aaron886

Good to hear! Thank you for the quick response, I'm looking forward to the fix. :)

Whew... talk about getting political. :lol:

Thanks for the help! Not sure who wrote the F-5E FM, but I would love for them to see also, of course. :)

Here is the problem described in code from another EFM developer with the same issue: http://pastebin.com/3aYw7cTF He says that the issue is most likely related to having a "negative altitude" below the object in close proximity. The lower the altitude, the greater the drag reduction.

This post is directed toward Belsimtek, but also ED. (Hi Yo-Yo! Save us!) This is intended purely as constructive criticism for an issue that I believe seriously degrades the quality of flight modeling in DCS. It may be argued that this video demonstrates silly aerobatics, but it's worth noting that this is not a request for a niche feature, but rather a bug fix. It's also worth noting that aerobatics servers are typically in the top 2 or 3 most populated servers, and this issue is not new. Other users (particularly two aerobatics groups, Virtual Horsemen and Virtual Black Diamond Jet Team) have brought up this issue in the past, but the cause was unclear and not thoroughly researched. The threads quickly devolved into hearsay and confusion. I hope this will help clear things up and force some positive changes to the dramatically affected F-5 module, and others by both BST and ED. The short version is this: the calculations presently employed for ground effect in many DCS aircraft have an unintended consequence. Because they use ed_fm_set_surface (or an internal equivalent,) the calculation of proximity is affected by aircraft and static objects. However, a strange side-effect exists: it seems that the calculation is affected by objects above the flight model, causing uncommanded changes in lift in such a way that can only be described by seeing it. It is NOT: Stall behavior Network latency Malfunctioning sticks Crappy flying (I edited all of that out) Special thanks to Rock, Aeroshell, Tango, SE, and others who contributed to the understanding needed to make this post. 2 of the formation flying tracks: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmN3Bf1HOeoRmQVRDrvjKzkLw7E8

One hopes they're learning to overcome these problems. I would not be surprised if demand outstripped their expectations, and the desire to shift focus onto new projects like the Gunfighter has limited their ability to deliver older products on time.

Please, factually refute this if possible: Air Interdiction is striking targets of potential future threat to friendlies but not an immediate threat to friendlies. CAS is striking targets that are an immediate threat to friendlies. There are Hornet drivers doing both missions overseas right now. Again, as an example, Marine Hornet pilots specialize in CAS, and you just tried to say that only A-10s and Harriers fly that mission!

Neither would I, with some of the aggressive posters in this thread! :music_whistling:

Patience, you'll get through!

This is agony... come on, website! :D

No, it's not funny. To my understanding, since Desert Storm, the majority of on-call CAS strikes by weight have been flown by Vipers and Hornets. There's a lot of guys flying multi-role jets that would be pretty sad to hear you think they don't fly CAS. Better yet, tell a Marine Hornet driver that only Marine Harriers do CAS.

This is why "airborne alert" is the new fashion. Who do you think has been doing the majority of CAS overseas in the last 10 years? (Hint: it hasn't been A-10s, and it hasn't been done with large vulnerability windows.) Planners are typically thinking in terms of a consistent flow of sorties that can be leveraged for CAS or other targets. This is why you see increasingly flexible and smaller smart weapons that can be used on a variety of targets. We've been making a pivot to this concept of CAS since Desert Storm or before.

Tempting, but I would need Virpil to show me how their gimbal actually works, first. Or see someone else's review. On the other hand, VKB's gimbal is well known.

Maybe give this a try? A little desperate, but sounds like it worked for him: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3060594&postcount=30

Dead on! :thumbup:

How on earth did I miss that? My apologies.

That's odd. I can't imagine why, with one of your sensors unplugged, we would have such different experiences. I recommend running C:\Program Files\Oculus\Support\oculus-drivers\oculus-driver.exe, if you haven't. Good luck!

It would be really nice if the Gunfighter extension was sold as an individual piece. Has that been mentioned before? I intend to buy the base-only variant to use with my Warthog grip, but I would also like to make a short extension of the sort I've been using with my Warthog thus far. (7cm or less, for those of us who secure the stick to our desk between the legs, as with the MonsterTech mount.) It would be even better if VKB sold extensions of varying lengths, instead of just long ones!

Are you just finding ways to not solve this problem? Unplug one sensor while you're flying DCS for a little longer. :huh:

It's bad, not just like a Rhino. I spoke to a VFA-101 guy who said they bounce around so much while taxiing that its hard to keep paper on the dash from falling to the floor. Even worse on the boat. He implied that the exceptionally high tire pressures may be the problem, and although the nose gear is working exactly as designed, engineers took the precedence of optimal flight deck operation over pilot comfort a little too far. This isn't a case of media distortion, although it's not some kind of show-stopper. Exactly the kind of problem the developmental testing seeks to find.

I don't state my background before an argument unless it's necessary; I do my best to make an argument that stands by itself. You went on to brag about having access to additional information (which someone interested in OPSEC would not flaunt, anyway.) I'm sorry, but I'm not reading that snippet any other way. If you are directly involved with the F-35 program or have confidential information regarding the program you wouldn't flaunt it. If you really have access to something important, you don't use it for credibility on an anonymous internet forum. Your day job is irrelevant, unless you fly strike jets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority This sentence does not make sense. Please, clarify. "7 deaths WVR" does not tell you anything about how they occurred other than the range. If you think that is enough to empirically state that the F-35 is a poor fighter, you are wildly underestimating the messy complexity of air to air combat. The F-35s could have merged, could have been shot before the merge, could have been jumped inside a WEZ, could have been outnumbered, etc. Making sweeping statements based on this press release is a little absurd.

Yeah again, numbers without context. RyboPops, you claim a position of authority as an LM employee, and then commit to the same false argument you just complained about. We know nothing about how those losses occurred, except that they were WVR. That's not a surprise, considering the aircraft is designed not to be engaged BVR. We can't even know if 7 losses in 207 sorties is a good or bad attrition rate in this exercise. A majority of this thread is pure conjecture fueled by video games. I know it's the internet, but let's tone down the anonymous claims of authority on this forum and stick with what little data there is.

Where is this 7 deaths number coming from?

Why then would the top of the wing be in shadow, and the bottom lit?

Hawkeye - looks like your entire model is being rendered with flipped normals... "inside out." Select all the faces and flip the normals!