Jump to content

Art-J

Members
  • Posts

    6094
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Art-J

  1. ^ Nineline has access to extra damage assesment tool in their internal game build, that's where this panel window comes from. It seems tail unit damage has two separate phases: 1) an audible loud metal thud (with corresponding strut inop event registering in post-mission briefing), but with strut still seemingly more or less functional and visually OK in external view; 2) strut collapse (half-way at first, progressing to complete, some bumps & bounces later). Didn't have time for playing much through Christmas break unfortunately so haven't tried many airfields. Checking the Normandy 2 hot start missions at Vilalcoublay and West Malling, these runways appear to be OK, ie. bumpy, but not to the point of causing strut damage.
  2. It will be written in bottom right corner of main menu screen, next to version number. If you see "Multithreading preview" then it's MT.
  3. Watch and listen again. Greg knows his stuff, but the only contention he's is making is that DCS P-47 and P-51 players online tend to remove external pylons to bring these planes just a tad closer to performance figures for 115/150 fuel. It doesn't change the fact (which he also mentiones in that very video) that both fighters are limited to max MAP settings for 100/130 fuel, which are 64" and 67" wet respectively. Same applies to both British planes which run at max 18 PSI boost only. And since Anton can be flown without its fuelage rack as well, this aspect of game is "fair". As a result none of the current DCS warbirds, Allied or German, represents late '44 extra octane and/or extra boost modifications. Thunderbolt is a bit of an outlier here as it can use ram-air effect to overboost to 72+ but only after a sufficently long dive and only at sea level, which limits usability of doing so. Even though I wouldn't mind getting an Anton with higher boost option for late '44, wouldn't it mean Allied side should be treated the same (70-75" for US planes, +25 PSI for British)? If so, we would be back to square one. Any speed bonus for Anton would be negated to some extent by speed bonus for Allies.
  4. Repair, cleanup and reinstall procedures don't touch folders in Saved Games, so if there's anything "bad" left over there, it will still corrupt the game no matter how many times youy're trying to reinstall it. As for controls backup, just make a copy your whole Confing/Input folder from Saved Games/DCS. One minute and you're done.
  5. Also, remember to temporarily remove or rename your Saved Games/DCS folder. Reinstalling the core game only won't do anything good if there are still any modded leftovers in Saved Games.
  6. Mustang we've got pulls 61" dry / 67" wet, so it's already a standard rating for 100/130 fuel. Performance-wise -D can't go any "earlier" than that and -B/C would still be faster at the same manifild pressures simply because of better aerodynamics. DCS A-8 can already use the same trick as P-47, ie. overboost from ram-air effect in a dive, even though it works only at altitude before supercharger kicks down from 2nd to 1st speed. One can overboost to 1.55-1.6 ATA this way, albeit last time I tested, it didn't yield any airspeed increase at all for whatever reason (unlike in P-47).
  7. Devs need hard reference data to trace it down, however, and there's none of it posted here, apart from a guess that that 10xx cards might be the culprit. The more data the better, especially when number of guys using these cards in DCS is not high anymore. Both of you guys should post your DCS logs, settings and dxdiags, preferrably in that other thread where it will probably be noticed by devs and testers faster.
  8. ^ That might be the case. I'm on a newer gen card as well, so maybe that's why I don't see it. OP hasn't mentioned what card he uses.
  9. Yeah, you're not the only one who's experiencing it. No clue so far about why it happens, unfortunately.
  10. Although all these new subtle details are welcomed of course, there's one major thing that concerns me - audible blade flap frequency is too high! As if we had a helicopter with more blades in main rotor, or diameter of it was lower (and thus RPM higher). The videos above do seem to confirm it to my ear, but let's take more scientific approach. One can already notice the issue using time deceleration to 1/8 and seeing that sound is out of phase with rotor movement (sound is faster). It's easier to do it in F2 external view. Actually, using stopwatch and counting the audible blade "chops" we can calculate their frequency as 2.5 per second when slowed down, which is 20 per second in real time, which in turn for a 5-blade rotor means 240 RPM. The problem is - real Mi-8 rotor at 95% setting rotates at 192 RPM (that would be 16 "chops" per second), maybe getting closer to 200 at full takeoff power, but certainly not higher. Incidentally, I've found that the smaller diameter Mi-24 rotor speed is 240 RPM in cruise, which leades me to assumption that these new Mi-8 sounds are conversion of Mi-24 ones, which is obviously not quite correct given the hefty RPM differences between both helicopters. I don't own Mi-24 module so can't compare. @btd Can you please comment?
  11. OK then, do you use any frame-generation gimmicks on gfx card driver level? In either case, perform the usual DCS "troubleshooting trinity" and see if it helps: 1) disable and remove any unofficial mods you might be using (including the ones located in Saved Games location); 2) empty the "fxo" and "metashaders" folders in Saved Games location; 3) Run DCS repair & cleanup command to restore the game to vanilla state.
  12. You've ben answered in the other thread you started: If you launched DCS at least once, then there is a folder created on your system partition here: C:\Users\[your windows user name]\Saved Games\DCSworld\ It might be hidden by Windows, but it's certainly there. Un-hide it if needed. You have to go there, create \Mods\Aircraft\ sub-folder manually and extract A-4 archive over there. It's the only way to make the A-4 mod work.
  13. Probably because OP is new here and can't find his way around this forum (I don't blame him, because from navigation point of view, it is a mess for newcomers). Admins will move the thread if needed. Back to OP. Once again read what Winter wrote - DCS resides in TWO folders on your PC: a) One where the game itself is (in your case steamapps/common/DCSworld); b) the other one is in Saved Games location WinterH typed 6 posts above. A-4 Skyhawk mod has to be extracted ONLY into the latter. There cannot be any files of it left in the former.
  14. No, not experiencing it myself in 2.9.2. If you see it on other warbirds as well, it will be more of a global issue then rather than module-specific. Kind of reminds me jittering problems people reported when DLSS, FSR, DLAA and TLAA were implemented. Do you use any of these new 2.9.xx features? I only use DLAA by the way.
  15. Pt.1 it is then! Oh, no worries, I plan to use them as intended .
  16. Reflected already confirmed that in the "last minute" change before the 2.9.2 went live, Ugra messed up parking positions on the map and thus in some missions you're not spawning where you're supposed to. It's gonna be fixed in the next patch, hopefully. Look around in the campaign forum section for more info: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1208-dcs-p-51d-debden-eagles-campaign/
  17. Ah, yes, there it is allright! I didn't plan to install all of them so was only checking the unit number. Just have to figure out now which livery it takes tailwheel and wing textures from, cause they're missing - I use only a couple of skins chosen from each pack. But I know that description.lua will give me relevant clues.
  18. ^ Hmmm.... I don't know.... The problem is - "our" beta IS the "seperate testing branch". Always has been. Some users are just more interested in testing and reporting properly (they're smaller group I suspect), while the others are more interested in getting access to new content earlier (this is majority I'd hazard a guess). The former will always be active on the forum with more detailed reports, while the latter will not. But that's just a human nature, and In my opinion this proportion will never change. Thus I don't see how creating a yet another, more closed / "elite" separate branch could solve this issue, especially when ED MUST rely on wide scale public testing because of their internal QA resources limitations. I've no idea how to tackle this problem. They have to persuade/force people somehow to submit bugs in a better, standardized, repeatable and more effective manner. Just posting guidlines in a sticky thread on a forum clearly doesn't work, 'cause some player follow these while the others do not. Maybe some sort of a separate "public" bugtracker database, which won't accept a report entry until player fills all the blanks properly (logs, tracks, screens etc.)? As for the original post concerns, let's not forget that switching to current trend of updating stable version with one big patch every few months was direct consequence of a period 3-4 years ago when OB updates were thrown out almost every two weeks and stable updates following almost immediately - unfortunately together with a myriad of gamebreaking bugs, which inevitably had to slip through in such haphazard workflow. It just didn't work. So that's quite a tough nut to crack. Having stable updates more frequently would bring long awaited fixes more frequently... along with higher number of new bugs at the same time. How to find a good balance point?
  19. Awww.... the yellow-striped 2/SG10 didn't make it to part 3 it seems. I was looking forward to that one. Will wait for it.
  20. Oh, youre right, there's definitely something to it (Normandy map I mean). As shown in my replay track No. 1, during takeoff attempt at Normandy Manston, while taxiing from the furthest western parking spot I got a "central / tail strut drive inoperable" failure already before I even started a takeoff roll . Granted, that was a fast taxiing and lining up, but if it happened there and then, it would happen during takeoff roll anyway. Failure happened on the western light-grey section of the runway, but I don't know if that one has a different physical mesh compared to dark-grey section, or if it's only a different texture. There was no such problem during Manston takeoff on Channel map.
  21. MiG-21 is a bit of a special case. It started its life as a private mod made by 1 guy based on FC3 code, then got taken over by 4 other guys (at that time) who created the very first official 3rd party team contracted for DCS, then they reworked and released the plane in 2014 as fully clickable commercial module. Not long after, the team has split into two separate companies to work on other projects. So it's the oldest 3rd party DCS module at the moment and because of this complicated "half-mod, half-team" history, it just is a mash-up of FC3 code, proprietary code and a bunch of duct tape and zip-tie fixes added through the years later. To bring it to modern standards would most likely require a complete code re-write and no company will do it, unless in a form of a payware "2.0" edition like in A-10C and Ka-50 case. We know from Mag3's last year post that some form of a MiG refresh is considered for the future, but at this pont in time it's uncertain how deep this refresh will go and when it's going to happen when they're fully busy with Corsair and Crusader projects now.
  22. OK, will probably be able to do more playing after Christmas, maybe other guys can help in the meantime as well. If you did spend lot of time on Channel already, I think my tests would just be unnecessary duplication of yours because I would guess runways surface properties are the same in your internal DCS version and the public one (?). But sure, I'll try do do some more flying off grass and concrete strips when I can. Channel versions of Detling and Manston seemed to be rather OK, although I only took off and landed on each of them once so far. It all reminds me similar problems that race and rally sim developers face. No matter how good tyre and suspension simulation is, if there are problems with track surface mesh modelling the final effect shows unforseen issues.
  23. Oh, don't get me wrong, I can see the new model is a big step in good direction. I like how both mains behave now, it makes takeoffs and landings more challenging and, looking at these real life vids, mains seem to be quite bouncy indeed. It's just the tailwheel strut behaviour that raises some concerns for me. I'm sure further tweaks will come, but it becomes clear now that it's going to be a combined aircraft and map development problem. I only own Nevada, Channel and Normandy as payware maps, so my testing capabilities are limited.
  24. OK, maybe it's semantics or language thing. What I meant is, in my 2nd replay track I got "Central / tail strut drive inoperable" event registered at 2:23 and the strut was still visually OK when looked outside. Two minutes and some extra bumps later, however, it half-collapsed. Thanks for further testing and cool videos. I understand that tail strut sensitivity is greater and more accurate now, but that leaves us with a wider problem affecting both ED and 3rd party devs - how many airports on various maps should be tested and reworked with better surface mesh, when even some Caucasus runways can cause such tailwheel issues (as my Kutaisi test showed).
  25. Nah, both my tracks are recorded in OB after Tuesday patch. The point I emphasized in my post is, after taxiing, you WILL roll fast at 3-point for a dozens of seconds during every takeoff and landing. So whether you want it or not, the tailwheel assembly will be cumulating damage. My fast taxiing was just simulating beginning of a takeoff roll, or standard roll-out after landing. The strut may or may not fail in a mission where you perform only one takeoff and landing in a row (depending on which map and airbase we're trying), but with more of these it will fail eventually and I'd hazard a guess Mossie maintenance technicians didn't have to fix or replace tailwheel units every 3 missions or so in real life . I specifically avoided rolling over grass-concrete boundary, as this one has been known for causing failures in previous DCS versions already, I also avoided grass strips in my tests, 'cause concrete / asphalt ones should in theory be smoother (?). Last but not least I avoided Marianas map, which also has some rough surface mesh issues at Anderson. Just chose stock mission at Kutaisi for this very reason, not getting beyond the runway. The only grass strip takeoff and landing at Normandy I did once was at Detling and they went OK, but that's obviously not enough reference data. Your observations from other grassy airfield there are interesting, will try them when I have time.
×
×
  • Create New...