Jump to content

M1Combat

Members
  • Posts

    1598
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by M1Combat

  1. Both techs seem to ghost at any setting under max quality, but at max quality... for me FSR has less to no ghosting. Seems consistent in all games but you have to be using the tech for quality and not frame time... because if you're doing it for frametime then you won't likely be using max quality. Honestly though... I don't use either one if I can avoid it specifically because of this.
  2. AMD's FSR is much better. Does all the things that DLSS does visually... but without the ghosting. Way better... Even on my NVidia 3080 ;)...
  3. I open mine too... and then set them to auto when I'm raising flaps and gears. I haven't flown the 51 much recently but it used to be that on a hot day on a server/mission that doesn't arm/fuel you... you could overheat and blow before or soon after takeoff simply because the doors are "SO" slow. At this point it's habit for me... and one I don't mind keeping up with.
  4. No. It's directly attributable to what the aircraft is capable of.
  5. Yes you still need this bound. What you need to do differently relative to regular (return to center) style setups is choose a different stick mode in the "special" options for the Apache. I don't recall what it's called for that type of stick though. Something about ne centering spring or something like that. Also... the idea with the FTR button... Press it and hold it while YOU are flying. Release it when you want the chopper to fly and continue doing the flight envelope you've placed it in.
  6. Thanks for the clarifications Raptor. To note... It's my humble opinion that there should be a master setting for FFB availability and the default should be "off"... which would then preclude any aircraft from having their defaults set to use a FFB stick type. I only suggest this because the Apache (at least when it was originally early access released) was set to use the FFB based control modes in DCS. Many folks didn't and maybe still don't know this, and it took quite some "shouting it from the rooftops" for people to catch on. I'm fairly certain the FFB sticks are very much the minority even in this community. Anyway... I know you're not the person that makes that decision... but I do feel like this style of decision shoots ED in the foot all too often :).
  7. Yeah I feel like the Yak still needs a decent bit in the FM department but I'm only going by what I've heard. How does the extra, edge or even maybe the spitfire do with that one?
  8. But how well does it handle a stalled hammer head and/or tail slide?
  9. I believe I addressed all that in my post I agree. That would be significantly better.
  10. I mean, sure... but why? Did you think they just stopped and didn't tell us? Did their lack of saying "we're still working on it we plomise" (kudo's for knowing the reference BTW) make you think they stopped? We all know they're making progress :)... telling us doesn't change anything. I'm sorry but if it's an "early access" release that means they will still have tons to do with the Phantom before "actual release" :). As much as I'm hoping for the EF... It's my 2nd or 3rd fav jet ever... I'm hoping they don't divert too much attention away from the Phantom too early :)... even through the Phantom is quite a ways down the list for me. We're talking about HB here though. They have a pretty good reputation around these parts :).
  11. I run a 2TB 980Pro for DCS alone so I've not really got a dog in the fight, but... I do think it could be useful to have a checkbox in the special options for each aircraft that will tell DCS to DL all liveries or some core set of like 3-6 liveries for each individual aircraft. THAT SAID... Can someone explain to me in clear technical terms exactly how ED is supposed make the updater decide who has what options set BEFORE the game is running? I mean... I can think of a couple ways but I just love how folks are always like "JUST GIVE US A CHECKBOX EZ PZ HOW HARD CAN IT BE???".
  12. People are effing hilarious. Absolutely ANY excuse to feel robbed LOL. VR is clearly "not" a core feature in the context of the other core features that are still in that section. If you take a look at what things remain included in the core feature list it's very clear that VR isn't and shouldn't be there any more than "Display devices" or "HOTAS RIGS" or "Homebuilt Cockpits" should be there. OK OK... I know, I know "Multi-Display Support"... @BIGNEWY MAYBE You wouldn't mind moving that one down here too... Honestly it could go either way. Multi-display support is almost always implemented per-software (keep in mind folks.... multi display is very different than multi-monitor... Google "frustum" to see why) whereas VR has an open and/or standard API that the software just ports the output to... So honestly multi display seems to make sense in core features or hardware and software Anyway... Just watering the mole hill
  13. I didn't ask you to remain silent sir :). I asked you to be nice, and it was simply asked because the world needs more nice and less rude. Your post was clearly an obvious jab at what you think was a release that shouldn't have happened because it made something subjectively worse for you and it was also made from a "high horse" as it were. It's fine to see it that way... that's not a problem... but some snide comment about it doesn't change the fact, doesn't help anyone and only serves to add to negativity. So be nice ;). Please :).
  14. Well... That's a pretty "This is a released product and we better not eff it up" approach... to put it nicely. IMO... If they find something that's modeled wrong or has wrong parameters they should strongly consider fixing it even if it affects other things in a negative way. The reason for that is simply because "early access... so deal with it..." as well as the simple fact that there could be ways they need it tested by the open beta team (damn near everyone I think... It's an opt in situation so if you're there it's your fault) so they can gather data about how it's affecting people that aren't gradually being introduced to the changes. Maybe they need to throw it all in one package for the open beta testers because the closed beta testers become used to the model as it gradually changed so now they're blind to the culmination of the total package of changes. Or... maybe it's an integral tested part of a bigger change and that change is important to push to the open beta testers so they run with it. Also... maybe keeping it "feeling nicer" masks issues in other parts of the model that they need to have corrected, but they aren't finding them because they've masked it by incorrectly tuning some other part. Either way... Be nice.
  15. Agreed. So the right terms might be "You've changed things that make it fly differently" or even "You've changed things that cause the aircraft to react differently to control input". I'm not trying to be a hard ass here... I'm just saying that the ED employees likely have a somewhat more nuanced approach to what they include when discussing "the flight model" than some of us why just fly the things. Because they and we operate from a slightly different perspective... we should all be willing to look at the subject with that in mind.. Them and us :). So yes... I also think Nine could probably have replied "We changed some parameters"... If he even knew LOL...
  16. That sounds a lot like progress :)... Keep up sir... Well... That's not "the flight model"... just a referenced data point the flight model uses. And the thing that caused that change is in the patch notes right?
  17. Seems like a pretty significant thing to leave out... but I suppose I also have no proof that they didn't just forget about them or something, so... Take that for what it's worth Sorry... your comment makes me laugh. This isn't War Thunder. To me it's fairly inconceivable that they even might have left out something like that :). Please don't take offense... It's just that making sure all that stuff is both "there" and "right" is the entire point here. That said... It's still early access but I can't imagine this being something that wasn't right there near the top of the list to implement super early. I mean... everything else would be affected by it so they would have to almost completely re-work the flight model after adding those to get it right.
  18. You can just look at the shape of the airframes and get a pretty reasonable Idea of capability or at least design philosophy. Yeah the engine has a pretty profound effect of course, but only in how you can use the airframe... not really in what it's fundamentally capable of. For example... LEX on the Hornet and small wings in the Viper. It's very clear the airframe of the Viper wasn't meant for dogfighting in the lower speed ranges, and the hornet was. Honestly... in just looking at the Viper I'm VERY surprised it does as well in a turn fight at all. But that's because just looking at it doesn't give you a clear picture of how much thrust it has. Once you realize it's a bit of a hotrod as far as thrust... Then it all makes sense. The Viper just isn't made for the same fight as the Hornet... And why should it be? They're both made for the same military. Why on earth would we have decided to duplicate capability in two different packages? Would have made absolutely zero sense. All that said... The Viper is still the top dog IMO... but only because it has a WAY better Aim120 launch than anything else in the sim. I still prefer to fly the Hornet. Also... I'm still convinced the F35 has the best of both worlds. I know, I know... everyone says "it sucks..."... LOL. OK.
  19. Probably because it actually is "correct" now... but that there are also adverse situations that could be made better. It can certainly be correct now and changed in the future to be less correct, but more usable. Also... It's "early access". These discussions are the primary reason for early access. Also... It makes a LOT more sense, based on what I know of ED's approach, that they would model the aircraft like it actually is first, then make concession for the people. Also... keep in mind that what we're discussing here isn't really part of the thread title. The thread was initially about concerns of the jet under-performing.
  20. Feels right to me... I suppose first we need to have 100% confirmation that it's actually a different setup in the Viper. The presented evidence "seems" to suggest that's the case for sure... but it was also based on data collected from two ENTIRELY different DEV teams. I'd like to see what the 18 does just to keep all the data we're looking at "in house" so to speak. If so... I guess ED would need to assess the viability of having that switch. Could be difficult to program, but "probably not". (<--- famous last words LOL)
  21. So... what we don't really know... When a pilot transfers to a viper initially... Do they feel the same thing being felt here? Do they decide that it's somehow sub-optimal from a control precision point of view, but also decide that it's worth it due to a stability issue if it's not the way it is? Figuring out how to make the aircraft react "properly" with a gimbal stick is one thing.. but simulating the initial reaction of a pilot transferring to a Viper may be more important ;). Or maybe not... We are just playing a game here.
  22. Agreed for sure. And until I got used to it, yeah... It was difficult to fly straight as you say. But after a while... I wouldn't have anything else and I would 1000% not use a deadzone. I've actually been waiting years for a better FSS and the time is "soon" :). On the subject though... Yeah I think the deadzone piece of the current Viper (I assume it's programmed in based on the presented data and nineline's comments) should be an option. The reason for the deadzone in the real aircraft just simply doesn't exist AND seems to be magnified by the regular displacement sticks, which are clearly the majority.
  23. As a side note... A deadzone with a force sensing stick is not optimal in sim. I know the Viper has one IRL and i'm sure IRL or maybe with a motion rig it would make sense but in sim with a non-moving cockpit it's better to have no deadzone. When I first got the X65F I had trouble just going straight. It was fine for all other directions :)... but just going straight with my hands on the stick took some effort. I looked into what others were doing to combat that and most people suggested a small deadzone. I tried that but it presented all sorts of other problems I didn't like... mainly... a deadzone. Eff that :). So I went back to no deadzone and just used it. I don't know how many hours it took to get used to it but at least 6-10 I'd say, but it's been many years. Now it's absolutely perfect. Many full tanks in all the aircraft sitting on a tanker. Lots of hovering in heli's without using "hover modes"... It's fantastic... but don't use a deadzone :).
  24. My 2c... I've been using an X65F for many years with no curves at all... It works great in all aircraft including the F16. I'm not 100% sure how it works out but if a force sensing stick seems to work great in all the other jets (including ones that aren't programmed differently) then why would a regular displacement stick feel odd with the Viper? Please remember though... It's been a LOT of years since I've sim'd with a regular stick. It just seems to me that I should be feeling a difference too, just in the other direction yeah? Don't get me wrong... The data presented above does seem to indicate a difference in response between the two jets compared but I do think the two compared jets should be the 18 and the 16. At least that way we get only ED's approach to the subject and we eliminate TWO variables. One being ED Vs. HB, the other being "mostly analogue" vs. "very much not analogue". Honestly comparing the Tomcat and Viper for this specific test seems a bit dis-ingenuous. I'm sure it wasn't meant that way... but it kinda feels that way a little.
×
×
  • Create New...