Mr_sukebe

Utterly awesome. This community really does have some amazing contributors.

Please come and add a log file to help them diagnose the issue.

I was just using the ME with the Afganistan map. Whilst adding some statics, the game stalled and had to be exited using Task Manager. Whilst checking in Task manager, DCS was using circa 20GB of RAM (showing as 9GB) in processes, was using ALL of 1 of my CPU cores, 50% of another and then a bit more (8 core CPU). Seems a little excessive for a flat screen editor. Log file attached. dcs.log

Last call on the remaining items for sale. If I get no offers in the next week, these will be off to the Bay.

Being fair to Moza’s marketing team, if Spud has been given a pre-release version, then maybe they’ve not had time to fully prepare guidance in multiple languages for users. It would seem to be very prudent of them to pull together guidance on how best to mount, hopefully include a vid walkthrough.

Depends. At the start of the invasion, Luftwaffe forces were basically negligible in north west France, with 2/3rds of their aircraft on home defence. In the days after the invasion, the Luftwaffe did push circa 1000 aircraft into north west France. However, the allies knew their were coming and where to, the Luftwaffe pilots were often poorly trained by that time and were short on fuel. So when the 1000 aircraft started arriving, they were still massively outnumbered, landed in bases not really well prepared or short on fuel and then were straffed on the ground. To add to the above, the loss rate by just accidents was circa 50%. IMO, the question about MW50 is almost irrelevant, if you’re thinking about vaguely accurate depiction of the time. Vaguely accurate probably means a decent chance of being straffed on take off and landing, and in your flight, walking into 25 Spitfires.

Have to say that he’s tried to mount it in a very odd manner. i would have thought it obvious to mount it really low and then add an extension.

If you don’t find a Squad, drop me a line. I’m in the UK and would love to find a wingman

Can anyone confirm if the FM and capabilities are basically the same?

Awesome! The Viggen was my first DCS jet and I still love flying it

It’s still missing somethings. Having said that, I can’t help but enjoy flying it

And shipping suggested for the end of Aug, ie two months from now. Exciting times

I have both Virpil and Monstertech mounts attached to my aluminium frame. The Monstertech are IMO more solid, though being fair, use the Virpil to hold my centre mounted base and it works well and with no apparent flex

We know the Starfighter is in development. The obvious next Spanish jet would be the Mirage 3.

That’s partly going to depend on the seat you use and how high that is. I believe that Virpil, WW and VKB sell 20cm extensions, but that is clearly not long enough to reach from the floor for most chairs. The only others that I vaguely remember are full on systems for helicopters and similar, which are a lot more expansive. Another point for consideration is the available deflection on the base you use. Virpil doesn’t recommend the use of their Warbird base with an extension partly because it’s available deflection with a long extension is potentially so wide that the grip would hit your legs.

Mark, might be worth updating the firmware in your collective. Mine wasn’t upgraded when I got it.

I see that we also have WW and Virpil looking to join the party. Excellent!

Come on guys, we have a solution for your debate: Best of three, guns only in the same aircraft. it’ll be a LOT faster than the debate on here…

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but as you do, I did some research yesterday about the quality and reliability of the Moza racing FFB wheels. Whilst the reviews were generally very positive, feedback was..."mixed", a bit like WinWing here. Some users had nothing but praise, some clearly were very unimpressed with the reliability and support. I have to say that I'm hoping that Virpil bring something out. I have more faith in their kit.

I’ve read a number of books on the subjject. My understanding is: - numbers of Luftwaffe aircraft at a specific location varies enormously, depending upon date. We tend to think that a squadron would setup at an airfield and stay there for a while. Apparently the Luftwaffe had the capability and was bounced around between theatres at short notice, and in big numbers. So for example, when the allies pushed against Rommel and started sinking his supply ships in the Med, the Luftwaffe dispatched a decent % of their aircraft to assist. In the start of 1944, the US 8th and 15th were massively increasing in size and also operating with escorts, at least the German border. The Luftwaffe response was the basically deploy close on 2/3rd of their aircraft to defence of Germany. Those aircraft were stripped from the eastern front, Italy and France. So by May, whilst there were some squadrons in France, it was not many, and they were hugely outnumbered. - with the huge increase in US fighters over France and then Germany, Luftwaffe losses were massive. Added to that were low availability of fuel, losses of experienced pilots and a surge in poorly trained pilots. So despite production increasing massively, they were not being flown as well and there losses due to accidents were close on those from combat. - Rommel had been promised something like 1000 aircraft when the allies invaded in June. Whilst not well known about, the Luftwaffe tried to achieve this, and really did strip around 1000 aircraft from other theatres. However, the allies knew they were coming, the bases they were going to were not genuinely ready and pretty much all of them were either smashed at their new airfields or hammered by still superior numbers. So getting an accurate picture of aircraft both capable of flying, having fuel and a decent pilot is not easy. The reality is that by June 44, the Luftwaffe had so many issues, that it really wasn’t capable of defending France and only really had a token level of resistance, choosing instead to defend Germany.

Focusing on cost to make is IMO not the approach likely to be taken. Core question for them is what they can sell it for. They know it needs to be less than Brunner, but with little or no competition can get away with charging what they want, so long as it at least pays for itself. If you want a better example, have a think about your average CPU. At the end of the day, it’s just a small amount of sand that’s been melted and then reformed. Material costs are pretty much negligible. Sure, there’s massive costs in building the process to manufacturer them and also design and test them, but that’s NOT the cost to make. With ref to the AB9, if we were to guess $700-800, that’s probably their ceiling area and if it’s below that, then great.

I watched a really interesting video yesterday on YouTube about the century fighters. Within that, they did talk about stick feedback. The view suggested was that: - most 1940s aircraft were usually direct linked to control surfaces and so provided plenty of resistance and feedback - the first aircraft with hydraulics had pretty much no feedback, and were very dead in their feel - subsequent aircraft deliberately introduced “designed” feedback

Note that this thread started 4 years ago. There was an idea suggested in 2020 to unpack some of the texture files. The implications being that you wouldn't be asking your CPU to unpack a zip file or have your RAM temporarily store it, which is a good thing. However, RAM is MUCH faster than loading from even an SSD, meaning that it "might" be faster to load a zipped file, unpack it to RAM and then access the individual textures required, than to conduct a search for the file from storage (which can be slow, at least in relative terms) and then load it. Any current views either way? I've got close on 1 TB of space available on my NVME2 drive, so plenty of room to fill up.

I didn’t know that. is this still valid?

Moza will have leveraged their knowledge of FFB from racing wheels, which to some seems like a good starting point. My assumption is that this 1st gen consumer version is effectively their testbed, with which to develop their software and refine hardware choices. Without significant competition, their margins can be good. As for the software, best to consider it as “early access”. It’s bound to improve.