Lurker

Effort. Time. Comes down to the same thing. As you should probably know, it takes a while setting up any module in DCS world, time which could be better spent just doing something else. Like flying another module. So instead of wasting some of my time downloading, installing this, and setting it up, then maybe giving up and deleting it because it's a mod and some things are wonky and need to be set up in a certain way, maybe someone can come along and help me out and maybe, just maybe give me a heads up on how to do it properly the first time round? (Or just telling me not to bother)

Thinking of trying this out, but I'm kind of on the fence as I have a MSFFB2 stick and from what I've read it doesn't play nice with this setup. So anyone tried it with MSFFB2 and Pedals without springs? Does it behave in this setup and work in the way it should I.E. if I trim the cyclic does it hold that position? Thanks for any answers.

They are making the SeaKing as part of the AI asset pack that will come inclduded with the Falklands map right? It's not that far fetched for them to want to do a Helicopter module, and a SeaKing would be great IF.... and thats a big IF in CAPITAL LETTERS, something like SAR operations or ASW could be implemented in DCS World. Hell, AFAIK most helo's can't even land on ships in DCS World without some strange physics issues creeping up. Unless this is fixed and some additions like this are added to DCS World, it's just another cool transport helo.

Apart from the OP in his last post, no one even acknowledged the replies from Heatblur. Except for the OP, yes their replies and explanations were completely ignored. Also with your last statement, you are clearly demonstrating a huge lack of respect for the work HB have put into this missile and into the F14. Work in progress or not? How about, think before you type?

Actually what is clearly being ignored by the OP and some others here is the fact that the discrepancies they found in the CFD modeling are there "on purpose" so that the missile performs as close as possible to it's real world counterpart in all but edge case scenarios. This is the way that Heatblur had to do it because of the limitations of missile modeling in DCS World (such as guidance logic, thrust modeling, course correction modeling etc.) at the time, which is also clearly stated (but completely ignored) in the very same white paper the OP originally quoted. More importantly they have stated that this is a work in progress and that as the new missile API is being implemented and improved upon, they will be adjusting those very same values of the Phoenix.

I think it's fair to expect this to be the most performance intensive module in DCS World. Every single Eagle Dynamics (modern) module released in DCS World was more performance intensive than the last one. Including the Hind, which IMO is the most taxing module currently flying in DCS World. This is why I will take a wait and see approach. If people with a similar rig to mine can fly it in VR without problems in early access, I will jump onboard and buy it. ED gets more money, and everyone is happy.

The thing is, that modern monitors can't display the color gradient to make this as useful in-game as it can be in real life. The only ones that could come close are OLED displays, which AFAIK are not found in many monitors or VR headsets.

Armchair admirals only care about one thing. Being right. They consistently ignore the mountains of data and information provided to them and prefer to focus on the one thing that supports their point of view. Right now that appears to be the singled out data of the whitepaper, without regard to what has been consistently repeated by Cobra and the other Heatblur staff. I just want to say thanks to Heatblur for the patience they continue to show for this, IMO it's enough to make you want to

Bookmarked this thread for possible future reference. (services.msc)

Here are my 2c. I wish I had never gone the VR route with DCS World, and stuck with TrackIR5. Let me explain. Once you try VR you can pretty much never go back to 2d in simulations. The immersion is brilliant. But the the constant fiddling with settings, the constant messing about after every single patch, to get playable performance, the extreme expense of getting it run "smoothly", all of that has been a huge letdown and downer. The last few patches have been better with regards to VR performance, but that might all break with any of the next patches that come out. In short VR is a huge hassle, and while it is absolutely brilliant when it works, it has caused me more headaches and Windows\DCS reinstallations, expensive hardware upgrades and even then it's still not where it should be with regards to usability. I know I will probably get booed on for this opinion by a lot of dedicated VR users, but it is what it is. In short, I can't recommend going to VR in DCS World at this moment.

Crooked neck maybe? I'm only half joking, but it could simply be a matter of the straps or the headset not being seated on your head properly.

Also, don't forget to uninstall all traces of the Oculus software. It will cause issues if you don't get rid of it. (At least it did in my case).

+1

Am I the only one who doesn't care about another mostly deserted map coming to DCS World? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the maps we already have in the game, especially Syria, and the mountains in Afghanistan are probably going to be very beautiful from the air, but I for one would much rather see the Balkans (Former Yugoslavia) or something similar, something with very diverse topology and climate, and a bit sea as well.

AFAIK what they stated was that they would not release another module into EA before the F14 and the Viggen were out of EA. I doubt that they would release something before the Eurofighter, since it's the furthest along of the modules they have in development and the only one which they've already showcased in their own promo video.

The one and only hope I have is that 2022 is finally the year in which we get the engine enhancements/multicore support that will allow DCS finally to shine in VR on modern computers. If they manage that I will be a happy camper.

*sigh*

I find it very odd that HBs Eurofighter was nowhere in the video. I guess that probably means it will come out in 2023 at the earliest.

Thanks for this feedback. I will install the patch when as soon as I get the chance and try it out. Unfortunately the patch feedback thread is closed.

Oh look. Another F14D wishlist thread. Yay.

It's unfortunate that Marianas was released in the state it was. In fact it is not only unfortunate, but should have been unacceptable. ED's reasoning is probably that since it's a free update, it doesn't need to pass the scrutiny that other paid mods do. Hopefully they are working on it behind the scenes to optimize it, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Maybe ED is betting on their upcoming multicore/Vulcan updates get rid of the issues, or at least diminish their impact. Who knows? In any case the past few updates (apart from the first cloud update) to DCS World were all extremely performance intensive, without bringing much if any visual fidelity to the table. There are a lot of us with top of the line graphics cards who actually needed to drop their settings so they could maintain frame rates. That should not be happening. Full. Stop.

Nvidia recommends at least a 650W powersupply for the RTX3070. So, I wouldn't go below that.

There are plenty of non-active, non-flying airframes that are not being made in DCS simply because the powers that be said: NO. It doesn't matter if it's declassified or not, whether it flies or not, if the powers that be say NO, that's not a: maybe, that's not a: we'll let you do it on the sly, that's an: Not Gonna Happen until we say Yes. It's as simple as that. If and when Eagle Dynamics get a green light to do a module, that's when it's going to happen. Whether or not they've been given one on the Mig29 is anyone's guess, all they said is that they would like to do one at some point in the future. Before that it was a firm NO. For any of the FC3 modules. We can read whatever the hell we want into this but all of that is pure conjecture and speculation on our part. Until ED comes out and say, hey guys, we're making the Mig29 it's under development, nothing anyone says on any forum is going to have any merit.

Even if what you are asking for gets added to some degree, it will not be backwards compatible. In other words you will need to have the latest version of the game\sim to take advantage of these types of additions.

Project NOR is NOT a commercial sim. It is meant to replace expensive professional manufacturer built fighter simulators, with a low cost software and off-the-shelf components solution. This means that while it may at some point enter the commercial simulator field, at this point it is marketed exclusively towards military contractors. Don't wait up for this one boys.