M1Combat

I do find it helps to close DCS and re-open between MP servers... but not always.

Exactly. And I still can't wait :).

Same... Maybe this feedback could make it's way back to the pod cast dude... Would help.

He's doing a bit better later in the cast...

At least early on the interviewer seems very dismissive and disrespectful to the interviewee... He interrupts, says "yeah, yeah, yeah" over the pilot like he's trying to let the person know he already knows what he's talking about and his time is being wasted. He should definitely let the speaker speak.

Sorry to just barge in here with this but... "DCS isn't massively taxing graphically" Well it is :)... It's just that it's in very specific ways. One of those ways is DX12 draw calls. It saturates the DX12 draw call pipeline. There's no workaround for that exactly (ahem Vulkan) but as you've found there are plenty of optimizations for smoothness :). Good work it seems I've yet to try your ideas myself but I will. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

@Glide I don't think any settings in the NV panel affect DCS yes?

@holceRead what Speed said again. @The_Nephilim Setting super low res and running MSAA at 2x is no good either. You're forcing a smaller amount of data (pixels) just so you can then turn around and try to re-create the exact same pixels but from interpolated data. It's better to render the pixels with the actual data than to recreate fake ones. Makes no sense. Turn off MSAA and increase res until you get back to the frame times you were at. @speed-of-heat I'll bet the dude that posted the old 50% steam setting crap laughs every time he reads these... What a dork...

You might also turn the brightness down on that monitor... It may be just the pic but it's appears to be putting out a LOT of light and might be distracting to the cameras regarding allowing them to adjust the brightness of the image they're trying to process.

It would be awesome if you changed the title to something slightly useful.

I don't feel super cramped at 110 myself... I mean the sweet spot is more important for me really. I was just curious if anyone knew. I'm not sure I'd be ok less than 110... I'd rather see more for sure but 110 is super usable. I did see at least one pic where it almost looked like the round covers were removed almost like lense caps... and it appeared to be some form of lense behind that almost giving the impression there's an AR feature here as well. I'm not sure though... It was just one pic/render and I'm not 1000% sure what I was seeing.

Apparently it's only branded by that company but that seems for PR/exposure/hype reasons... It's actually made by Samsung as far as I understand. Samsung is the parent company as well...

Anyone hear anything about the FoV? The specs look pretty amazing especially for it's size/weight... but I've seen nothing about FoV... Am I missing some deal breaker? Price maybe?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

How do you keep track of what you "can" and "can't" answer?? I'd just be a wreck and wouldn't answer a damn thing...

Yeah but you don't need to fully understand all of the systems to just go kill stuff...

Look... Ed's lack of saying those things specifically isn't the problem. The problem is that some people, when they hear things like "we won't do that due to sensitivity issues" they translate that into "We decided we're too lazy and we don't want to"... so they b**** and moan trying to get their favorite pet feature of the sensitive area developed using something that "functions" like the real thing but "works" differently... like that's any less sensitive... Instead of that... people should just hear "we won't do that due to sensitivity issues" and put some actual realistic thought and reflection into the subject and at least translate it into "We can't do that because we were probably told not to... and because we agreed to that we actually get to make this sensitive aircraft at all".

Well... I don't have much problem fighting in the 51 and if I did I sure as eff wouldn't be blaming the aircraft for my problems... I know it's strengths and weaknesses. I use them to my advantage. Some lack of performance isn't why I say the engine is too fragile. I say that because there's just simply NO Way that the real pilots have suffered the same percentage of failed engines as I have while using proper technique in the Mustang. The 51 would have been retired friend. I mean... you really think you can beat the ever loving stuffing out of every other WW2 plane in the sim... but the Mustang was this fragile? Somehow that's correct? No way dude. The engine in the spit is "fairly similar" yeah?? Why no probs with that one?

The 51 engine is far too fragile. No way it was like this IRL. No. Way. That said it's still my fav. WWII fighter here :). I love it. I just wish the engine wasn't so dang fragile :).

Umm... No. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this so I'll just mention that there are indeed other helicopters in this game AND... one of them was actually the FIRST aircraft in the game...

Well... he said due to sensitivity... not why and how that came about or why it's a thing in this specific case. I was just trying to expand and point out that it's quite possible they've been specifically forbidden by the licensee to have an SA page. I'm just trying to make that point because earlier some people said things like "Yeah it's sensitive but ED could just do it in a way that isn't sensitive" and some said crap like "Sounds like ED is just being lazy"... I'm just trying to point out that we don't know... that maybe the license specifically says "Don't do that". It LIKELY says that IMO... but we don't know exactly.

I mean.. keep in mind that it's SUPER possible that the license specifically states "Don't add the SA page because it's sensitive info"... If that's the case it doesn't matter what ED may or may not be capable of or willing to do... they can't do it.

I'm fairly sure a year has some months in it... /EDIT Sorry I just responded that way because I get a bit sick and tired of people just trying to find every little way they can to tell others they're wrong. Don't take it personally Joey45. You probably didn't quite mean it that simply. Maybe it's been there for a year... I don't know. What I do know though is that pointing out something like this, that doesn't actually matter, only serves to divide, belittle and separate. We need less of that in this world IMO.

You're right it would be the opposite direction of a recoil force... About the same direction of movement that's currently being attributed to errant AP recoil correction :)... which was my point :). Regarding airframe movement on something other than the rudder axis... The whole system is a LOT more damped and/or stable on the other axes. Less from a moment arm perspective more from a centripetal force perspective.

"They also mention that it was "...able to score accurate hits at targets at 4,000m distance"" That has been accurate in my experience with the DCS Shark. With the AP rounds anyhow... The HE rounds aren't quite as accurate. "The bug being that there are recoil counter-effects built into the autopilot. When you use rockets for example, ED wanted to create recoil when firing them, and thus the AP of the Ka50 would counter them with opposite input. The problem is that the recoil effects were never implemented in e.g. the rockets because they don't have any IRL. The tubes are open at the rear." This is interesting... Clearly it would be correct to not have "recoil" in an open tubed rocket launcher (see a shoulder launched TOW for example...) BUT... What about friction? Just simple friction. When you see a rocket being slid into a rocket tube... especially the larger ones... the person tends to have to push on it quite firmly to get it seated all the way into the launcher. Wouldn't there be just as much force required to overcome the friction and move it in the other direction? If so... Wouldn't THAT force be what we might be mistaking for AP corrections programmed in to counteract this non-existent recoil? By that I mean... maybe the AP isn't actually doing that... but maybe they've built the friction forces and subsequent airframe movement based on the force applied as the rocket slides forwards out of the tube? Roughly the same force the loading personnel would have used to push it into the tube?