SeaW0lf

Well you definitely said something about "make it hard for us" and that distraction was part of the equation and that players bouncing others need that advantage (of us seeing bananas out there) to defend the argument. And you are still talking about close calls, so the general idea to me (it is my opinion, I might be wrong) is that you are pushing for bad visibility more than saying that it can't be overdone -- especially because the new vids about the Normandy map seems to be showing a good / balanced improvement. It is your opinion, but I don't think it is either fair or realistic. We are not asking for labels, we are asking to see the planes we are fighting. I think the best route is to render visibility as it is and leave distraction and inexperience and weather features to what they are. On the argument that bouncing players need the bounced pilots to have limited visibility, I can say that I played for years a game that I consider to have one of the best visibility out there, and one of the main dynamics in full real servers was between turnfighters and BZ planes, and we never had problems to bounce anyone or to be bounced (in fact the latter is a problem :pilotfly:). It worked pretty nice and it is exciting when you do everything right, including taking advantage of the Sun.

But we are not on the ground, we are flying ingame - or at least I bought my modules to fly them. IMHO what should be done is visibility like it really is / or the most real it can be in our monitors. Inexperience and combat awareness / perception is not supposed to be replicated in visibility. This is up to us players and it will vary among ourselves. And turbulence is up to the weather features. It is also not up to visibility rendering. Distraction is also up to us -- and we have to deal with kids, phone calls, people calling you in the middle of a dogfight, the joystick that slides on the table and ends up on your lap and so on so forth. The simulator is not supposed to simulate these things. This is called human factor and they can work on these things on the AIs, not us. The day a simulator tries to replicate and apply inexperience in the way they render visibility is the day we are doomed. How's that supposed to work? Unlocks? The more experienced you are and the better score you have, the better visibility you get in your monitor? It makes no sense. So in short, what distraction and inexperience have to do with visibility rendering? Forgive me if I misunderstand what you said, but it sounds like it.

Perhaps I don't use as much contrast as some gamers do, because I use it basically 24/7 (I work at home). The ingame colors outside the cockpit are too washed out in comparison to other games and I might need to work with SweetFX, although the sun-blinder effect has a good contrast and the cockpit look gorgeous, so my general impression is that they need to work on volume and constrast / reflection on the planes / terrain -- which they seem to be doing from the Normandy videos. And yes, AA is off.

It is a Philips 298P4QJEB. Good overall monitor / but not for gaming. Very few IPS glow and a gorgeous image to my taste.

It does make a difference, but I have a 2560X1080 monitor with displayPort and the problem persists. Then it might be resolution.

I am not sure what's the point, because this is what I found about Old 666: In another occasion, when attacked by seven A6M Zeros... But the aircraft came back from all these missions. The way DM looks, you can easily come back from a mission with five, six B-17 kills, which is a tally more in line with the old simulators back in the 90s, when we shot down planes like flies.

Yeah, the B-17 deserves all the care it can get. Much of the action will be focused on shooting it down or defending it. The aircraft will play a central role in game play.

Either way it would be a shame to release other non-representative / niche aircraft and leave the P-38 behind. And the aircraft is a beauty -- and the lady has a 20mm cannon...

Daytime dogfighting -- Normandy map. Spotting looks pretty good.

I would be a happy camper testing planes :D But DCS does not have a level flight key. As Solty was mentioning, the Bf 109 does not have trim for all surfaces, then it might be difficult to keep a level flight at altitude. I am not sure if a level flight command could be modded or if such feature would affect speed depending on the plane, but in ROF I used balloons as landmarks in a 75km test course. It gives you a much more precise speed if you calculate time vs. distance over such length. And Solty also mentioned that tracks are not precise either, which makes the test course a good option. But without level flight I don't think it is possible unfortunately.

Thanks for the info :thumbup: That would be super. The bad part is that we might be talking years down the line if ever. Hard to say, but the WWII section of DCS (I don't know the rest) seems to be more about warbird enthusiasts than combat. Hangar stuff, grease and engines. It works to a certain level for me.

I agree 100%. I found this thread because I saw the 262 on the roadmap discussion, people talking about the Meteor and other jets and I thought to myself: "Where is the P-38 first? Where's the Mosquito? Where is the FW 190 with shorter fuselage? Where is the Gustav?" I agree that the 262 belongs, but IMHO it should be a late release after many other aircraft. And I heather see DCS go back in time and release a duel series of Fokker Dr.I vs Camels or Spads vs Albatroses for example than to invest in a Meteor, Vampire? Why would I ever buy that? They already have Sabers and Mig 15s in a historical, legendary duel. Nothing will ever top that. But of course I imagine a P-38L and late P-38J equipped with hydraulically boosted aileron control -- if I am not mistaken. Even to get a Mosquito in DCS. Damn... What a dream.

Yeah, I imagine that a coordinated flight -- level flight and with some maneuvers side by side or in tandem, Blue Angels' style -- would single out the differences in speed, acceleration and energy / momentum. Although I never tried it, so I don't know what kind of results one would get.

Oh, yeah, in your situation it is better to avoid those dogfights when the joystick ends up at the other side of the table :lol: Sorry to hear about it by the way. Take care!

It took me years to get into multiplayer. At the time my dream was to play WarBirds online, but my connection was barely enough to surf the net. Years later I played multiplayer for the first time with ROF. The feeling of playing with real players from all over the world, the adrenaline, the shaking hands, and the panic of watching your plane start to fold for the first time (and later on when you shoot someone down)... I got hooked right of the bat. I never played SP again and probably never will in the future. But as people said, this is my opinion. But the multiplayer environment I think it is true. Empty servers mean that something is wrong with the game.

Folks, regarding the Normandy map, any news about the net-code? I've researched the forum and found nothing conclusive. It seems like the net-code is being rewritten, but I have not found anything on the timeline or whether it has high priority or is a WIP that can take years to be implemented. Is there any information as to whether the servers will be able to make missions with bombers and a good number of players or will things continue as they are, with limited missions of 30-40 players? Is net-code a serious bottleneck or the servers keep a low number of players for other reasons? Though I found this -- improved multiplayer with dedicated server support (this for 2016). Was it implemented? In short, what is the current status of DCS for multiplayer? I ask this because I have no interest on single player, just multiplayer. I'm likely to buy the map anyway, but I'd like to know what they're doing to improve multiplayer, because what I've been reading is that the code needs some work. Cheers,

That sums up well the life of a simer :lol:

Do you think the servers will be able to put out some missions with B-17s and 80+ players or the Normandy map will be basically a single player map with limited sort of furball servers as we do have now?

Will this come with the Normandy map (net-code rewrite) or has no scheduled date to be implemented?

Yeah, the thought crossed my mind. That would be nice. I might do it myself as well, but I still have to learn the 109 basics (it's stored in the shed for now :D). For the thread in general, my comment on the Mustang being a tad faster than the 109 -- and if that proves to be right -- does not mean that I don't advocate for the 72" update. If it was that way, let's bring it that way regardless, especially with the new Normandy map. I know from bitter experience what uneducated comments and wish lists can do to a developer agenda.

Hard to say anything... At the moment I'm just an observer.

Solty's video looks pretty stable, almost like he's flying with level flight enabled (which is not available in DCS). And he did three runs and has a methodology, which is crucial to use any data as reference. Otto's video has a lot of tail dragging. It gives an idea, but it leaves it open to discussion. Although Otto's video was a surprise to me. I imagined the Bf 109 was significantly faster from what people say. But IMHO further tests should be done to say it so. Since Solty already did with the P-51, he might want to do the same with the Bf 109, who knows? I would want to know the results. I am still learning to fly the P-51D, and then I am in the dark regarding relative performance.

Sounds like a pretty stable test. Are you going to do the same with the Bf 109? That would be interesting -- a comparison between the two aircrafts carried out by the same person, same methodology.

The topic is old, so they might have simplified HDR to on and off. I had to go back to it, since turning off HDR makes things flat / blend. Canopy reflection seems to be worsened and in some angles you lose visibility with that rainbow (P-51D). I'm back to blinders for now... Maybe there is a way to fly without HDR and fix with SweetFX. I just hope that we have a realistic HDR option with the new maps. The sunglass / blinder effect is not only unhistorical / unrealistic but it hinders visibility a great deal in angles that the Sun should not be doing anything. I went for a run today at 9AM / blue clear skies (not a single cloud) and there is only a small angle where the Sun will interfere with eyesight. You can look at it from an angle and the blue of the sky / eyesight is untouched.

It does look better. Thanks for sharing. I saw some of these videos, but this one has what matters, a furball. I saw sun reflection on wings, which makes a huge difference. Planes have more contrast and volume as well. Unfortunately the resolution is too low -- probably to don't spoil the release / marketing. But from the looks of it, it is indeed promising.