Farlander

You don't need to download the source code. Just the v2.0.0 release and then follow this installation guide

Yes. That is something i fixed in the latest code you'll find on "develop" branch, but it is not in the 2.0 beta release. FFB trim should now be better and the AFCS threshold is adjustable so you can tune it to your particular FFB setup.

Open to everyone. Just note that it's certainly not "release" ready just yet. While we think it is far more enjoyable to fly than the SFM at it's current state you will probably find bugs. Still working on FFB issues related to AFCS for example. Direct link to beta release zip

I have not been very active here, apologies. The EFM is available for testing by heading over to our Github and grabbing the "develop" branch. "develop" branch

It's probably a fair assessment that western aircraft, the ones that are iconic over here at least, might have a larger reach in general. However we now have the F-18, F-16, and several other iconic western aircraft in the game or in development at this point. Personally, and i think many others share this thought, the only full fidelity modern aircraft that would really be exciting now is something outside of western types. I already have more than enough western aircraft to chose from for any sort of mission. My excitement for the upcoming MiG-23 is just as high as for the Eurofighter. Even if it will not be able to compete it will give us at least a little upgrade over what we have now. Now replace MiG-23 with something more modern... That would be exciting :)

Great stuff! ty

304 pages, 4 years after (i?) started this thread, i'm still here with my hopes up that someone will pick up the MiG-25 one day in the future :) It would be a dream come true if the team to pick it up was to be HeatBlur, as their modules have been my favorites across the board! Though i may have to admit that i've been a little "hooked" on the carrier ops lately, and would certinly not mind something like an A-6 (or if we're really fancy, an AT-802U??) along the road hehe. Heatblur has convinced me with their artstyle and details, i would fly anything they release at this point.

This is no place for whataboutism. Bugs should be reported, and they should not be considered as "attacks" on a developer..

Oh, you don't need to read it, but i'd ask you to consider reading it if you're going to claim things about how it works.. I'm not saying DCS needs to go to this model, this was just a discussion, i see it's probably been argued to death and beyond already, so there is not much more to be said here.. I have not read the whole thing, i have no experience in this stuff, and so i really hope i have not said something which suggests thet ED doesn't know what they're doing, and that this is the perfect solution. I have no idea, and i believe ED has way better judgement than me.. However i have not felt the arguments you've made against it has made much sense to me. You also say this game has to focus on graphics and "art", suggesting that simulation and "science" has to somewhat suffer in areas. However some time ago in this thread you made the argument that a method of rendering which takes other "variables" (not based on geometry/mathmatics) into account, is an unacceptable solution.. Why would that be unacceptable then, if it was in the spirit of making the game "look good"?

Let's stay away from attacking people opinions by arguing that they're just bad. Even then the argument is questionable as well, as spotting habits probably would not be worsened to the point you'd have to unlearn what you did because of playing something other than DCS. Outside that, people with real life experience have also commented on the situation, and you'd struggle to argue that real life would make objects unrealisticly easy to see.

Definately agreed! "smart scaling" is very likely not a perfect (or maybe even a decent) solution today/for this game or for some other reason. I'm 100% confident there is a reason why DCS does not do it, but that does not mean i know why, or whether it's a good model if problems could be fixed. It's also important to specify exactly what we're talking about, yes. We could easily be mixing type identification (when/how well you can make out shapes), spotting (how easy it is to make out, at different distances), theoretical max range etc.. In this case i was talking about the identification of aircraft type, which obviously suffers quite a bit when using VR compared to a standard 1080p panel. It is not accurate to say you need to be between the nozzles of the target aircraft to visually identify aircraft in VR, but from the limited experience i have in real life of spotting, i'd say the range i'm currently able to do the same in DCS is a bit less (though this is subjective).. Personally i don't feel the max range of spotting aircraft has been a problem. Spotting is hard, and so it should be. However for me, i suspect because of resolution in VR, it seems unintuitive with regards to how fast the details of an aircraft fades away as you move apart, compared to how long you are able to track them as just a dot (again subjective..). I think most of us don't want an unrealistic experience playing DCS, if i wanted that, i already have labels. Though i think it is fair to ask the question if not solutions like these could provide a more "realistic" experience with hardware such as VR (or maybe other monitors too). In that report, it is pretty clearly stated that one of the unintended results of a scaling method like that increases size to unrealistic levels outside the "close range" area, and would need to be adressed in some way. That is a massive flaw, and i think most will agree it wouldn't be acceptable. Again my interest in it comes from the feeling that the "close range" is less than ideal currently, not because i want to have arcade/unrealistic levels of spotting or being able to see rediculus details at long ranges. iirc, tests on fighter pilots show spotting of fighters is difficult, and most had varying sucess and most results fell in the ranges of 3-6nm (tho i'm unsure). This is not to bring other games into the discussion, but we see elsewhere that good spotting (every aspect of it, and including DCS i'd say) can also be achieved without the use of this method, so it's important to keep in mind that this (at least from my part) was just meant to discuss one or many options.. Most of effects and visuals that are lacking i'd bet ED are already working on, improving or at least something they know of. I think this is an area where we will se some improvements later on in development (lighting?) edit: With regards to VR headset resolution, we're definately seeing very good development, but it's still going to be a long time untill we see "mainstream" (if that's in any way an acceptable term..) headsets with resolution challenging decent displays i think..

You're saying 3nm is point blank? let me remind you that 3nm is ~5500m.. idk what else to say... Step outside if you think that is a small distance. but even better, give me an example of how bad it looks :) just go ahead, i'll be waiting..

We already have games that use this type of scaling, coming up with some actual proof of the things you're listing off should be doable for you? I don't even slightly understand what you're trying to achieve with "expando-vision" explanation (or rather, baseless claims) or whatever. Again go read the actual paper on it.. I'd be surprised if i'm not much younger than yourself. I never experienced CRT's properly, and even then, it's well known that enthusiasts back then had way better resolution than 400x600 (CRT). I'll also remind you that certain games that employ this technique for scaling has no problem with 1080p resolutions or higher. (and has been able to do that for as long as i've been on the internet lol)..

I've played DCS nearly since it's release, i'm not having a meltdown anytime soon. And however crazy that sounds to you, that pixels on a screen appear bigger once you have your eyeball closer to them, it doesn't sound crazy to me.

But we can certinly be a reason for them to consider it worthwile, depending on how many of us would like resources to be spent on it. Something you've definately been an example of for the last 20 pages. This is a wishlist thread, i'm not trying to be a douche here, but you've been stating this method is impossible and is therefor not even something which should be discussed here... several times over the whole thread... And now you agree it's not "impossible" anymore, just because i actually listened to the 30sec you were basing everything on? I've come with what i think is reasonable responses regarding the claims, and given you a link to the actual paper of this method, so you can read up on it. You are allowed of course to mention how there is no problem with the current way DCS works whenever someone chimes in on this thread, but remember that this is a place for players expressing what features they'd like to see, and unless you prove evidence their opinions are invalid, they're pretty much as valid as yours :) I'm sorry, i just don't see how suggesting sitting closer to the screen, buying a bigger monitor etc. could be considered a serious solution to what's being discussed (edit: as an argument against another guys opinion on the use of software solutions. I don't have anything against you thinking that is a valid solution to the problem in general.. :)). Don't take this as a personal attack! It's completely valid to have the opinion that the current state is fine, maybe it is (idk).. But i hope you agree that discussing other solutions like "smart scaling" is fine.