wernst

see the image with the initial thread here from malibu43 on 02-02-2018, 07:08 AM. Trees are popping up, the more the closer you come to the RWY. Here is what malibu43 commented to your objection: "Ya, but IRL they would clear trees if they were that close to being in the glide path. If something goes wrong on final or your nursing a damaged plane in, that tree is in a bad spot. You may be right about it not being in glide path, but it's presence there was enough for me to stop and think "that's odd...". That's not good for immersion." I've said the same, but my arguments are considered to be "questionable". BTW, even more trees close to the RWY can be found in Normandy.

I’m only questioning what DCS has implemented for 31 approach sector in comparison to what google map shows for real Batumi. In real Batumi there is a row of trees about 200 m before the beginning of the runway. That's ok. But in DCS Batumi trees are scattered about 50 - 100m before the beginning of RWY 31. This is a dubious argument? Glide slopes considerations are theoretical values. But real flying often doesn’t work as theoretically calculated, therefor safety factors are added. As it is with real Batumi, where trees are not positioned where they just not touching the landing gear but more away, about double distance. My advice: To hear other than my dubious arguments talk to a real pilot and ask him for his opinion about a scenery with trees close to a runway of an international airport. Credibility comes from experiences - experiences in flying the real thing. In simulations everything is possible while sitting in a warm chair. And, finally, comments, which insinuates that my statements about PIC responsibilities are meant like "a PIC can do what he wants" is more than "questionable and dubious".

It looks to me as if you imply that I do not understand what the responsibility of a PIC is. Of course the PIC will have to follow ATC guidance and standard flying rules - in regular operation. The topic here is: Trees (obstacles) are way too close to the threshold 31. Everybody here is saying: "It doesn't matter, because landing will be cleared from 13 - ONLY". What if a plane comes with northerly wind to Batumi and ATC says: "We are closed, 13 is not safe and 31 is not allowed." If the PIC has good reasons (short of fuel, ambulence) he has the right to disregard ATC and land at 31. But even under these exceptional conditions it should always be possible to land on 31 safely, without obstacles close to the threshold. ok, a short question to all wise guys here. IFR approaches on 13 only. copied, fine. But what if a plane under instruments misses the correct touch down point and comes down with long landing in danger to overshoot? Yes, go around. I bet the PIC will pray that he is able to climb as much as possible to avoid the trees which are close to the treshold 31. The topic here is obstacle clearance at an airport. For any contribution to this topic the use of common sense is allowed. For in game mode flying around trees can be fun, but in sim mode, which should reflect reality as close as possible, it's no fun.

Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation 2.3.1 Responsibility of pilot-in-command The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, whether manipulating the controls or not, be responsible for the operation of the aircraft in accordance with the rules of the air, except that the pilot-in-command may depart from these rules in circumstances that render such departure absolutely necessary in the interests of safety 2.4 Authority of pilot-in-command of an aircraft The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.

Yes, the AIP SID procedure is of course for departure, the DCS map shows both directions equally. I'm just questioning that a plane which is approaching Batumi with northerly wind will be directed to an alternate and not cleared for 31. Reality?

I'm of course not simply saying "that a pilot can do what he wants". Where did I say this? (This would be as stupid as saying that a pilot should be directed to an alternate airport when RWY 13 has northerly wind while RWY 31 is obviously safe) Before further commenting emotionally on the responsibilty of a PIC pls study the Annex 2 (ICAO) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, section 2.3.1. I'm just referring to these written rules and not any assumption out from the stomach. And, finally, after 30 years flying with q CPL, I have never, never heard that a plane will be directed to an alternate when one RWY direction is not (wind) safe while the opposite direction is. (Exceptions apply for drunken ATC's only)

From where did you get these restricitions: "from sea only" - "MTOW 5700 kg or less" - ". . .severe to land, you'll be diverted elsewhere". Please have a look on the APPRCH Charts for UGKS attached here. One is from DCS the other is from AIP Georgia. Both charts show 31 procedures, for instrument and visual. Do you really want to say that if landing on 13 is "too severe" (e.g. because of northerly wind) the pilot will NOT be cleared for 31 but has to fly to an alternate ??!! Really?! Please learn that only the PIC has the final landing decision, according to The U.S. CFR Title 14, Part 1, Section 1.1 defines "pilot in command" as: The person who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight Full stop.

2.5 Senaki, Batumi ILS not working. 2.5 ILS A-10C in Caucasus: Senaki, Batumi are not working. Didn't test other. For open beta issues like this I saved my 1.5.8 installation.

not cleared for trafic?? Regular landing direction? Does a RWY only have one "regular" landing drection which will be cleared for landing? What about nasty winds which might sometimes blow from north not knowing the official landing direction? You'll cleared to a RWY direction which allows a safe landing - NOT regardless of wind direction. And the final landing decision lies in the hand of the PIC only! Regardless of any clearance., it's iron rule of flying. BTW, the google foto shows that in real Batumi the trees are about 200m away from threshold 31. That's ok with me and ok with any gilde slope.

ok, you might be right. I couldn't believe the temp thing by myself. But - when I start a fully new scenery/terrain it makes a difference at which temp the GPU is. When starting a new terrain/scenery right after leaving a different one but the GPU is still at above 60 deg C - no stutter! Even new rendering is needed as you explained. The rendering thing sounds plausible, but it means, any system setting is of less importance, is it? Just keep on playing until rendering is completed and your are fine, no stutter. Question: If rendering keeps the system stuttering slow why are frame rates high?

meanwhile I confirm that stutter disappears fully within 15 - 20 min. after game start. In this time GPU heats up to 70 deg Celcius. It seems that regardless of settings, stutter is GPU temp related. GPU is GTX 980, no overclocking.

I gave it a try: I deleted metashaders for rebuild. Result: The first 10 min flying stutter occured with an intervall of about 30 sec. The intervall became longer land onger over time, it seems that finally stutter disappears fully. As if some component needs to heat up, curious. And fps increased at least with 15+, sometimes it was up to 85 fps.

Caucasus 2.5 update looks brilliant. But annoying microstutter, though seeing 60 fps most the time. System settings to high, trees to 20%. 1.5 had never any display issues with same system settings. PC: GTX 980 with (4 years old) high end PC, 16GB RAM Which system setting might help to avoid micro stuttering?

same here in CAUCASUS, although seing 60 fps most the time, settings to HIGH, trees to 25%. Brilliant scenery but microstutter are annoying

where is 1.5.8 after update to 2.5.? Sorry, my question has maybe been answered in the numerous posts here. I’ve successfully updated 1.5.8 to 2.5. For stage 1 it is said, that “1.5.8 release will remain at this stage so you can continue to play…”. But where is the "old" 1.5.8 now? I only can play 2.5. Where can find 1.5.8?

Sorry, just to make sure I understand the terminology right. There isn't any difference between "1.5.8. open beta" and and "1.5.8 release", is it? "release" means the latest update of open beta, which is DCS world 1.5, right? And "1.5.8. final" is latest supported version of DCS world 1.5. Thanks for your patience.

"1.5.8 Stable Release"? Where did you get this version from? I most recently kept updating 1.5.8 but I never got any choice to select a "stable version" of 1.5.8.

I really, REALLY don’t understand why you are getting me wrong. If you want to use DCS as civil sim - fine. I’m myself enjoy flying IFR approaches as civil mission in the A-10C (because it’s certified for civil IFR) under CAT IIIa conditions. All I’m saying is, that when you are asking for data base perfection for the NS430 then you will have to perfect and adopt your way of running your flight simulation accordingly. Asking for e.g. restricted air spaces in the NS430 is per se useless unless you don’t follow up on what these restrictions mean. This is consequent sim perfection. You have to find out which CLASS these R's are, what are the vertical borders in relation to AGL and most important, are they active or not? Where do you get these relevant informations? You will have to consult your ICAO map, NOTAMs and call AIS. But you won't get these informations because these sources are not simulated for the NS430. As consequence, you, the sim perfectionist, will fly around or above these airspaces according to your own discretion. It’s lukewarm asking for sim perfection (regardless of CIV or MIL sim) but later you are not behaving according your own requests for perfection. Another Example is the request for SID or STAR procedures in the data base? Is it an academic request or is it meant seriously? Flying a STAR procedure, coming down from FL150, with a Mi-8MTV2?? Is it this what you want? I bet the next NS403 threat is about requests for implementing weather overlay display or the coupling between the GPS and the autopilot. Any more requests?

o.k. let’s assume the NS430 has e.g. restricted airspaces (RXXXX-Y) in their data base. As consequence, if you want truly care about these R’s (as real) you’ll have to prepare and brief your flight extensively. You must have a valid ICAO map, consult an AIP and get the most up to date NOTAM’s. And finally contact the AIS to hear whether RXXXX-Y is active or not. Asking for restricted airspaces in the data base of the NS430 is one thing. But if having them, then you will have to follow up on all actual information related to these R's and treat them accordingly (as in real life). But if not, the restricted airspaces in the data base are useless, then they are for decoration only. Is it that what you want?

Is DCS a CIV or MIL sim? ". . . none of the official Mi-8 campaigns involve a war". Have a look at this Mi-8MTV2 DCS video for the "Border Campaign" "prohibited / restricted airspaces" is terminology in civial aviation exclusively. Any commercial GPS has a cicvil database only. A civil GPS shows international accepted borders, it doesn't show e.g actual conflict zones or political territory, e.g. claimed one sided. A prohibited airspace might be installed due to security concerns, e.g. nuclear power station or sometimes even a bird's sanctuary. Would you mind entering these airspaces when being attacked?

Yes, I appreciate to have this add-on was well. Yes, It can be used as a simple moving map device, for VFR operation mainly. Full stop. But I can’t see any intention that it was designed as “sophisticated flight management system”. Do you really want to fly IFR arrival and approach procedures? A STAR coming e.g. from FL120?! With a Mi-8MTV2??!! If yes, you are better off with dedicated IFR training software, DCS is a combat simulator. The Mi-8 originally was never IFR certified, for good reasons. The basic GPS functionality of the NS430 helps VFR mission navigation, e.g. in bad weather getting to the battle field or back to the home base. It leaves to some extend the authencity of the sim and should not be further expanded. As for simple moving map functionality: Yes, you're right, landmarks are missing. But if these landmarks would be simulated in the NS430, I guess, you presumably wouldn’t see much anymore. (resolution issue) It’s not a huge glass cockpit which has everything to show. “restricted / prohibited airspaces?” It’s war!! Your enemy would surely not avoid any of these airspaces in combat with you. Your airfield isn’t safe because it has controlled airspace around! Give somebody an inch and he will take a mile. We shouldn't overpower our requests on add-ons which have limited functionality - by intention. Greetings from EDTF

GNS430W has WAAS which enables LNAV, the name for non-precision approaches. LNAV/VNAV and LPV approach minimums approximate (!) ILS approach minimums. That’s why Garmin refer to them as “precision approaches”, the FAA still considers them to be non-precision approaches. But how does your information about "real life" flying “precision approaches” with the GNS430W helps us improving the graphics (e.g. resolution of the aircraft icon) of the NS430 module? The NS430 has no signal output to the CDI/HSI, not even non-precision approaches are possible. I wonder which NAV page you are using? No CDI page, no moving map page, which one else?

. . . and flying is much better on a real aircraft . . . Are you truly comparing the display quality (e.g. resolution) of a real Garmin GPS with the NS430 sim module? The DCS Mi-8MTV2 is a simulation! It’s coded as close as it can gets and so is the NS430 module. If you by all means want to navigate using the moving map only you may well enlarge the size of the NS430 on the screen until the moving map and the plane icon is clearly visible. Everything can be better, for my share I’m satisfied to have such a GPS module at all.

Press SHIFT-ALT-B to create a panel copy of the NS430. You can drag this panel to any position of the screen. When press and hold the top left corner you can resize this panel to any size. In moving map mode the enlarged panel shows the tiny airplane symbol more clearly. However, in sim and real flying I prefer using the CDI NAV page only. Small course deviation is shown immediately and allows immediate steering correction. The moving map with the tiny airplane symbol is meant for overview and rough orientation only. If you are complaining about display quality you would have to buy a huge Garmin glass cockpit. As far as I'm concerned I’m glad that they have given us some kind of modern NAV equipment, regardless if you want to use or not.

NS430 makes more sense for the Huey than for the Mi-8. A GPS as the NS430 makes more sense for the Huey than for the Mi-8. The latter has doppler NAV which not only gives heading guidance but distance information as well. Doppler is the poor man’s GPS, it requires some brainpower but allows true immersion - if one loves it. Many of today’s flying Hueys in utility operation or rescue missions not only have basic GPS but huge glass cockpits. So why getting upset about “immersion” and “true sim” of the plain NS430? There is a simple ON/OFF switch for each preference.