Jump to content

Kobymaru

Members
  • Posts

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kobymaru

  1. The issue is still there for me with 2.9.3. At least core 8 trick still works, but I'm getting a bit tired of it, ngl. Any news on this? Still a bit boggled by the lack of updates for an issue that affects many players on newer-gen CPUs.
  2. What does the Gaming mode do, and how is it different from the realistic mode?
  3. You mean like this? https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=1139
  4. Here you go: Please also note that this is just one log among many logs in this thread with similar hardware (12th-gen/13-th gen intel).
  5. This issue is half a year old. At this point in time, I was kinda hoping for a "workaround" built into the game by ED themselves. Seen a lot of new stuff in the DCS news like Vulkan, Dynamic campaign, ... how is that going to work out if MT craps out on pretty common hardware?
  6. It seems to be horizon stabilized in low-altitude mode, but in my interpretation not in regular mode.
  7. Good find! This helped me find the corresponding section in the english MiG-21 manual: Looks like this is specific to the context of the Low Altitude mode. Is it in the same context in the polish version? The reason why I thought it is stabilized only in the roll axis is this: https://www.mig-21-online.de/mig-21/funkmessvisier/fmv-beschreibung/ translation A similar section is from this document (page 17,18) https://archive.org/details/RP-21_Sapfir_radar_technical_manual/RP-21M -MA technical description/ Bit strange that they emphasize roll stabilization but make no mention of pitch stabilization. Either way, doesn't seem like it 100% clear which way it's supposed to work.
  8. Thanks for your input! I tried to do some digging and you're right that it is stabilized in roll with ±70° in roll. However, I could not confirm the pitch stabilization. Do you have a source for this information?
  9. Dear Rudel, please don't put false words into peoples mouths. Your last statement about what "caring" means for users is simply not true. "Caring" for a module means that you fix bugs and issues that are known or discovered along the way. This not about adding new missiles or new variants or completely redesigning the damage model. This is about a large number of small and big bugs that have been known for a long long time. This includes trivial things like not resetting radar/alcohol when rearming and more complex things like the completely broken ASP logic. You can compare the rate of bugfixes to other modules. And if you do that, you will see that some receive fixes just about every patch, some receive fixes sometimes, some receive fixes almost never. And it is OK to call the latter category "abandoned"! You don't have to take this as a personal attack that you need to defend from, it just is what it is. Words have a meaning, and it's ok to call a module with a huge list of bugs that haven't been touched in 9 years "abandoned". So I kindly ask you to stop policing this forum like the defender of the mediocre and try to make everyone lower their standards. Let me quote you something from the official ED store where you can buy this module: What do you think users are entitled to after buying this module? Personally, I believe I am entitled to the most accurate and comprehensive simulation of a supersonic jet fighter with fully simulated systems, interactive cockpit and advanced flight modeling that will provide you with the most authentic simulation possible. Naive, I know, but I am a naive person like that who likes to hold people and companies to their promises. And I believe I still have not received "the most authentic simulation possible", not just in the pedantic literal sense, but also within the realms of what should be possible for a small developer in the span of 9 years. Do these modifications pass the Integrity Checks on multiplayer servers? If not, then this "solution" is not relevant.
  10. Out of curiosity, what is Phase I? And if there is one, what is Phase III?
  11. According to the MiG-21 DCS manual and any other source I could find, the radar of the MiG-21 is supposed to be fixed. If the radar can not be moved, then these limits should be relative to the aircraft axis and not the horizon. Because why should the radar care about the horizon if its fixed and pointed along the axis? This is not the case in DCS. You can easily verify this yourself by flying behind a target and slightly below, then pull your nose up so that it points way above the target, and observe how the radar contact does not disappear until you have climbed significantly above the target. In this screenshot, I am about 150 below the target before I pull up the nose. You can observe that the target is way below the small aiming cross which is -26.5 mrad = -1.5° which should signify the lower limit of the radar. Specifically, we're at around -110 mrad = 6.3° ! We can happily aim at targets 6.3° below our centerline as long as we're below it. The same situation but reversed happens when you fly above, and then point your nose downwards. Here, I pointed my nose at the target and kept it ABOVE the centerline, which should make the target appear on the radar. It does not appear, until my altitude is almost the same as the targets altitude. Assuming that the radar is fixed to the horizon, then if you are 5km behind the target, this means that the lowest the target can be is sin(1.5°)*5000m = 130m below your altitude and the highest the target can be is sin(17°)*5000m = 1460m above your altitude. You can verify that this is approximately the altitude difference at which the contact starts disappearing, completely regardless of your aircraft attitude. An even more fun way to verify this is flying inverted. Here, the target is CLEARLY far below -1.5°. It is also to the LEFT, relative to my current (inverted) attitude, but to the RIGHT relative to a level upright attitude. The radar shows the target on the right. Hopefully the radar will get some attention for the rework. Here's a track file to make bignewy and nineline feel better:mig21-horizon-radar.trk
  12. Same here. I don't need F4U or Christian Eagle or WW2 marianas, I just want MiG-21 that is up to 2023 standards.
  13. I think most here are in agreement. But it's all down to Rudel. He said he's busy with F4U right now, and MiG-21 rework is "planned" after the F4U release, whatever that means. So maybe 2028?
  14. Pulled too many g's after pulling out of a gun dive, so my wing went missing. But not to worry! Approaching Krymsk after a casual 50km flight. Tis but a scratch! Ok I admit, flight was a bit wonky. Had to give a lot of right aileron the entire flight, I wonder why.
  15. The funniest thing about this bug is that you can still somewhat fly the plane. Once I managed to land in one piece after getting a wing torn off.
  16. Or he is just tired of doing the work of testers for free. Or he's just fed up being asked for tracks like they aren't usually ignored. In reality, "gib track pls" is often not more than busywork to shut people up so they don't complain as much. BTW has this topic completely derailed and should I create a new one? Because in certain instances Petro STILL can't find certain targets, while it can find other targets right next to them. For example, in one instance, he was able to see almost every vehicle at an airfield EXCEPT a ZSU-23-4. Replaying that mission lead to the same result, where all vehicles close by (left and right) were able to be found by petro, but NOT that one particular. So I can guarantee that it had nothing to do with a broken raduga, or wrong gimbal limits. No, I will not provide a track for this unless you want to browse my hours-long several hundred MB multiplayer track. I have better things to do than spent hours of unpaid developer/tester work to create perfectly reproducible missions, for example I could be PLAYING a module that I paid for instead.
  17. Interesting video from Jabbers about VRAM usage: His workaround was to reduce the number of CPU cores so that I/O threads don't step on each others toes when loading textures. Potentially related to our issue, is our "disable core 8" solution maybe similar to his "use only 4 cores"? Or is it just coincidence and another reminder that Multithreading is hard on modern CPU architectures?
  18. I don't care too much about Su-25T, because that was a rare version that did not get rolled out much. What I would love much more is a full fidelity Su-25A! The Mi-24 is beautifully and lovingly modeled as if they actually cared. I really want something like that for Su-25a. They even have a piece already, the ASP-17 Gunsight is already modeled in the HIND! Plus, the added advantage is that many countries other than Russia have used this model, so there's a lot of access to documentation and museum pieces and even flying pieces. Analogue to how the US government "allows" models of older aircraft, there could be a chance that Russia might consider this too old to be relevant. I mean similar situation to the HIND, no? Both Hind and Su25 have more modern versions that are still in service. Of course I am aware that this is still wishful thinking given the current political situation and EDs unclear relationship with russian authorities. But a man can dream.
  19. We're all aware of this, don't worry. It's not like "STABLE" is anymore stable than "BETA", and if we don't complain here, the same bug will end up in "STABLE". We know everything is massive and complex, but judging by the lack of fix since this 4 month old thread started, the priorities seem a bit off. Hopefully threads like this demonstrate that it's a very common issue that should be addressed sooner rather than later.
  20. How can ED be barely able to reproduce this when you have a whole thread full of people who can reproduce it on a daily basis? I can reproduce it right now if you want. Is three anything we can do? Do you need more logs, do you need more system info, should we run some debug build? It's getting a bit silly, MT was super promising, now other features are depending on it, but game-breaking, perfectly reproducible stutters are ignored for months? What are these priorities?
  21. Because the module has been effectively abandoned for several years. It only receives the most basic fixes to keep up with DCS and new maps, if that. And before people give me the whole story about how they're busy with Corsair and it's TOTALLY not abandoned, I will admit being wrong the second they release fixes or improvements for any of the many bugs in the Bug Tracker or the Bug forum. But you can just take a look at the age of the reports/threads and the lack of patch and/or response that they're not actually working on this module. Or you know, just point to ANY significant improvement to the FM, Systems, Gunsight, Cockpit, or anything besides "fixed crash" or "added RSBN channels for XYZ map" in the last 5 years.
  22. Wanted to try again, first time after launch, as soon as I got into the "Select Role" menu, things started freezing up. Froze up so hard that my mouse started to stutter. Definitely still an issue.
  23. So the workaround for being too good at hitting things is that they're not allowed to shoot at stuff at all?
  24. I admit that this was hyperbole. But even AK-47 can hit me in a decent range with really high accuracy. The main point is, apparently all Ground AI have the magic "aim here to hit" reticle as the vehicles in Combined Arms. If you fly straight for 1 second, they will hit you. And not once or twice, but a continuous stream of bullets, despite maneuvering. I know it's theoretically possible to hit with an AK or a BTR turrent, but think about this for one second compared to real life: are you going to land a perfect stream of AK shots onto a helicopter? Can you judge the range, calculate the exact lead, bullet drop in your head, and perfectly keep the gun aimed at your calculated position? I would love to see a video of that, but while I doubt the average infantrist can do that, the AI in DCS definitely can. As I said, it's an extreme case of an issue with all ground vehicles. Aiming an MG on top of a tank, or a BTR/BMP gun is not possible this accurately without targeting computer. AA guns maybe, but even manual AA guns shouldn't be as accurate as they are. Sounds great in theory, but from practice I can only say that it feels like they just always know where you are. In the last few patches I have never seen an AI jet run out of flares. I didn't count because I was busy flying, but they were flaring through the entire fight. That's interesting to know. So they just "radio" your exact position instantly to every other unit on the map? Get spotted once, be visible forever? Would be curious about the blindspots, because I thought i got spotted from really weird angles.
  25. Here, I get a RWR detection warning at a range of 250 km! Mind you, the detection range of Buk is still 100 km. Mission: rwrtest_sa-11_250.miz Track: rwrtest_sa-11_250.trk A short time after the A-10 is shot down and crashes, the warning goes off and RWR is silent. Interestingly, no lock warning this time, just detection warning.
×
×
  • Create New...