firmek

With A-10C and Viggen being completed as also other strikers planned A-7, A-6 (and probably some others) there is really a big need for an eastern bloc attack aircraft. Su-17/22 M3/M4 would really fit the role well. It doesn't matter who makes it (though LN for sure has the experience), the sooner then better. What do you mean by that? - I'm not asking about translation of "k" word... :music_whistling:

IMO, another bloatware - as most of the apps on W10, especially those installed by default. The worst is that there is no decision point whether user wants them installed. Neither there is no easy way to uninstall it (must use PowerShell). This one looks like a way for the PC users to use the xbox stuff (like game bar) that personally I couldn’t care less about. Better to tune GPU driver settings and use some other software for recording (including NVIDIA one).

If it's mostly an gaming PC get an i5 and 1070. You'll benefit much more from better GPU with more RAM. Though, 4K may be too much for this config. Did you consider a wide screen - 3440x1440?

Great that it works. Happy flying and hunting! Though I'll probably be on the receiving side as from the warbirds I fly mostly the Spit :)

I've added both 109 and 190, though I haven't been able to test 190 as I don't have it. 109 I've got during recent sales and didn't fly it yet but thanks to you, now I had an incentive to prepare the view configuration :) Anyway, I've attached a configuration for 90 and 95 deg FOV - just in case you would like to try it out. All of the planes should have the same default FOV setting. For both 90 and 95 configs there are two variants - with the zoom in the middle and no zoom out. The other version also removes the annoying zoom out effect as also the whole slider length is used for zoom-in which makes it a tad more precise. Just place the files in "C:\Users\@user\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View" folder. Let me know in case of any issues or if you would like to have some values fine-tuned. If 190 is working I'll update the files in previously linked thread. FOV90 - SnapViews.lua FOV90-nozoomout - Server.lua FOV90-zoomcenter - Server.lua FOV95 - SnapViews.lua FOV95-nozoomout - Server.lua FOV95-zoomcenter - Server.lua

Great idea. The FOV topic is a bit more complex though and should be taken from a wider perspective of overall view configuration. I would propose to consider following requirements. 1. Provide possibility to configure in game options a gloval view configuration, applying the same view values across all of the modules. 2. Provide possibility to set in game options a module specific view values that would override the global settings. Module specific view values should be obviously optional and if not enabled, the global one should be used. IMO this is rather a low priority but I do understand that there are people that use a module specific FOV settings. 2. The view values configuration should include a). default FOV b). minimum FOV c). maximum FOV d). shoulder size e). eye point - neck size, distance of eyes from neck rotation axis All mentioned above can be to some extend done today but only by editing the lua file. The good side is that the configuration can be created in a way that doesn't affect the in-game files (is green for IC). Just use the server.lua as also snapviews.lua files stored in the user folder.

I fully agree with your point, there may be however other things which could be happening. 1. There is simply a bug in the implementation which causes the wings to fail in situations and/or under stress values that ED didn't plan them to fail. 2. Everything works correctly as ED intended while some assumptions/values might need fine-tuning 3. Everything works as intended and reassembles the historical references as close as possible while we just need to learn handling the Spitfire during structural stress conditions. Frankly speaking, it'll be probably difficult to arrive into constructive and precise conclusions without input from ED.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I can see a line between an equipment and people that used it. There are however some things that became more than just a historical equipment, that are a symbol. In some cases a really negative one. For this reason some modules I would find controversial. As for the B-29 - don't ask me, ask someone from Japan what they would think about having it in DCS and if they would be eager to buy and fly it. Maybe then you'll get my point. Anyway, apologies for deviating from the main topic of this thread. Everyone has his own conscience and there is no point in discussing it.

YoYo I really respect you but read a bit more about Ju-87. One of many examples was Warsaw uprising in 1944 where Stukas were used to level the city to the ground, attacking both the resistance fighters as also civilians, including those trying to flee from the city. Even clearly marked hostpitals have been leveled to the ground by Stukas. That's one of many horor examples how the Ju-87 has been applied during invation and later occpuation of Poland. And then the siren which it had only for one single obvious purpose.

You'll need to find a server that has the spitfire. Look for one of those with WW2 in the description.

Sorry for a side comment, but I can't imaging how anyone would like to fly the Stuka. At least no way I'm going to spend even a single penny on it and strongly reconsider buying anything from a dev that makes it. It's pretty much a symbol of Nazi horror war machine, including bombing cities and civilians from the very first days of WW2.

@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.