Buzzles
-
Posts
3011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Buzzles
-
-
Post a track so we can see your start up + take off process?
-
While also echoing FoxTwo's sentiments, DCS is pretty much CPU limited for the most part as most stuff is still on a single thread.
Spending time supporting new vendor specific gpu functionality isn't the thing to be focusing on right now.
-
The benchmarks aren't worth worrying about imo, the sky high performance of both is really within a few % of each other in the real world anyway, so it's a toss up.
The slightly higher power usage and lower ram in the 3080 isn't a negative practically speaking, especially not in DCS. Until DCS goes properly multithread you'll prolly run into CPU bottlenecks first.
The only caveat specifically for DCS is the fact ED are going to Vulkan in the near future for DCS, and AMD cards *are* better at running it. For now.AMD are also working on big driver update for mem managment that "may" boost perf. Those two could arguably swing it for 6800XT.
THAT SAID:
Whichever you can get your hands on and not get scalped on is the real answer, as performance is so close between the two.-
1
-
-
No for actual explody nukes in game. Not needed imo.
Yes for an inert version though, for the puposes Lace said.-
2
-
-
This has been requested many times over many years, I'd imagine ED have some core problem in the engine that's preventing them doing this.
-
30 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:
Or ... people could actually read the description and requirements of what they are buying
Very true!
Doesn't change my statement though, or my stance that pre-sales are of no benefit to us, the consumer, by purchasing an item that we can't use yet.
I'm all for ED offering EA discount once it's actually available to play with, and doing incremental updates over time while in EA. I just think pre-orders aren't the way to go. -
28 minutes ago, Fury_007 said:
I tend to disagree with you and that notion.
I think a lot of people think like me, which is to say that I like learning the module as it progresses through development. I learn and master one thing at a time. It seems much less overwhelming that way and there is always something to look forward to with each new patch. It's like my module is a Tesla and it gets over the air updates every once in awhile.
You might wanna re-read what I wrote
hint: it's got no relation to the scenario you just described.
-
IMO, ED shouldn't do pre-sales/pre-orders anymore, and modules should only be in the shop when it hits the public beta build.
That'll stop a lot of the "i bought it, but i can't fly" threads as it's not available and stop the complaints about it not being available (or getting delays) after they've bought it, plus the hype around it is often self defeating for ED as people build themselves up for it and then start complaining it is alpha and incomplete.
-
5
-
-
31 minutes ago, lmp said:
Well, let's agree to disagree then. I'm pretty sure the Pacific theatre, Battle of Britain, Western front, Southern front... All capture the imagination of the average Westerner much more.
For Joe Public you'd be right. I'd say it's a different kettle of fish for simmers/flying enthusiasts though.
Definitely would like to see a WWII Yak mono of some description in DCS.
-
1 hour ago, rkk01 said:
Ok, thanks...
not the Gazelle then...?
(for some reason I thought small, light, manageable)
I don't own the Gazelle, namely as there's a lot of questions and comments over its FM being incomplete. I know Polychop made some improvements, but they've said they're going to revisit it after they release the OH-58.
With that in mind though, I can't recommend it without doing more research.
Plus, as the poster above noted, it definitely won't fly anything like the Hind even if the FM was perfect. The Hind will be a faster and slightly more agile Mi-8, it's a heavy bird and has a lot of mass. -
For just flying it'd be the Huey. For prep for the Hind, either Huey or Mi-8. The Mi-8 flies like a bus, though all the start up and other functions are much closer to the Hind.
If you don't own it already, I'd just wait for the Hind though.
-
Are you in torrent mode or did you click cancel to go to http mode?
-
I'd rather a see a Sea Hawk, to fit with the carrier ops.
Any variant would be nice though, and hopefully would see ED put some time and effort into improving loading/drop off of troops too.
-
3
-
-
Concur with the others, it's a good module, definitely worth getting at sale prices. It's a lot of fun.
I just wish ED would schedule some time to fix the last few issues, namely the bullet speed (to solve the sight issues), and the transonic lockup issues. Oh, and the rbg 0,0,0 black knobs in the cockpit.
-
Considering the F-4 has been dropped by ED, despite, like the AH-1, inheriting it from BST when they absorbed them, I'd say it's prolly a goner.
-
Where's the ground breaking surprise then?
Can't be the Apache, as that was known about for years.
-
2
-
-
Good to see progress on the F1.
I do have a question though, why not just focus on one version? Four seems quite a lot to bite off, and based on the how slow (but thorough!) the dev for the C-101 was, surely a singular focus is going to be better?
-
No to new asset packs as separate modules.
Splits up other content even more. Not just an MP issue either by effectively denying people access to servers unless you pay the extra for the packs. It also affects SP too, the example being the WWII campaigns, a lot need the WWII Assets Pack, which is on top of needing the map.
Honestly, there's a lot of models that need a refresh, but I actually disagree with the level of quality ED are showing in the Newsletters. It's too high. The models currently in game that came from Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3 and after are at an acceptable level, and I'd rather see a lot of the *really* old stuff from LOMAC 1 and 2 days get upgraded to that standard first. Be much, much quicker for the artists at ED to get to that level so we'd a higher volume of updates, and honestly would have the bigger effect than having a few super detailed ground units trickle through as they have been. -
Fwiw, I believe it actually hit the fleet with a 7.5g limit, and was used that way for a while before the 6.5g limit was introduced. Happy to be corrected on that though.
There's also annecdotes from Grumman testers saying they took it over 10g on occasion, and some static testing documentation showing the wing box survived 10.5g and the engine mounts broke first (at 10.5g). Obviously that's not a lot to go on and Victory205 recently posted he accidently took it to just over 8g and broke a couple of things, so ymmv.As for OP's actual question: Joystick curves and practice tbh.
A decent curve on your pitch axis will help stop you from yanking it and spiking too hard, but you've still just got to be careful. After a while you'll get the hang of it.
-
This does not affect me as I'm on the AMD train, but considering how long it's been hanging about, I'd hope ED would be offering a lot more support at this point to get it fixed, as it affects a lot of people.
-
I did spot the following thread was updated last week to say BalticDragon (I think) (along with Apache who was already there) was not participating.
It's now been updated again to say a blanket Nope for all 3rd Party Campaigns.
Gonna guess people were buying aircraft modules and getting Miles from that purchase, then using them for campaigns, resulting in the campaign makers not seeing much money for their products.
-
2
-
-
YOU need to quit getting all bent out of shape. Don't start throwing shade and getting snarky and be surprised when the same comes your way. And now that everything you said got refuted, you're just trying to save face now.
Nothing I said got refuted. You should really look the word up BEFORE you use it mate. The problem at hand is that you didn't like what I said and it somehow got under your skin. That's what we call in the Navy a "you" problem!
Take it however you want to take it bro! I even told you that I wasn't attacking you. I guess you managed to miss that part too along with the humor. Should I put it in bold caps for you? Try this on for size. Your F-14D compromise idea was about as ill-informed and as useless as ever.
Save face? That's how you took it? I don't need to! Lol I tried being the bigger man (notice the apology) but since it seems that you are VERY SENSITIVE, I'll leave you be.
If you want to have a grown man conversation, I'm here for you bro!:thumbup:
He's clearly got under your skin, not that you've got under his, judging from the tone of your reply.
-
You lot still arguing about pen vs pencil? Snopes has you covered on this:
-
There'd be a very easy long term solution actually. It's just that the input manufacturers finally would need to get their ship together and begin building actual input devices that come with FFB (which in itself also needs a massive overhaul since it's technically limited to X and Y axes). If every device had that, it would be piece of cake to transfer the device positions over to each other. The tech has been there for over two decades, but TM, VKB, Virpil and co. simply couldn't care less, which is a bloody shame. I just wonder if I will live to see that happen some time...
To be fair, it's not their fault as the patent set was sat on for years with very expensive licensing (iirc), I very much doubt VKB & Virpil could afford it. Only reason why MS could do it was because they own/co-own some of the patents. They expired earlier this year though, so hopefully TM and Logitech pick up the ball.
Still falls down at the first hurdle though, as it requires everyone to have FFB devices. They weren't cheap at the time when they were actually around.
Please, dont forget about keybindings for „19”
in MiG-19 Farmer B
Posted
As it's the relevant topic, what's the binding name for the PTT button on the throttle? Just setting myself up for a little go during the freeplay and I couldn't find it in the in-game menu under the usual suspects.