firmek

What warries me more is that we have "another level" of abstraction in FM related discussion on the forum - which is questioning the FM before the module got even releasesd :D

With upcomming Harrier release I was searching for a great documentary about the history of VTOL planes, which I remember watching many years agon on the "Planete" channel. I've found it finally, the series is called "vertical" (though for some reason the "veri-jet" name stuck in my mind) and contains six, ~50 min. episodes. Here is the link: Unfortunatelly it's only in French. If anyone finds a version with English translation or at least subtitles please share it.

End of November means that the only possible date is Friday 24'rth. Following week is December already and the previous one is 17'th which is middle of the month.

If what you can see is close to screenshoot attached by Art-J then your settings are fine. I'll never be perfect, its just how the 3D graphics work.

Go to nvidia control panel, "menage 3D settings" and "Program settings" tab. Select "Digital combat simulator: Black shark (dcs.exe)". Try this settings: Ambient Occlusion: Not supported for this application (default) Anisotropic filtering: Application-controlled (set 16x in-game graphics setting) Antialiasing - FXAA: Off Antialiasing - Gamma correction: Off Antialiasing - Mode: Application-controlled (set 2x in game if using PBR in DCS 2.1, otherwise 4x or 8x for HDR in 2.1 or 1.5) Antialiasing - Setting: Use global setting (Application-controlled) Antialiasing - Transparency: Off CUDA - GPUs: Use global setting (All) Maximum pre-rendered frames: 2 - this setting has a substantial impact on how smooth and responsive the game feels. Higher value - less stutter but can cause a higher input lag. 1 will give a feeling of immediate, no delay from TIR (or mouse) but can introduce a micro-stutter. Try 1 first, it you don't like it and the game stutters too much increase to 2. 3 was too much input lag for me. Monitor Technology: set Fixed-Refresh. Unfortunately with Free-Sync monitor you should have got an AMD card. Frankly speaking now you should reconsider changing the card or monitor to have compatible adaptive sync technologies. Multi-Frame Sampled AA (MFAA): (default) Use global setting Open GL rendering GPU: (default) Use global setting (not applicable for DCS) Power management mode: With older GPUs i did set it to Prefer Maximum Performance. Now for 1070 I use the Optimal power setting which seems to be just fine. Preferred refresh rate: Highest available Shader Cache: (default) Use global setting (on) Texture filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization: Off Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias: Allow (not applicable for DCS since it's not OpenGL based) Texture filtering - Quality: Quality or High Quality Texture filtering - Trilinear optimization: Off. Above settings will heavily improve the quality of the texture filtering which in DCS will be mostly noticeable buy a sharper, much less blurry runway and runway paintings (especially in further distance) Threaded optimization: Off. You can experiment with it but my observation is that it decreases stuttering and input lag. In theory On should be a better setting for newer titles that support multi-threading but in reality that's not always the case and better results are with the option set to Off. Triple buffering: Off - unless you're running V-sync (which is a really bad idea IMO). Vertical sync: Off. And off in game. Do yourself a favor and don't turn it on. It's a really old approach to solve the screen tearing which has much more drawbacks than benefits. Virtual reality pre-rendered frames: no clue, couldn't care less about VR. Other ideas: do a clean setup of drivers from N-Vidia, make sure to "left Alt + Enter" after being in cockpit. Use a display port cable instead of HDMI. I wouldn't cap the frames though. In DCS graphics options, disable the AI traffic, use "flat shadows".

Fully agree. Would be good to understand what kind of rationale was behind this specific selection. Anyway F-105 all the way ;) and maybe pair it up with F-100. Together with other planes like MiG-21 and F-5 which we already have this would be a great starting point to fill in the Vietnam(ish) era. Aside of that Su-15, Su-17/22 though wouldn't mid Su-5. As for 104 - I know it's not related to the plane itself but every time I think about it the first think that comes to my mind is the wide scale lockheed bribery, without which the plane wouldn't be most probably serviced in so many countries. This may be a strange rationale but for some reason this part of the history of 104 and overall reputation of problematic plane pulls me away from wanting to buy it as a module.

It seems the MiG-23 story starts to have a life of it's own :) What had happened is "only" that RAZBAM said that they had to cancel the project and moved on working on MiG-19. The reasons had not been stated (using NDA argument as a smoke cover) but we can suspect that it's still on the roadmap for DCS just being done by someone else - be it other 3'rd party or ED themself.

As mentioned above. For best results, 1. Use 16x Anisotropic filtering setting in game. 2. Set in NVidia control panel. Texture Filtering - Anisotropic Sample Optimization: Off Texture Filtering - Quality: High Quality Texture Filtering - Trilinear Optimization: Off For modern GPU's this should have close to none performance impact while significanlty improving overall texture filtering quality. The "Texture Filtering - Negative LOD Bias" setting works only with OpenGL - which is not DCS case.

I've been trying to setup a flight frequency from a 225.00-399.95 range - which mission editor automatically assigns to "special 1" channel. It doesn't work however as the frequency number is turning red, preventing the mission from saving. Frequencies within VHF 103.00 - 155-975 range can be assigned without any problem, as well frequency from 225.00-399.95 range can be set for special 2 and 4. Am I doing something wrong or is it a bug?

That was supposed to be 2017 (awsome year for DCS) ;) IIR the last release we had was Viggen in January - shortly after Spit in December and a long brake so far. Harrier, Tomcat and Hornet will keep everyone busy for a long time but on the other hand I don't think we'll see any module shortly after them. Most probably we'll have to wait another year at least - my bet would for a module from Belsimtek.

According to the manual, pulling out the pressure setting knob on the altimater should set the pressure to the standard pressure value - 1013,25 hPa. "It should" as it does not work at the moment - at least the clicking on the knob isn't.

The funniest thing is that all the time you're banging on the TIR users while the points which you're attacking - "zoom" and possibility to move the head 180 deg doesn't have anything to do with TIR. They are just build into the game - you can do the same with keyboard. How much the FOV can be adjusted (aka zoom) and the head movement limitations are controlled by DCS. On top of that the maximum head rotation angles are by default set for each single module individually - I guess you have to convince every single module developper, 3'rd party and ED that they are plane wrong. Good luck ;) Not to forget that as far as I read from the forums, DCS does not constraint VR at all - which means that pilot can move his head outside of the cockpit or turn it around 360 deg while still being strapped-in into his seat - how realistic is that!. Anyway, the whole point that you're missing in the crusade for realism is that the whole computer graphics and the devices that we're using to view and iteract with it are decades before providing an exact real world experience. Please acknowladge that what you see at the moment, in front of the monitor or on the latest (or actually not so latest, I've played Quake on one in 1995) marvell of the universe (VR) is just unrealistic and limited comparing to the real world. The lightning and contrast even in the best 3D games are nowhere close to the real world which basically means that spotting is not going to be how it is in the real life. Monitors, take only a part of the view which basically means that they're like looking on the world throught a frame limiting a lot of your vision. Once the image I can see in DCS is 1-1 with what we can see by looking outside of the window, including it being displayed 360 deg around my head (something like in "Enders game" movie) I'm up to agree on imposing the limitations you're mentioning. The thing is that posts like that are purely angagonizing and segregating people bacause of the hardware they have.

Ok, but that basically means that there is still a month (late November) of waiting in front of us before being able to fly this bird.

Because it's a natural reaction. There are people that play on big or small screens, one monitor or 3 monitors, sit close or far from it and finally just have a preference towards narrow or vide FOV. I had been playing with a group of friends in BF and there were pople that had their FOV set to 120 deg on small monitors making everyone asking how they can even hit anything but they just felt comfortable this way. Others would use something like 60-70 deg on 27'' display. Another critical point, just watch any of the youtube startup tutorials and see how often people zoom in to better see the controls. I just can't imagine doing anything non-trivial in A-10C, especially working with the CDU without zooming-in.

Guys don't you think that the MP scene is not fragmented already enough - 1.5, 2.1, Nevada, Normandy, Assets pack? What's next, a request for servers with TIR users only, single monitors only, those with 3 monitors only, expensive hotas vs single stick servers only, V-Sync vs GSync only? I do understand that the VR player base is growing and there are pople that "find it transforming" but I'm not sure why there seems to be a trand of unspoken elitims and antagonizing the VR from the other users as it's soo great that every one should have it and those that don't (or don't want to get it) should not be allowed to fly on the same servers. There are closed - passworded servers already. Use one if you want to share the experience in a closed group. Otherwise, the public environment should be open for all, regardles of the equipment they want to use or can affort to buy.

+1. Thats also extreamly important perspective. With a small player base there are already a lot of reasons why the player numbers are fragmented: - different maps, including payable - assets pack's - also payable - password protected servers I'm not saying that all of those things are bad, just stating the facts but at the end of a day if you go for instance to 2.1 and filter by open servers with players playing a Normandy, the player numbers will sadly be really small.

Nope. The OP request is clearly to limit a specific feature as the other devices provide benefits over the other. If the discusssion is about limiting some features bacause of unequal devices capabilities it's a big no in a PC environment. There are just too many hardware variations and of top we have to put a specific user preferences that have too feel comfortable using their PC. Otherwise we would have to apply limits like: - everyone has to use a single monitor as people that have 3 monitors have an advantage - everyone has to use 27'' display as those having bigger monitors have an advantage - everyone has to use a specific graphics card since those that get stutters and 20 FPS don't have an equal chance with guys plaing at 100 FPS - GSYNC has to be disabled as it provides a cleaner, screen-tearing free experience which makes it easier to spot the targets Etc.., etc.. I hope you get the point and how ridiciolous this venture is. As for the zoom itself, the discussion about it is probably as old as the simulators itself: - yes, taking it one-one it is unrealistic as people don't have a telescope in their eyes - on the other hand it's not uncommon for pilots to be equipped with binoculars - due to 3D graphics generated by computer sitll being far from the quality of a real image, the spotting is hendicapped already and giving the zoom possibility in some way recompensates for it.

BIG NO! The last think that the application should do is to enforce a certain view settings. What's next - enforce that everyone has to use 60 deg FOV since this is IRC what the most of VR users? Or that while playing on monitor I have to put a black curtain over my keyboard since VR guys don't see it and need a equal chances of hitting correct keys? It's industry standard and even in such to say highly competitive games like FPS user can control the view setings as those are mostly dependend on the user personal preferences and the hardwar they have. Removing the zoom because VR doesn't have it enforces everyone to follow the limits of devices still being in a minority. If someone decides to use a specific equipment he should acknowlage it's limitations as it's a personal decision to use it in preference or another one. And by the way, the option is already there. Mission creators can limit the zoom as also enforce other settings including FOV - which actually is a hudge issue as happens un-intentionnaly and should go away!

Guys, hold your horses a bit ;). My comment was from January when Normandy and WWII assets pack were still far from the release. Now its a bit different story, with units from WWII assets pack the mission planners got some units to play with. Personally I enjoy a lot flying MiG-15/Sabre over Normandy. I think it actually could be a base for a "operation unthinkable" like campaign. Still we're not yet there and "ED has plans" or "3'rd parties have plans" usually means for sure not soon - which still leaves the issue open ;)

The question to begin with is how do to get to use them? As far as I've checked the MiG-29 nor F-16 are not selectable for Poland - countries database hasn't been changed. At the same time the skins are only applicable for Poland. The only way at the moment is to test it is to change the db countries lua (which is IC red) or the skin itself so it can be seleted by other coutries that can use the MiG-29 and F-16.

+1. With one difference though. F-5 NWS is so sensitive that I generally use it only during taxi and apply differencial braking in low speeds when the rudder is not yet effective during takoff/landing.

I also tried but this hasn't been exactly an "elegant" solution and it did make the TIR to be even more jerky especially in a higher head turn angles. My point is that out of the box, track clip is just a flawn concept. I wouldn't mind if a similar, passive reflector device would be included but designed in a way that would work with and be easielly attached to the headset. Forcing the user to apply a rubber band or duct tape solution is never a good thing.

Actually it should be looked from a different perspective. Unless you're ok with wearing a hat that is required to attach the reflector clip - go with the Pro Clip. At least personally I found it totally uncomfortable to use the standard clip as it requires to wear the baseball cap with a headset on top of it. Not even mentioning the necessity to ware the cap at home during a summer time :) Another point is that TIR with Pro Clip is much more precise and less jerky.

Depends on the perspective. It's great to get updates but frankly speaking at some point of time you have to say the project is done and move on with the new work. Otherwise the dev team will stuck in a constant maintenance loop. The resources are never unlimited and if they're working on improvements for already released module they are not working on the new airplane. Don't get me wrong, MiG-21 is one of my most favorite modules in DCS :thumbup:

One thing that came to my mind is using the Russian unit symbols instead of NATO ones for mission building. Try it out if you already didn't. One difference is that they show the heading (are rotated). Another thing is that the icons shape and size much better reassembles the real unit’s dimensions. Bottom line at least setting up vehicles with RU symbols is way much quicker and easier.