firmek

Straight to the point - When? :)

You mean a towing line :D ? Joking apart, this was only an experimental unit: http://ourairports.biz/?p=960

Thanks for the link. Using both G-Sync and V-Sync on is a bit different topic than just the G-Sync and V-Sync considered separatelly. Only with the G-Sync on there is a hudge difference when it comes to screen tearing reduction. Also, the V-Sync on its own does add significant input lag. The video is just for reference. I wouldn't call it subjective as it should be rather obvious and most should be really able to notice a difference with V-sync (only) on. How much one can tolerate it is is another topic but for me the V-Sync on makes the mouse feel like connected with the monitor through a rubber band. You can also see that in practice the G-Sync/FreeSync with V-Sync on can give different results, sometimes also increasing the input lag (results at about 11:30 minutes):

I have absolutely an opposite impression. The high refresh rate is where you benefit most from the adaptive sync technology like G-Sync. Especially if the FPS go above the monitor max refresh rate. No issue with TIR also, actually the higher refresh rate the smoother and responsive the experience is. 50-60 FPS and more is where TIR starts to provie an imediate feedback. There are settings in Nvidia control panel that may affect stuttering - max pre-rendered frames. Lowering the value, for instance as far as 0 generally decreases the input lag (from a device like the mouse and TIR) but may introduce stuttering. Increasing does opposite. It's not a placebo effect, this setting actually can make a difference. I'm running at max pre-rendered frames set to 1 or 2 as 0 was creating too much stutter. On opposite end, setting the value to 3 created a noticeable delay for TIR - comparable to the difference with turning on the precision mode in TIR software. As for the Nvidia settings also try to set the threaded optimization to Off. Try to experiment with this setting as depending on this option may slightly inrease the performance and limit the micro-stuttering. Another setting worth playing with is the preload radius in DCS, increasing it may actually decrease stutter when you move your head arround. No harm feelings but getting a high refresh rate monitor with a G-Sync and a GPU that is capable to support it and then capping the FPS and turning on Vsync in favor of G-Sync sounds counterproductive. Vsync has so many drawbacks that it should be avoided at all cost. The most noticeable is the tremendous input lag. It's pretty much a no go for any fast paced game like an FPS but also for a TIR users creates an extremely noticeable delay between turning the head and the image displayed on the screen. I'm running a 100hz G-Sync monitor and wouldn’t like to go back from it. A screen tearing free experience is just amazing. No more of this:

+1. I'm also looking forward for Mi-24 but I don't see how it'll be a game changer. While a western attack helicopter would be a game changer and as far iconic the Mi-24 is with generally analog avionics, the KA-50 is much more capable platform. The answer to the Mi-24 replacing Mi-8 question is actually not so obvious if you look from DCS perspective - which is not always reflecting the real world. For the most part how the MP missions in DCS are currently setup, the lift capability and hull capacity of the helicopters quite often does not matter. Through the CTLD script, Huey and Mi-8 are able to take the same ammount cargo, squizing an SA-6 into internal cargo compartnment plus taking a group of soldiers next to it. In other words, much depends on the mission designers which currently have tools to design the missions either towards "balancing" or by taking an realistic approach.

Actually IMO 2.5 will be a great moment to start clean, vanilla install. Then maybe add some personalized configuration: Priority: 1. The view configuration, maintain same FOV across all aircrafts, disable the zoom-out effect at start, same min/max "zoom". (my personal, priority 1 must have) 2. Additional, (Hotas) 2 and 3 way switches bindings for TM Warthog 3. Kneeboards Optional: 1. Cockpits Not using too many this days as a.) vanila ones are quite great (and Mi-8 got great black, english cockpit from Devrim :thumbup:) b.) the manuals mostly use the native language cockpit naming 2. Liveries Also not using too many as for the most time I prefer the missions with disabled external view. After 2.5 I would stay away from: 1. 1.5.x ground texture mods - obviously not applicable anymore 2. Sound mods - due to new, improved sound engine.

Theoretically yes but consider that the MiG-29 had replaced 21 and 23 which had been fulfilling the interceptor roles. Also neither East Germany or Poland had the Su-15 but applied MiG-29 as an interceptor platform.

Hornet, Mi-24 and F-4. Also I'm holding on with playing few DLC campaigns till the new Caucasus comes out. However, mostly looking forward to an announcement about Tornado being made :D - as this aircraft is my all time favorite.

+1. Many things can happen, examples that came immediatelly to my mind: Gimli Glider - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider - run out of fuel due to unit conversion mistake during fuel ammount calculation. Flight 254 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_254 - many mistakes, a navigation error, pilots making a confirmation bias mistake and on top of that being busy listening to the futball match audition. Finally the Harrier Alraigo incident - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo_incident

I'm sure Super Sabre will come to DCS eventually. It's a question when rather than if :) With MiG-21 and F-5 in place as also MiG-19 and F-4 in development DCS really needs F-100, F-105 and A-4 :)

I've got the C-101 on sales. From that perspective, ~20 bucks seemed like a steal. I knew that the flight model and attack version are in progress so in reality I used the oportunity to get it cheaper and wait till it's more complete. What I liked: - attention to details, like the plane spawning with wheel chocks, GPU unit showing up when requesting to connect the ground power. Big plus for that, a small details that looked refreshing in DCS :thumbup: - cockpit instrument lights - external model What could be improved - cockpit textures quality, especially in some places the textures look like a really low resolution. Overall, my personal impression was that the cockpit looks a bit dated. Comparable to times of A-10C and Ka-50 in DCS. L-39 is great but it's an east block trainer. I really hope that C-101 will mature and fill the gap for a NATO trainer - good luck to AvioDev with that :thumbup: For the moment however I think asking ~60 USD is too much, especially considering that L-39 is at the same price.

I had seen similar warping problem already a few times. Everything is fine as long as other planes are relatively far. As soon they get close warping begins. In example, while starting up plane on apron I have been observing others landing. Everything was smooth and nice until they came close. Even when taxiing and parking next to me the other planes had been warping all over the place.

I would like to propose to make the targets visible on F-10 map. Not necessarily all units but just a "flag" (command vehicle) indicating location and ownership of the target - a system similar to the dynamic Caucasus server. The rationale is that the targets and status are well known through the online map. Pilots flying planes like A-10C, Mirage or any other with navigation system don't really care. Others have to find the target on the map in order to plan the route - for instance just to see the heading and range to use the TACAN. Having to find the location on F-10 map by moving mouse cursor to a specific lat/long is just a frustrating formality and a waste of time. User labels help to some extend but in many occasions there are the self righteousness simmers that feel a huge urge to delete them. It's not cheating - today I had marked a target to use the ruler to get the range and a bearing to setup TACAN in F-5. Before I got the ruler someone has deleted the comment marking target position. However, to make it more realistic the own position should be disabled from F-10 map.

:) We can assume it'll take really long to migrate to Vulcan, without any guarantee of a performance boost. It's a lot of work, requires to rewrite the whole rendering engine at least. In reality probably much more especially in an quite old application as DCS there is no pure rendering engine - "business objects"/logic separation. On top of that it's a totally different API which requires a different "mind-set" when programming. Obviously I don't know the details but to set the expectations I would expect even more work than the whole 2.5 merge migration. Not being negative but just stating the facts as it seems according to some posts we could get an impression that introducing Vulcan is guaranteed to triple the performance and will happen in DCS in 3-6 months :). Not even mentioning that just by going to Vulcan will magically make DCS to be multi-platform. Take EA/DICE and BF1 as an example. With the budget of AAA title their DX12 renderer is still experimental and yields a worse performance than the old, DX11 one with no noticeable visual difference.

Purely from the fun aspect of it - Mi-8 all the way. It's one of the modules that just flying it gives a lot of fun. With every other aircraft after a while I wan't to switch to some other tasks. L-39, Spitfire and MiG-21 (love that fast landings) from the fixed wing units. MiG-15 and Sabre are also quite fun to fly. A-10C for me is the least of the pilots plane - the only one that can take a bird strike to the back of the engine :D

I used the winter sale to get C-101 and 3 campaigns, for... ~40 bucks. Almost makes me feel bad. It's like a steal.

With more modules coming to DCS like F-4, F-14 and F/A-18 the situation is not going to improve. We can accept what DCS gives the mission creators to play with or try to fight it. IMO fighting it will just increase the IFF hell which already is a problem on many servers. Some may not care but some find it as an immersion killer. The other way would be drop the concept of "balancing" the airframes (which IMHO is a dead end) and try to work out another system - like player numbers, number of lifes, supplementing the sides with AI flights, air defences, etc...

Sometimes the langague can play tricks :). There is actually magnetic declination as well the deviation. Both are important and well known by sailors. The declination comes from the earth magnetic field variance while the deviation is caused by the nearby metalic objects. In other words the deviation can vary from a compass to a compass and between vehicles in which it is installed. Deviation however is generally canceled by callibrating the compas so in DCS we should be concerned only with the decliatination.

- In Mi-8 I can switch between the pilot, navigator, engineer, door and rear gunner. Even if assuming only two clients could connect at the same time it's more than enough to have a great module supported with a simplistic AI crew members ("autopilot pilots", engineer AP trim, gunners). Multi multi-crew should not be the critical nor even the highest priority feature. - 2 engines at maximum - source? B-17 would be great - not only by itself. Just imagine the fun having a friend flying one while you're the escort (or vice versa) :thumbup:

Sorry if you took it too strong - that's why i wrote "a bit". It's hard to get a complete shape of the message just from the text but replying only with "Read the Pocket Guide" statement, could be taken as a kind of RTFM answer. Again, sorry for that :thumbup: That was not the point at all. The real intention was actually quite opposite: 1. If you had followed the history of this topic on the forum, the request for list of missing features had been asked many times. Eventually it had been created by the community. I think it was fair however to ask for such list from the devs, as in exmaple it's already maintained for F-18 even prior the release and had been created by other devs on the release date. Nothing more and less than just a clear, single point communication of what's in and what's out. 2. Funny that you mentioned this but personally I consider the pocket guide as a kind of "document" that is outlined towards jump in and "do stuff" without learning how approach. I wish the quality had been improved there. Just considering two latest releasees - Spit and Viggen, they came out on early access with an uncomplete manuals but they had been an actual manuals. Maybe with some "to be added" picture placeholders. Except those from RAZBAM, all of the other modules that I have follow generally the same high level template of the DCS manuals. Maybe I'm paying too much attention to that but I like the fact that manuals from ED, BelSimTek, HB generally look the same, giving a consistent feeling of DCS standard. Anyway, there is the NATOPS guide for anyone interested in how the things are actually working. Again however, public availability of a real, complete flight manual didn't hold on BelSimTek from creating a DCS level manual for F-5.

With the emphasis put on long time investment into certain aspects like WSO AI we can assume with probability close to being certain that the next plane will be a two-seater. For the same reason - the long term focus of developing certain features they're probably going to stick with fixed-wing, jet engine aircrafts. RAZBAM is planning A LOT, including some iconing two-seaters. Aside of F-15E, they are claiming to work also on A-6 and Tornado .Although confirmations can be found among the different threads, none of those had been on the other hand included in their latest official roadmap list. The reason why I'm mentioning that is, exluding F-4 (already being done by BelSimTek) this would generally leave the F-111 or maybe Su-24 with the second one being rather unlikely to happen. We shouldn't rule out Tornado as it would make more sense to have it done by an European based company. We should also remember what happened with MiG-23 which also had been included in RAZBAM plans. Besides of that on not-so-serious note I have a feeling that RAZBAM has so many modules in their plans that if anyone asks about any, at least slightly anticipated by community plane they'll say that yes, they are working on or at least planning to make one :)

Extraordinary update :thumbup: It's a good decision not to rush the release risking all that great effort getting unnoticed due to bugs.

Not much details had been uncovered but RAZBAM communicates that they are working on F-15E - https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3299595&postcount=54

That was rather not expected and came out a bit rude. This is what I would call crystal clear, especially it's an officially communicated by a module devs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13 There is also community maintained list: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196533 But asking to go through circla 100 pages notes document just to find a clear list of what is missing is not exactly fair request.

Just as a suggestion with this price range consider getting a monitor with active sync. It really improves the overall experience and image quality. The drawback may be the size as I'm not sure you'll find a 38'' one - last time I had been checking the biggest one available was 34''. If you would decide on a monitor with an active sync technology you'll have to match a GPU manufacturer - G-Sync monitor requires Nvidia graphics card. How this reply contributed to the OP question? I can't believe that there are people that don't believe that not everyone has to get totally crazy about VR.