Mr_sukebe

I tried the wiper yesterday. Didn't seem to do anything

OK, have been playing some more and have now incorporated your scripts into my generic Normandy WW2 (1943) scenario. There's a lot of other stuff in there too for anyone interested. If anyone fancies a play, the miz and an Oboe guidance kneeboard are attached. The appropriate flight to use for the Oboe mission is the 604 Squadron (night). I have tried flying this at night, so far it's just shown me that I need a "spot of practice". I dialed the take off time to a little before sunset. Thanks again for the work to make this happen. Simply awesome stuff. Normandy - 1943 - Attrition v8.miz

That was truly awesome. One of the most impressive mods that I've yet seen. I was happily able to use the demo mission and was within .3 of a mile from the target, whilst bombing from 20,000'. I couldn't even see the target from the cockpit, I was too busy trying to keep it straight and level. Have to say that I'm amazed at the accuracy. Is there any way to account for wind and it's effects on the bombs, whilst calculating the release point?

Which timezone do you operate on?

On a carrier, the F18. On land, the Yak52

Can I please ask that if you change the airbase frequencies (again) that you advise which ones have been changed.

What an amazing thread. Never noticed this one before. Gotta have a play with this.

The first 190s were faster than their contemporary Spitfire Vs and the Soviet aircraft of 41/42’, which is where it got it’s reputation from. The Spit IX redressed things. By the time the Dora arrived, the Luftwaffe was already in deep poo: - The southern and Russian fronts had most of their fighters withdrawn to Germany to defend against bombers. - Fuel availability was marginal - The Luftwaffe pilot training was never enough. The numbers being trained were initially not enough, then as the war went on, fuel shortages cut training time down. There were also numerous examples of training units being scraped for crews in knee jerk responses to new threats (eg Torch landings in Tunisia). The result being that as attrition worsened reducing the number of experienced pilots, you had a far higher number of relatively inexperienced pilots. That’s demonstrated in the massive increase of aircraft lost to “non enemy action”. It’s very similar to what happened to the Japanese airforce and why the Marianas Turkey shoot happened - The pilots were told to focus on the bombers and try to avoid allied fighters - aircraft were setup more to destroy bombers, eg the 30mm canon, which added weight and reduced their turn rate - Once long range fighter escort was available, the allied fighters would typically massively outnumber them. I read an example recently of a massive USAF raid, that was intercepted by a squadron of just 5 Luftwaffe aircraft, two of the pilots being straight out of training - The allied aircraft continued to improve, eg the newer versions of the Spit, P47 and new aircraft, eg Tempest and Mustang So yes, the 190 was a great aircraft at at inception, better than allied aircraft. By the time of the Dora, it had got faster, but was facing massively more allied fighters, which were as fast and had better pilots.

A single A10 can carry more than a single Tucano. However, a single A10 will also probably cost more to operate than 10 Tucanos. Take your pick, one “better” aircraft supporting boots on the ground during its loiter time, or a pair constantly overhead and others cycling through replacing the ones overhead when Bingo fuel or Winchester?

Try disabling the Oculus frame rate smoothing, ie the one that limits it to 36fps

Just a suggestion from my side. My opinion based upon testing is that Terrain Textures set to High is a very fast way to overload the VRAM requirement of my 3080ti. I’ve been running with Terrain Textures set to Low for months. I was still surprised to see that the most recent update reset the setting back to High. I’d like to recommend that unless you’ve a GPU with 24GB of VRAM that your confirm for yourself by testing with each of the options and then set as you see fit, just ensure that you check it post further updates.

No, it’s really not. In an environment with low levels of enemy radar, you still can’t fly on the deck due to manpads. Go have a read about how Gulf war one showed that. As already stated, it’s now virtually impossible to get into effective range for the GAU without exposing an A10 to the danger of the manpads. A standoff weapon such as an APKWS on a cheap turbo prop is MUCH more cost effective

Here we go, what about a real Tornado throttle unit: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/394860342264?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=Osuisr6dQ8O&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=Hal1pJpJTxq&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY clearly it needs some work, and that’s before replacing the buttons, axes, wiring and control board, but how cool would that be?

Another thought, could you buy a real throttle from a broken aircraft, then have it modified with your preference of buttons and an arduino board? Just because it might have originally had a low number of buttons, doesn’t necessarily stop you from adding more functionally capable ones.

I’m unaware of anything commonly sold that I’d expect to be better than a CM3. Options that spring to mind: - have a dig around to see about the viability of one of the real throttles. Likely to be seriously expensive - upgrade the buttons in the CM3 - there’s a chap called GVL on here who sells custom gear. If you engage with him, he might be able to build what you want, eg: - wait until the CM4 arrives, it’ll happen eventually

Stick with the current method. Both methods have their pros and cons, so changing might improve certain elements, but worsen others. More to the point, the effort/cost to change could be used elsewhere to further improve the map, or maybe add additional assets (eg ships).

That’s not the whole map. I think that it goes a little further north and extends a whole lot further west into the Pacific. For ref, the distance from Port Stanley to the Argentina coast is around 400-500 miles.

I think you’ll find that it’s covered with “insurgents”

Hours. I deliberately identified a distance roughly equating to the distance from southern England to northern Germany.

??? That doesn’t really make sense. The move to multi core will have been a massive undertaking and stands DCS in a much better place long term It’s worth remembering that the Civ Sim 2024 is primarily to allow introduction of multi core, for which they give you the pleasure of paying for it.

A few thoughts: - VR will always require more horsepower than a monitor, simply because it’s handling more pixels - Remember when that new Civ sim arrived in 2020 and everyone went nuts about its graphics? That’s simply competition. ED cannot stand still with an aging platform and just hope for the best. Want an example, look at Falcon 4. That even has VR support now, but it still looks pap. Do you really think that it sells in big numbers, and that has an unbelievable level of community support. - my belief is that DCS looks better than that Civ Sim, certainly on my rig, which is very similar to yours. Whenever I go near a city in that Civ Sim, it runs terribly and the buildings look like melted marshmallows - as most of the community (based upon the last poll on here) still use a monitor, and it’s easier to run, ED are clearly pushing what can be done on a monitor, with top end gear, which is as it should be. If they didn’t, you’d have users asking that they did. Translating those same settings into VR is never going to work, because of the additional grunt required In short, you need to learn to compromise on your settings and be thankful for what we currently have. I was out yesterday in the Gulf on a JDAM strike in my F15E in VR. Sun setting in the west, low level clouds, looked utterly amazing.

The manual includes recommendations of settings for long cruise. It’s worth a look. And yes, made it there and back.

What timezone?

I did that flight using the Mustang, just to see if I could.

Thanks for clarifying