range bump via the cursor. As a former technical writer of aircraft engine manuals, what Dee-Jay is saying does not surprise me at all. Updating the manual gets more difficult the older a system gets. Brand new manuals often have missed details since equipment and users do things engineers never imagined. Also engineers don't always "speak" writer. Then writers aren't always explaining in a way the end users will understand. End users just go doing their job finding a way to get it done, even if the book says to do it a way that doesn't actually work.

I haven't really checked the fps with it yet. I run large FOV and I tend to be stuck on 45fps with Smart Smoothing since I can't make the 90 most of the time. I do know it failed at first and had a "this device is illegal" error and had to reinstall 260 then upgrade again, so uninstalling first is a good idea. But I don't see v262 listed On the website, did you just install it from where PiTool downloaded it to?

I finally broke down and did a batch file recently, well worth it and don't know why I didn't do it years ago.

Making sure your anisotropic filtering is at least 8x helps (but for me 16x didn't seem to help and maybe make it worse). Still hard to see though with it on.

Guys, besides for a poorly worded either at the end of the post which was not intended as a knock on it, I haven't been against APKWS II. This post was directed at LAU88s as unrealistic. I was just saying why ED will say no: To the pilot, ok, I could see it since CCRP works the same with laser GBUs. SMS sees normal hyrdra, ok. Problem it seems AG weapons especially do not carry over through modules in DCS. It's the same reason why the Viper doesn't have HARMs nor Mavericks even though other modules do. Apparently ED will have to code them over and I think that HARMs and even Mavericks are more important than laser rockets on the roadmap, but would love to see SBDs too. If ED decides to add them, great! But I don't think they will for years because they tend to not be on the latest generation of weapons due to their design philosophy. Agreed, I'm just being skeptical that ED will include it.just like GBU-39s. Also at that point do you want ED to take out weapons you can't use any more, like most CBUs? While these planes have the capability but no longer use them due political pressure, should ED remove them? I say no, but just saying of you want the most modern jet options, should they focus on coding over older weapons that were once on a new hypothetical module but aren't actually carried anymore and focus on the latest stuff? It can cut both ways. I think the new timeline part of the mission editor will solve some of this and make both sides happy and make ED feel like they have a little more freedom to add the new stuff. But I don't think that is the main reason ED doesn't, I think it's background material to do it properly. Ok, sure, great it is as simple as pod and laser on. Again, not how it seems to work in adding weapons into DCS, ED has had to port over every AG weapon at least it seems to each module. Would you rather have APKWS, GBU-39s, Israel's fun to use SPICE bomb first or the weapons that the F-16 has employed for years already and have been staples in the F-16s arsenal? Honestly, as I get older, I see the reasoning to do the old stuff first. It makes modules not as shiney with new car smell, but makes in general for more accurate modeling. Again, it comes do to personal philosophy of most simmers being in one of two camps and ED can't 100% please either.

Well to derail the thread further, I personally draw this line at was it really used. It's like the GPU-5/A pod (GAU-8 on an A-10 shortened to put in a pod) for the A-16 project. Cool idea to give to a F-16 but the pod sucked. Generally, but not always, when the USAF puts money into a capability development and then doesn't use it, it is a failure. Like the LAU88 on the F-16. Will it be fun to have 6 Mavericks, sure! But Ace Combat 7 is also a lot of fun for people. I personally find the F-16 with GBU-12s more interesting than Mavericks. But what I'm really waiting personally waiting for is the SEAD role with AGM-88s and eventually the HTS because it's the niche role that the aircraft worked itself into. But yeah, those laser rockets are cool and will be continued to used more and more in the future with the focus on low intensity/low collateral damage weapons in the future (like the GBU-39s). The question comes down to, should EDs philosophy be to simulate as much capabilities as possible without the details, only simulate what they can with full realism details, or in what they do in actual practice is find a balance (although leaning towards realism)? Since they have to balance it, it pisses both camps off. Keep the LAU88, make the F-16 a mini A-10, it'll be fun! ...as long as I eventually get to do some SAM dodging SEAD in it (DEAD is fun too, but you end up that way more).

I was just giving EDs answer to why they will say no, like they already have to SBDs etc. LAU88s are an unicorn and while they have been around since the at 1980s they were never used operationally on F-16s for 6 Mavericks (yes there are pictures of them with flying in testing but none are from combat). Speculation is that a possible reason is that the inner most Mavericks blast/end cap could damage the aircraft and there may have been 4 loaded in Desert Storm in 1991 but not 6. Basically the LAU88 has no friends in real life. It could make friends in DCS because Wags has said they will include them with possibly flying around with 4 more targets than before with lots of enemies.

"We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007." https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2019-02-15_Beta/ Yeah they aren't realistic in their use, but they are still pre-2007 technology. For the record, I wish the LAU88 wasn't included either.

A lithium chemistry battery is in practically all consumer portable electronics today. I can't think of a smartphone that doesn't use a lithium battery. Debatably the LiPos that Miles uses are safer of the two options: https://www.androidauthority.com/lithium-ion-vs-lithium-polymer-whats-the-difference-27608/amp/ Miles comes from an background where they are extra safe with these batteries since they tend to remove them for recharging and that handling of the batteries adds an extra layer of risk. So RC users, airsofters, and other hobbyists tend to treat LiPos with respect since they can be dangerous if mistreated while charging or handling. But again, they are a staple in modern electronics and really Miles is being extra safe including the bag compared to practically all electronics manufacturers that deem these batteries safe when mounted in a device you carry around in your pocket or bag next to you all day. LiPo chemistry at this size level is the only way to get the energy density needed to have a reasonable battery life. Otherwise, you would need to change the battery practically every flight. Miles will tell you to use the bag because of his years of experience with the batteries. While Miles would probably disagree with me because of his perspective, I would tell you the batteries mounted in the PointCtrl are just as safe as your phone/tablet/laptop. Miles, rightfully so as an inventor and small business owner, is being extra cautious since his devices may in his eyes have a minutely higher chance than a big factory electronic device (however, I would point out Miles has far better QC and inspection than those factories that probably make it less of a chance). I appreciate Miles wanting to keep us safe and use the bag pretty much every time:D

Andre will take care of you either way. I have one that we tried to get here to the U.S. during peak of Covid-19 issues (first week of April). It shows it left Russian Customs in Mid-May and nothing since. He graciously worked on a second shipment that made it here a couple weeks ago. I'm still watching that one and if/when it arrives to return it or forward it. I know he wants to streamline the process overall.

I believe you just email orders@pointctrl.com and tell them you want a APB or 2 and Carol/Miles will take care of you with that. I don't know if he builds them on demand or has some in stock but there is no formal list like regular PointCtrl.

Probably, but I'm not familiar with that amp since I'm using 5 year old stuff. I generally use my Logitech USB headphones which have their own soundcard for normal sound. I use my motherboard down Realtek sound card with typical 3.5mm jack to the amp to drive the bass pucks via SimShaker Sound Module. I still have my HDMI out sound coming from my 1080Ti for traditional speakers when I need them.

I have no experience with the BST-1. But I know Dayton's pucks are 15w RMS and the BST-1 is 50w RMS and is beefier. So with your 200watt amp planned it will be better suited to that with enough overhead to run two in stereo too if you wanted. The pucks are more for zone effects but I do know some people mount them to chairs for home theater and I did for a short time. But really it was a stopgap until the JetSeat got here. The Aura I have is a super old model (late 90s) so they probably have improved since then.

No problem, I needed to get that out of the way anyway :lol:. You probably could, but I haven't taken one apart yet. As you can see though in the pictures, it's relatively close, especially if you place the two lower back cells over your abdomen. The two "legs" would be the.left and right fronts of the vest.

No it won't be adaptable to a real G Suit, the 3rd Space Vest inflates but really more in small "cylinders" then large bladders. The valves work in different ways too. I tried to incorporate a G-Suit into my cockpit circa 2005. I could never get the air flow controlled properly with the servo interfaces available back then. G-Suits are a relatively low pressure/high volume setup with is opposite of most pneumatics. I think it is possible today with the right valve because the hardware and software interfaces are better, bit I'm NOT going to be attempting that. There is a bigger safety issue with using real G Suits (although there are some military sims that do and maybe a hobbyist out there that has now). I don't know if they inflate at lower pressure in the Sim, but my research shows that western suits activate at 1.5psi per G above 2 G, 10.5 psi maximum. 10.5 psi doesn't sound like much, but as far as I can tell, blood pressure cuffs normally only need 3-4 psi to overcome your 2-3 psi blood pressure. Show that's a lot of pressure/pain to be putting on your legs and abdomen for "fun". Real vascular damage can happen (I also think they are part of what causes "G-easles"). My plan then was to never to go for full inflate pressure back then, but the risk is there if your control valve fails and you don't have a good pressure relief valve that needs to work at a much lower pressure than most pneumatic valves. It was a crazy idea in my 20s to give better feedback but now at 40, that just sounds bad. Even the 3rd Space inflations are not what I would call comfortable, but they are not painful and are safe reminder that you are pulling Gs that would be hurting tons in real life.