strikerdg

same issue

Agreed, I’d rather have an FA-18F. Of any variety but as high a lot as they can get info for. While an easy transition from a user perspective it would be essentially creating a new aircraft for the developers. Two seat rhino gives the most attractive modern airframe, all of the benefits of a two seat crew to include FAC(A) and some serious legs and payload. I would gladly play from the backseat only in multiplayer. This is my top choice for aircraft and would truly make this a modern combat simulator. While I understand classification is an issue, lower lot rhinos have much in common with legacy hornets with that respect. Hornets limited gas, aged displays and limited payload will always leave me wishing for the rhino with a WSO. Not to mention it looks better.. two seat hornets don’t look right. Foxtrot is a different story.

We will see when it comes out. Gotta admit that if the only thing we are concerned about is the tint of the hud then so far so good on this early release... for the record I also thought it was a bit dark based on the videos released ;)

Bottom line it should be easier to see things. In BFM the other plane should appear larger than it does and I really don’t understand the specifics as to why that is. Science and stuff. Sorry I guess I don’t know how to reply to a post on these forums ha

Yes you can see them but it is unrealistically portrayed and honestly much more difficult than reality when it comes to visual acuity and perspective. As I said before I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why the scaling is the way it is but I can tell you with absolute certainty that the visual perspective of some other sims are much closer to reality. This is most apparent to me during bfm or formation flying. It’s quite usable in the current state obviously but it’s my opionion that this is the area lacking the most for realism in WVR combat. That and perhaps vibration/buffet at high angles of attack and max performance turns

Sorry if this has already been covered but has anybody else brought up that the visibility in that region is terrible? All of the videos I have seen show clear beautiful skies and water but having flown there year round I can tell you it should be a brownish haze most of the year until high altitude. I’m sure visibility can be reduced in settings but the sandstorms and pollution and overall environmental sin the area should default to much worse visibility than we have seen. Although the videos look beautiful they appear unrealistic if that’s what people are going for here

I have said it before and I will say it again.. scaling is the biggest issue with DCS. It makes WVR engagements, formation flying, and mid air refueling unrealistic. In my opinion this is the largest single problem existing with the game. I know there are many explanations for the reason why but all I can tell you is, from plenty of experience, the scaling is way off. You should be able to see aircraft a lot larger. At 1.5 miles you should have no problem telling a flanker from a fulcrum with your eyeballs and should be able to tell the paint scheme inside of that. The game looks like you are viewing the world from a GoPro at appropriate FOV. In reality you should be able to see what type of aircraft you are joining on (even a small fighter sized target) easily over 2 miles away and be able to tell their aspect. Additionally during BFM you should be able to see vapor and large control surface movements cross circle. I hope this gets addressed. Not saying that it’s perfect but Falcon 4.0 BMS is a much more accurate depiction of scaling at least for WVR and could be used as a reference.. BFM in its current form is very different from reality due primarily to this issue unfortunately.

I have said it before and I will say it again.. scaling is the biggest issue with DCS. It makes WVR engagements, formation flying, and mid air refueling unrealistic. In my opinion this is the largest single problem existing with the game. I know there are many explanations for the reason why but all I can tell you is, from plenty of experience, the scaling is way off. You should be able to see aircraft a lot larger. At 1.5 miles you should have no problem telling a flanker from a fulcrum with your eyeballs and should be able to tell the paint scheme inside of that. The game looks like you are viewing the world from a GoPro at appropriate FOV. In reality you should be able to see what type of aircraft you are joining on (even a small fighter sized target) easily over 2 miles away and be able to tell their aspect. Additionally during BFM you should be able to see vapor and large control surface movements cross circle. I hope this gets addressed. Not saying that it’s perfect but Falcon 4.0 BMS is a much more accurate depiction of scaling at least for WVR and could be used as a reference.. BFM in its current form is very different from reality due primarily to this issue unfortunately.

But US hornets do not correct? I don’t think that loadout is used or allowed but I could be wrong. Oh more buffet/airflow sounds at high alpha would be nice too! That is when the jet should be loudest.

I agree tint is a bit too much from the videos we have seen but let’s wait and a see when it comes out! Also since when do hornets carry aim9 on any spot except wingtips.. I’ve never seen that before but i could be wrong. I know super hornets do not ever. Last request is more shake/buffet while pulling gs and at high angles of attack. It should be slightly difficult to read the hud during max performance turns.. this sim looks great so far.

I see you have a similar setup to the one I'm looking at getting with EVGA 1080ti and your 7700k.. would you mind telling me how high your are able to put your settings with VR? I hear maxing settings is impossible with VR but I'm looking to get an oculus and upgrade some stuff to come as close as possible for 2.5.. any info is helpful! Also how bad is the resolution.. will I be able to read the HUD on the a-10? Or see the time to impact counter on the targeting pod?

Ok gotcha thanks

I see you mostly have the same rig I was considering upgrading to.. can I ask what sort of performance you are able to get with VR? How high are you able to put your settings (of note I do not plan to overclock much as I have never really been confortable or competent enough)

Ok well thanks for all the info.. I suppose I will attempt to max at 4k and then accept the best I can get with VR. I'm pretty much sold on the 1080TI.. I'll probably wait on the CPU upgrade until hopefully some more optimization out of DCS and this kernel memory issue gets resolved. Y'all think multi core support is coming our way for DCS?

Hey guys, I am about to get in to VR and I would like to be able to max settings either in VR or 4k hopefully both. Could somebody please suggest the cheapest possible build to do so? I am currently using an GTX760 i7-4770k cpu @3.5ghz 16.0gb RAM and can almost max settings running at 1920x1200. Also what would be the best VR setup to get? I was thinking of upgrading to 1080ti and getting an oculus rift? Maybe a cpu upgrade will also be required?

Awesome. Keep up the great work!

I don't know VR very well but the one time I got to demo it in a flight simulator the hands arms and head moved flawlessly with my hand motion. It made it very easy to see displays that were blocked as I would just move my arm out of the Way as you do in real life. I would like to see this eventually make its way to DCS. You could even pass hand signals to your wingman in the demo as the hand motion was extremely accurate and worked flawlessly. Maybe DCS already has this as is haven't tried VR except that one time with an oculus rift.

I've seen a lot of screenshots of work in progress hornet with pilots with gray AF style helmets. Wanted to make sure they were aware Navy uses white reflective tape on all helmets. I realize it is work in progress just trying to be helpful.

I am a big fan of DCS. The realism is great and the graphics are better. My biggest issue I have is that the current scaling method does not appear realistic WVR. When compared to BFM in Falcon BMS there is no comparison. Coming from years of experience and plenty of BFM in the real world your eyes perform significantly better than depicted in DCS. When you zoom in or reduce FOV that feels more accurate in terms of fidelity but obviously it comes at a cost. I understand that it is done for the sake of "realism" without scaling but I am telling you it does not feel right. I hope this is on the radar for developers as this issue makes BFM in the current versions of the sim unrealistic and honestly quite disappointing. The graphics are phenomenal but in real life post merge you can tell the aspect and orientation of the other aircraft much better. Heck you should be able to see control surfaces moving thousands of feet away. Is this something that is better with VR as I have never tried it. If not is this something that will be addressed? I bring this up because while I love the graphics of DCS the BFM is so far from reality that it drives people away. I am sure this does not affect many aspects of flight but for a modern combat simulator this stands out as the BIGGEST limiting factor to this game's potential.

Thanks so much for the insight! I think I will eventually get it once 2.5 comes out! Maybe the spitfire campaign as well.. I bet it will make me want to see the movie Dunkirk

Very cool! Thanks for the insight.. never knew that! Maybe it will be a late Christmas present to myself once 2.5 comes out!

Why RAF P-51 campaign? I am slightly ignorant to the history of P-51s used in this time frame and I am sure the British used them plenty but when I think of P-51 in WW2 I think of a US paint scheme.. why the RAF paint scheme in all the trailers for this campaign? If it truly is a British campaign is there a good US campaign for P-51s? Honestly it sounds silly but this is what is causing me to be on the fence about buying.. I want to either fly spitfires in the Battle of Britain over the cliffs of Dover OR I want to fly US mustangs over France OR I'd like to fly corsairs/hellcats in the pacific. So far I'm not sure I can do any of those things with DCS WORLD WW2.. please let me know if I'm missing something. Graphics look great but DCS world has been frustratingly unfinished for so long would IL-2 be better for WW2 European theater? I want to get in to it but with the extreme expense of individual modules and campaigns AND terrain I want to make sure I'm getting in to one that will actually let me fly the aircraft in the campaigns I am the most interested in. Thanks! Btw not at all trying to bad mouth this game just trying to get info before blowing way more money

I completely agree. This is closer to 550kts. 700 is way fast for a hornet anyways at that drag count while maneuvering even if it was a big motor Charlie. Breaking the number at sea level is certainly doable at max AB in a slick hornet but in level flight almost impossible with pylons and ordnance.

Thanks for the reply.. I downloaded the F-86 module from the dcs website, attempted to install it but it says DCS 1.28 is required to be installed. I do not understand. Why did 1.5 automatically see all my other modules but not the F-86? I bought everything through steam, the only thing I did not get through steam was the dcs 1.5 download and now the f-86 (which is already downloaded through steam). Sorry but this is a bit frustrating that this is not a clear cut process.

F-86 not showing in 1.5 I believe I have a similar problem.. Some of my steam purchases automatically updated and worked fine in the standalone (A-10C, P-51, FC3) but the F-86 is not showing up there.. how do I get it to work? People in the past have mentioned using the key from steam but where do I even input that on the standalone version.. the only option I see is to buy it..