firmek

@Dougal, sorry for a stupid question, but after selecting a slot and getting the briefing window (the one with Spitfire picture) did you actually hit the "Fly" button at the very bottom of the screen?

Good decision going with mobo/cpu/mem. Good luck with the new rig!. Be careful with overclocking though. The fact that it runs now doesn't mean that it's healthy for CPU/mem in long term perspective.

Unless you're picking another type of the aircraft for which there is no view config stored in the mission file it'll not make any difference. If the mission files stores the view configuration for a given type of plane you're doomed to fly it this way or to find another server. Changing slots will not help.

+1. On the flip side, there are a lot of 109 pilots that take for granted that they are flying a plane with speed advantage which will save them no-mater what kind of silly maneuver the do. Too many times I've seen 109 that after initial zoom-in go into hard turn horizontally while the Spit goes high yoyo and easily gets on 109 tail. Bottom line, a lot depends on the pilot and using planes strengths is something that requires understanding and practicing. Pure numbers on the charts will not win the engagement. Couldn't agree more. Something that was always kind hard to understand is seeing blue flying straight from TO on low altitude, without any climb into engagement zone. Maybe it's due to the DCS graphics engine and the fact that is usually easier to spot targets on the sky than those blending with the ground. I've tried to circle around the AP after take off with nav lights on, gaining some height and waiting if others would like to group up before going into engagement zone. I guess if you're not flying with a friend there are poor chances that this would happen.

I guess you’re both correct. 1. DCS multiplier can be fun but is not the best place to be if looking for realistic WW2 scenarios 2. Hopefully we'll see a change with Normandy and introduction of bombers. This will depend however on how well the missions will be designed and how much players will follow the objectives. The role of the escort is to protect the bombers, not to chaise the enemy fighters. Let’s see how the situation will develop in future. With Normandy for sure there will be a change how the scenarios are being setup and play out. I’m a bit skeptical as for the bomber escort as the map is not so hedge. 3. P-51 seems to be substantially the weakest from all warbirds. In one-to-one dog fight scenario, at the moment it’s hard to indicate even a single specific advantage of this aircraft. Are the real performance values correctly modeled? No clue. 4. In more of a gaming environment on the todays MP sever it is perfectly reasonable to go for the ground targets with P-51. Obviously, with HVARS and bombs P-51 is much more capable ground striker than Spit. The reality (which is rather unfortunate) is that even if the ground targets are the mission goals most of the time dog-fighters will be going happily about their own business, chasing each other far away from the targets. I could not disagree more with this statement. There was already a "great" thread going on about how the 109 and 190 will still rule the air even after introduction of Spit. Well, nothing of this had happened. Spit is a great dog-fighter. I'm a really medioker dog fighting pilot but with Spit I don't have any bigger issue to shake off a 109 or 190 from my six and even to get into tail of one of them. Yes, they can try to run out but the speed difference is not like between Cesna and MiG-21. It takes a good pilot to be able to get into a good position that allows the 109 pilot to run out. My summary would be - just fly the plane that you like. Personally, I fly those that I kind of fill attracted to from historical perspective, even it this means that it's going to get my !@# kicked on MP servers. Call me crazy but I still believe DCS is about SIM experience, not about gaming and K/D ratio. If you're flying a plane just because it'll get you a good scores - IMO you're doing it totally wrong. I'll fly Spitfire since for me it's the most iconic plane, historically connected with my country and even a milion posts of how bad it is and how the axis planes are great will not change it.

I'm glat to hear that I could help just a bit. However, the question about ILS remains open. If yes, then there should be a bug report, if not manual should be updated.

Unfortunately you can't do much about it on your side. Some MP server have a setup which overrides the user settings. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=180420

Correct, it works with VOR - which if I'm correct there are as much as 4 VOR stations on Caucasus map. Easy way to test it is with Kutaisi 113.60. As for confusion regarding ILS, I think it's fully justified. First, the freq. is set using ILS know - ok, this is a minor thing. Setting a correct ILS frequency while in range of the ILS transmitter clears the warning flag from HSI. What's most important however is that manual states that HSI NAV mode works with both, VOR and ILS. Page 104: "NAV (main INS/VOR navigation mode): In this mode, the HSI connects with the INS and displays waypoint navigation information along with bearing to selected VOR/ILS station."

Nothing special about MiG-29. It's done this way so that all versions share the same view configuration. Might be done aswell as: ViewSettings["MiG-29A"] = { Cockpit = { [1] = default_fighter_player({CockpitLocalPoint = {4.71,1.28,0.000000}, limits_6DOF = {x = {-0.050000,0.4500000},y ={-0.300000,0.100000},z = {-0.220000,0.220000},roll = 90.000000}}), }, Chase = { LocalPoint = {1.220000,3.750000,0.000000}, AnglesDefault = {180.000000,-8.000000}, }, -- Chase Arcade = { LocalPoint = {-15.080000,6.350000,0.000000}, AnglesDefault = {0.000000,-8.000000}, }, -- Arcade } ViewSettings["MiG-29G"] = { //..... same as above ViewSettings["MiG-29S"] = { //..... same as above This way however making the same change would have to be done 3 times.

You did everything correctly. The problem is with the missions which in some case include the view settings overriding the user ones and even default shipped with DCS. Happens not only in MP but you'll run into similar issue with many of the training missions. With MP not much can be done apart of asking the admins to update their mission. As for the missions to which you have an access the fix is described at the end of this wiki page.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't notice that those are from a different engine version. It's clear that those would be a recommended and not following them exactly wouldn't kill the engine immediately :smilewink:

I have to admit that this discussion is strange in some way. 1. Just get the best hardware that you can get. It should be rather obvious that better rig will yield a better performance. I hope none is trying to question that. Also take all the discussions on how much CPU bound is DCS with a grain of salt. DCS is 3D program/game and as any other is not special in this area which means it will benefit from a better GPU as also in any other case an old CPU will be a bottle neck for much newer GPU. The bottom line. Consider DCS as any other 3D game. There is nothing like DCS specific hardware config. 2. Stuttering. There is no single obvious explanation or fix for it. Neither in DCS or in any other 3D program. First of all, there is a lot of confusion and mixing together of what people call a stutter. It could be anything as for the big pauses caused by substantial data being loaded, eventual pauses due to heavy CPU or GPU load, constant micro stutters or even a server lag. Usually there is a different background for different kind of stutter but it might be as well anything, other software running in parallel, hardware drivers, hardware not keeping up the demand or bad game optimization. Nevertheless, the so called "stutter" can also happen on every box for every single program and game - again, DCS in no way is special in this respect.

Looking on the diagrams, does it mean that: - boost < +7, any RPM setting is allowed - boost >= +7 and <= +9, only when RPM >= 2850 - boost > +9, only when RPM is 3000 ?

I don't have a VR set but based on the description of the problem and because every single module by default in DCS uses a different FOV value my suggestion would be to test if playing with the FOV settings solves the problem. Specifically try to make the FOV the same for every module. Assuming that VR uses the samve view configuration functionality in DCS as for monitor displays. 1. Depending on the version, open user view config folder: - 2.x alpha - C:\Users\@user_name\Saved Games\DCS.openalpha\Config\View - 1.5.x beta - C:\Users\@user_name\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View 2. Edit the SnapViews.lua file 3. Find the module for which the scale seems to be the most correct one. If it's for instance the F-15, find section starting with: SnapViews["F-15C"] = { 4. Find the FOV setting It's the "viewAngle" value at index 13 [13] = {--default view viewAngle = 90.000000,--FOV, ... Obviously 90.000000 is just an example and can be different for other users. Optionally it can also be made "nice", so if it's 91.12342345 feel free to change it to 90.00000 or 92 or whatever suites. 5. Copy the value to all other modules at index 13. If you don't have the SnapViews.lua file just follow the procedure to create user snap view . Save any view, even better if it's not the default view - just to have the file created. It's better to use Notepad++ or Notepad2 as the windows standard one will not display the file layout nicelly.

The installer/updater is smart enough to recognize that there is already another version of DCS installed and copies files from it if they are the same. Remaining files are downloaded from network. A side note but IMO ED did a really good job with the implementation of install/update/repair functionality.

Is the icing simulated in a way that it is actually affecting the flight characteristics and different systems, in extreme case potentially resulting in a fatal condition - for instance reduction of rotors lift force, engine output, pitot starting to work like an altimeter, etc..? Or is it only the systems modeling - betty complaining, anti-icing automatically kicking-in and reducing engine power?

The fact that it is possible to lean the head outside so much would be the atcuall problem. What is normal in the cokpit view is that in "reality" - in game the pilot does not sit in the complete aircraft but in a truncated model that should only contain parts which can be seen from the cokpit. Remaining parts don't need to be rendered. Bottom line, it is not the same model as when in external view. It could be but with unjustified hit on performance.

We're getting slightly off topic but the CVT transmission could be used as a good illustration for constant speed propeller. The only slight difference would be that the pilot has an authority over governor max RPM setting while in case of CVT transmission the electronics also take care automatically about the highest needed RPM value. In a car with manual gearbox, by controlling the accelerator the driver is directly operating the engine RPM which directly affects the speed. Switching a gear obviously affects RPM but also the engine power output required to maintain RPM or accelerate. In other words the manual geer box could be compared to a plane with fully manual throttle and pitch controls where chaning a gear works like manually setting the prop pitch while throttle directly controls RPM and power output needed to sustain it. In case of CVT the electronics are maintaining the most optimal, quite often constant RPM. Kind of like the governor with already mentioned difference that in a plane pilot has a direct authority over the expected RPM value. The throttle also indirectly affects a gear = prop pitch setting. The CVT may seem quite unnatural at the beggining as when accelerating from 0 to max speed the engine will mostly keep a constant RPM while how high the RPM value is will depend on how fast the driver wants to accelerate.

This will be probably the conclusion. I wouldn't expect arriving with extreamly precise historical values. This is due to a number of reasons. During the WW2 most of the airplanes have not been equipped with sensors like G-matters not even mentionning flight parameter recorders. If there are any historical pilot reports of failing wings the description will be rather subjective, without any specific values. Considering the manufacturers, at best they probably have been able to arrive only with limits based on educated guess - rather than a measured test results. The flight limits provided to pilots would be taking into account some substantial safety margin. Knowing this margin would still not help a lot for already mentioned reasons - not being precise as also pilot not being able to observe actual G values.

I'm not sure, seems that sometimes mission editor includes those files, sometimes not. I could even recall stock training missions for some of the modules where some of the missions have this problem while some don't, It's kind of a bugger as it overrides all user settings for head position in cockpit, FOV settings etc.

@71st_AH Rob could you check the mission. It looks like it has a view config stored in which overrides the user in cockpit view settings. From http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views

Great choise with Mi-8. As for the english cokpit if I recall correctly it can be selected in the special options for Mi-8. If it's not there by default here are the mods: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/668712/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1053263/ https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114166 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?CREATED_BY=DirtyFret&set_filter=Y The last one may be a bit more performance heavy.

I might be tottally wrong here but the way that I understood how RPM and boost stettings are affecting aircraft performance is: 1. The RPM setting gives an indication to the governor which RPM level to maintain 2. The boost setting controlled by throttle, affects the engine power output which in return with a fixed RPM affects the prop pitch. In example, a higher boost would result in more power needed to sustain given RPM with increased prop pitch.

Just a suggestion but why not to consider updating the motherboard, CPU and RAM instead of GPU. With current prices for a good 1070 card, cost wise it should not be such a big difference. From the performance perspective 760 should be fine for the time being especially in Full HD resolution while changing mobo/CPU/RAM would be much better investment for the future as also leter on it would allow to run a new GPU to its full potential. I was running DCS in high settings and 4xAA in 1080p with 660 Ti (more or less comparable 760), i5-3570k and 16GB RAM. In DCS 1.5 usually with min ~30 FPS on the ground and 80-120 or even more when flying high in the air. Nevada was also mostly ok, apart of flying low within Vegas center area which was too much for that config.

One of the first things to check would be if the motherboard has a PCI-E 3.0 x 16 slot.