M1Combat

They haven't gone silent. You just clearly aren't paying attention :). Even to THIS thread where they have responded ... in the same way I've seen them respond to this question dang near every time it's asked. They will NOT give release dates any more (I'd love to go into why, but I won't... you're welcome) so the only thing they have to share is that they're working on it. Do you think that's a lie? Three things... Lets start with expectations... One... What makes you think that Vulkan and multi-threading are going to significantly impact YOU in DCS? Two... What do you think the overall immediate impact of Vulkan and Multi-threading will be in DCS in general? Three... You realize these modules that have been releasing recently have been in development since about the same time or even before the engine team was put to work on the re-write? I mean... have you been around since before 2.1? The Edge update? That was needed before the vulkan/multi-thread update and I'm pretty sure the new Vulkan/MT stuff has been worked on since then or likely before. It's been a subject for a "long" time friend :). It's not like they were like "Hey... lets attract MILLIONS of people by telling them that we'll update the engine... then... while they're waiting for THAT we'll just bait and switcheroo and sell them these super easy and quick to create modules to STEAL their MONEY!!!! MWAHHH AHHH AHHH AHHHHH!!!!". Come on... Seriously... This isn't some 12,000 employee AAA title developer that STILL just re-skins COD and FIFA 99 every effing year... AND... the software they're building is SIGNIFICANTLY more complex. Oh and ONE MORE.... They DO actually create engine updates if you look around and know what to look for. Have you taken off from one of those new fangled "Not perfectly flat" runways yet? Yup... that's a VERY important core engine update that actually affects more people than Vulkan/MT will for years. Vulkan/MT will really just bring VR performance up to being equal to pancake performance (at best... IMO...)... then the devs and community will go about finding super cool ways to use all the extra performance that will be on the table after Vulkan/MT is built. Just be patient. Anything else seems entitled. So far ED have a VERY good track record of doing what they say they will. It's just they also have a VERY good track record of over promising on release dates :). Look... What are your hardware specs and what are you trying to run? Are you just assuming that because you can crank up the options in other games and get good FPS that this means the DCS engine is bad? It's just not that simple. Not even if those other games are Flight Sims. This one is different. That's not a cop out. It's the truth.

That was my point

So how many of the module creation folks do you feel have the expertise to re-write the underlying engine? Not only does the company actually need to survive first and foremost (sell stuff)... but also the game runs spectacularly when not running VR as far as I can tell. I only run VR though...

Yeah that's exactly how. It makes it so I have to pay attention to the terrain... so I just find it much better to set the trim to produce what I need the aircraft to do for a while without the alt hold. If I have to pay attentiont to the terrain anyway I'm basically still flying the thing and it's taking part of my attention away from searching and destroying. So... I find it better to just accurately set the trim in those situations and as long as I trust my trim I can do what I need to do with only glancing out the windows occasionally. With the added benefit that I can get where I'm going a bit faster ;). The benefits simply don't outweight the drawbacks. I feel like with the alt hold I'm always flying around it and if you get good at setting a long term trim (as I suspect you are) you just don't lose anything. And the other big one... When you're at a high hover a ways behind a ridge and you chop the power to start a descent (to avoid fire etc) the att hold channel fights you so you end up about .5 seconds late into your evasive move compared to if you had alt hold off. And again... I have yet to find an offsetting benefit to having it on.

Bring flares... Useless relative to some other stuff... sure maybe... But not useless. I've done many a shark missions (even MP) at night.

Love this stuff. Thank you to everyone who put in time to make it happen. Bravo

I played around with it quite a bit some time back... my take away was that I do like it, but... I found vikhr's more difficult to use in close combat, while guns and rockets were about the same. Vikhr's at distance is pretty similar. I do like the way the heli behaves... but I found ultimately that I prefer a bit of the stability augmentation. If you're holding the trim button while flying (you should be) you kinda have the best of both worlds... full control authority but with the stability augmentation that gives you that last bit to get guns on target more steadily.

The above turn rate numbers in the graphic are for F/A-18 E/F it looks like. Very different aircraft.

Fo Sho... I'll very much look forward to the charts for sure I just won't be too bothered if they aren't available on day one :). It's all good. I can find the data :).

Really... My smiley did that? Wow. You are clearly both overthinking this and underthinking it all at the same time. Really... LOL.

I never said they shouldn't give us the charts... But thanks for AGAIN deciding to be on the attack, make a bunch of assumptions and try to climb back on that high ground you were never on. Seriously... I'm 100% sure I didn't pee in your cherios so I can only assume you just did it yourself by just deciding to look down on people by default. IMO this doesn't even have anything to do with an EM chart any more. It only has to do with YOU trying to justify not just doing EVERYONE in this thread a damn favor and saying something like "Hey it sounds like you're saying the devs shouldn't giver us a chart because you don't trust them or because you don't think it will be accurate or because you'll need to spend some time verifying it or something..." and I would have clarified a long time ago. Instead you chose the "be a dick" route. GFY. I'm tired of your bull<profanity>. You made assumptions about what I meant and I've attempted to clarify from post one and you just want none of it. Your goal is clearly to simply find someone to pick on to try to make YOURSELF feel good about YOURSELF... You could have simply asked instead of making assumptions... I would have clarified... But you didn't want that... You would rather choose to belittle people and try to find fault with them and what they say. Well... You mis-understood me. I've clarified AND not changed a damn thing I've said... only clarified. I've even tried to say I'm not interested in your conversation if you're going to just make assumptions and be a jerk... But no... you just keep being a jerk. Keep going if you like... I don't care. But you are certainly not going to put words in my mouth and then attack me as if I'd said them. Or you are... but like I said...

I think you'll want saturation to make it less washed out and the RGB are used to re-balance. You might be able to turn all three RGB up equally to add saturation. I'm not sure as I've not messed with the color settings yet.

Let me just try to clarify... I don't think that the charts provided (If they are provided) should be used blindly. We have NO idea if they are stock charts, charts built from a flight model 6 months before whatever FM we get first... no idea. So... at the LEAST they need to be verified. The absolute BEST they can do is give us a ballpark to start from (save us a few minutes). But... When I get the aircraft I'll want to fly the dang thing... So IF we get charts I'll take a quick look and then set about verifying them. If we don't... I'll set about learning what would have been in them anyway. Can I hazard a guess that this is pretty close to what you might do??? Please keep in mind I'm only trying to mention the overview as opposed to every step in the scientific process leading to good data... before you decide to write out whatever 900 steps you can think of to prove to yourself that I'm a gamer and you're simmer...

Yikes dude. You're SUPER condescending :). Thanks for assuming the opposite of what I meant about practice LOL. What I meant was that practice makes permanent... as opposed to perfect :). It all depends on if you're practicing right or wrong in the first place. If you're just practicing whatever chart you're given without proving it's correct first... well... then you just don't know. So again... it's the DATA that's important and it needs to be verified, or derived if it wasn't given in the first place. Exactly what I've said and meant from the beginning no matter how much you'd prefer to find people to point to and support your own view that you're on a higher horse to yourself. Anyway... I can tell you're just here to show everyone that high horse you think you're on so I'll leave you to it. Just note though... from the very moment I said something you've done nothing but try to point out how superior you think you are completely based on incorrect assumptions about me and what I've said. You "evidently" look down on people as a first approach and "assumably" only change your mind once they've proven to you that they deserve a different treatment. Well... You don't know me... and you can go stuff your assumptions that make you look both 12 and like a jerk. And then you keep saying the SAME thing I'm saying. LOL I mean aside from the manual thing :)... I just thought that was funny. But whatevs... I guess I'll just chalk it up to a complete lack of a sense of humor too :).

"It's actually easier to make sim-specific charts than to make the sim match ones from the real manuals." I know :). "You could just as well say we shouldn't get the systems manual" Yeah... no need until it's done :). Practice makes permanent :). Anyway... it's a thread for progress pics :)... Sorry for helping to drag it off topic :).

I know Big :)... I'm not trying to be disparaging at all I'm just trying to point out that it seems to be getting a reputation as being useless and inferior to SRS "so why even try". I know it will get better and almost certainly be the best solution (from a sim standpoint at the least)... but it's just that the longer it goes unfinished the more likely it won't be widely adopted... and that makes me sad because while SRS is great and I use it... I would LOVE to have the other effects that the ED solution should bring :)... but they'll only really be useful if it's widely adopted :).

I didn't mean like air friction or something :)... What I meant was piston to cylinder wall friction... so RPM :). And that creates bucket loads of heat.

I agree it would make our lives easier :)... but we would still need to verify ;). Every patch :).

That's what I said. I'm just saying that one can derive the EM chart without having the EM chart. The DATA is important. Not the chart. Get off your high horse. You keep being super condescending assuming I don't know what I'm taking about because of your own assumption. I'm just saying that having a chart provided by the dev of the aircraft isn't super important. Having the data is important... however you choose to get it. Look at a chart... good for you. Go build a chart... good for you. fight against a known opponent and explore what the new toy does (and take notes...)... good for you. They all work just fine to get to the DATA that you need. The CHART... It only keeps you from going and learning the data for yourself... AND... you still have to go verify the chart. So... Not super important. Or just go memorize a chart that you only know is "probably close enough" and then that's how you'll fight too... Works for me

I mean I get it :)... I'm just saying you can go figure it out (either the dogfight stuff or the flight stuff) and you're good. It's not like when you're merging you're referencing a diagram looking for that one plotted line labeled "Good Corner Speed"... You're flying the thing The other stuff that Swift mentioned is performance envelope info as well

The longer it takes to fully implement this built in radio solution the more people will try it and reject it. I understand that things take time and all that for sure, but... I'm starting to hear people talk about it as if it's done and that it's not good compared to SRS. So people are not realizing that it's a work in progress. They think it's just what you've got and that's it so they migrate to SRS. Also don't get me wrong :)... I'm not against SRS it's a great solution as far as something 3rd party with all the limitations that comes with. I'm only saying that the longer the built in solution takes the less likely it is to be adopted widely once it's done.

The ducking issue was fixed last patch as I recall. It's a WIP as well... nowhere near fully implemented. It should replace SRS eventually but with a few better features. primarily distance and terrain based attenuation etc... The radio's will work just like they do IRL. It will likely be somewhat better than SRS but it has a ways to go. Honestly I've NO idea why they don't just dedicate the time to finishing it ASAP. As it is they're really just making it seem like it's a bad solution and people will maybe not take a second look once it's complete. Kinda shot themselves in the foot if you will IMO.

Go to that post and read from there :). I'm not sure what the problem is but I'd run through the install destructions "exactly". Including removing all mods (for now... add them back after to see if any break it), do the clean/repair step, all of it. For the D3D47 file... delete it instead of rename...

The charts are not very useful. Maybe they save you a few minutes of flying looking for the performance envelope yourself, but... why would you do that? We're here to fly :).