Bogey Jammer

Man this is beginning to irritate me. I can't follow your contradictions anymore. I feel there is actually nothing to debate. I just wanted to tell that an airstrip that saw asphalt in 2017 for the first time, would look weird in a cold war scenario, and reciprocally for the planes. Realistically or not, sandbox or not. Anyway the Caucasus theater will not be enhanced more than it is planned for the 2.5 version as the official sources said. They just don't even want to append the old Crimea theater data… I still hope for surprises though, like everyone in this topic.

It's about to be coherent. If you want all the small airstrips that were always been available, that's fine. If you want the 2017 version of Caucasus with the latest asphalt runways, you will also need modules of the latest aircraft that we will never have for them, and why not an expansion of the theater to Ukraine and Turkey. The airbases may still be physically here today, but let's face it, they are totally ruined and no more used. I've read about the Bombora base, supposed to be restored for the Russian Navy, but the airbase is still hangar-less on the latest sat pictures. Mozdok, the home of a heavy bomber regiment left almost 20 years ago… Kutaisi is still ravaged and they have not took yet the decision to relocate the ridiculous number of Su-25 left, rotting outside for years, etc… I posted the MiG-21 example to show that personal preferences makes things even harder to find a compromise. Like you said, it's not era fixed but it is certainly not 2010's friendly either.

If you want something realistic and up to date, remove half of the Russian airbases and all Georgian but Vaziani. I personally want to keep everything as we have today to land my cold war era MiG-21bis on a practical runway.

I said that because the texture mod alone can't solve the problem. Tuning it back to realistic values would be better than removing it completely. This specular shader is necessary and essential since the late '90s

It's a shader issue. Sometimes the glass materials are broken during updates and some planes are affected although they were not touched.

Now the mission editor seriously needs some upgrade to manage that.

The answer can only be found after trying both. The resolution is the main issue and affects gameplay. So depending of one's game expectations, the satisfaction varies among people. I'm personally struggling with ground attack only. Everything else, and more specifically combat maneuvers, are enhanced. In general the DK2 users were very happy with it. The return to monitor becomes impossible.

I tried super sampling both 1 and 1.5 factors (higher settings makes unperceptive difference). Thanks to the oculus tray tool I just discovered with your help, the frame rates are still good. I concluded that SS factor of 1.5 is definitely better than nothing. Everything including ground targets are noticeable from longer distances. It is still too short to hit with the Kh-25 but I can now reach the authorization of launch range. The biggest problem is probably the flattened vegetation and features on the Caucasus textures. They are totally baked and the fake immobile shadows make too much contrast and prevent the ground's look to react according to the lighting conditions. Some normal mapping would help. Maxnoise setting unfortunately is ineffective in this case, and I don't want to reduce the texture quality since I'm also a helo enthusiast. In practice, the ground units are more contrasted against the ground when the sun is placed in the front hemisphere of the line of sight. Vertically-aligned sun is better unless it is too near from the horizon causing glaring. Being in low altitude is also better because of the reduction of the area to scan and the lower visual pollution of air turbidity nicely rendered though. Not to mention the basics of the perfectly adjusted position of the Rift on the head and cleaned lenses.

I prefer the real thing :devil:

WW2 warfare is OK, but doing CAS with jets requires much longer weapon launch distances. I just can't use laser guided missiles with the Su-25. Interesting. I'll try that.

Try the Mi-8, its cockpit is a flying cathedral's interior through VR

I can't live without my Rift now. Everything is enhanced and more comfortable except the visual detection of ground units. It is difficult already on monitor, it is close to impossible with the current resolution of VR devices. Is there any tip or workaround to add some visual detection range ? (except painting ground units' skin in pink :P) Do you think ED can tweak some features in the current engine for realistically enhancing the visual discrimination against the environment ? (shadows, albedo, shader reflection, LOD vs distance, sub-pixel rendering, …) That also can be profitable for air-targets detection, but against the sky, it would probably require another topic.

4) too for me I like this kind of open poll without using the poll tool. What are the "inaccuracies" mentioned in 2) anyway ?

Don't forget to suppress the cockpit buttons sounds and raise the wind's sound level as high as the engine to get something realistic. I prefer not to use this kind of mod because it is a personal interpretation to flatter the ear. Footages are the last resort for sound reference. Aircraft sound pressure is so high and outdoor recording so difficult that only dedicated professional grade recording equipment and experience should be trusted for sound reference. Anything else is like adding sugar. Before that topic was created, I had no idea of polycount differences among the WW2 modules. Actually I bought the Bf-109K because it looked the most realistic among them. Polycount doesn't come to my mind anymore because shaders and textures are a lot more critical. And again, the zoom required is not that minimal don't exaggerate. What about the Fw-190 ? Are you talking about graphics only ? because the Bf-109 feels perfect in terms of fun when I play with it. DCS is far from perfect, there are tons of gameplay major issues and it ruins its reputation as the years pass. What you are saying is very sad because you only care for a superficial aspect, the most candid one ever since the 90's. So ED can only recruit 3D modelers if customers only want eye and ear candy without actually play the game…

Sorry mate but I still think your demand is too extreme. Even though the users are allowed to reskin the thing, you have too wait for them because skinning is not something that can be made that easily. Plus it requires to be scaled x2 or x4 to match the finesse you want for the mesh… I don't agree with you about the zoom factor. I REALLY need to zoom a lot to overcome the screen resolution and notice the mesh edges. VR is even less demanding. So even though the Bf-109 may be inferior at the area you're pointing, I will not care until ED refreshes at least, the F-4E, Su-22 and the heavy bombers.

Seriously, when you zoom in so much to see this mesh level of detail, I don't understand why you're not alarmed by the texture's pixels that are much more evident from a so close viewpoint… Is it really an issue ? The Ka-50 cockpit is in a worst condition, and there are other meshes that desperately need love since 2004's Lock On days… Development is obviously too slow to refresh every module every time something new raises the bar a little bit higher.

AFAIK there wasn't any pilot assistance system at these times. You can directly get the TAS shown in the info bar of the F2 view.

Normandie: 2.0

This post would be helpful if such things existed for the MiG-21… :doh: However there are some videos and the fact that payload currently does not affect the simulation (I haven't tested that myself) to support that something is wrong. Data logging was performed by the dev-pilot though. Only he knows the truth.

I don't think so: Jets can indeed roll at 720° rate, but not instantly like it is now. There is actually something to tune for the roll inertia. Controllers are not to be blamed.

It's quite a handicap for you, but it's part of your country's history you can't avoid that. Anyway weapons can be turned against their genitor :P There is an english panel version. I ended up to leave authenticity for it because it's so much more convenient. Not all buttons and switches are used in flight, and the MiG-21 is basically very simple. It's just a matter of neglecting harmony of cockpits parts and placements in that era, and lack of modulable architecture among versions. The next soviet generation of aircraft seemed to correct this problem. Anyway 1 switch = 1 function there is no mistake possible. I found it easier to use than the F-5E overcrowded with worthless switches as usual in US aircrafts, and The Mirage 2000 is much more difficult to remember for me for configuring the systems. It depends on tactics and experience. The MiG-21bis actually enhances the gameplay compared to the FC3 simplest F-15 because of the constant search of workarounds and exploitation maximization of the plane. This is where the fun is. Red/blue sides are just academic aspects. The world and civilizations are much more complex. Eastern Europe is extremely complex for me… The MiG-21bis turns to be the favorite of many people. Admit it, you already like it :devil_2:

OK, I hope everything will go smoothly. Remember, you're responsible of my favorite module ;) Please man :doh: the answer is in this topic…

here: https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=396

If it was an IR missile, there is no way the SPS-141 could detect it and react. Anyway the current modeling of the SPS-141 isn't working at all currently.

It's perhaps the saddest news about all of this. But considering the amount of time required to create a theater ecosystem, and difficulties to polish the last long running MiG-21 issues, it sounds more reasonable that way. I remember that it was announced some time ago that the F-14 development would bring stuff probably related to module programming and modeling, and both future and past released modules would be enhanced by these. Since the team split, how the M3 team is impacted with this potential loss of effectiveness ?