MikeMikeJuliet

Okay gentlemen, here goes. First off, lmp, the following is not quite accurate. You cannot have a non-distorted view on a traditional screen, unless it is viewed form a very specific point, at the center of the original spherical projection. Read on to see why. If you look at the first attachement, you'll see the difference between the human eye and a camera. On the human eye, light is translated to the back of the eye on a spherical surface, where as on a camera the light is translated on a flat surface. Now there in lies the initial problem of FOV in the first place. Take a look at the second attachment. You see, that with a spherical projection, no matter where you look from the center of the circle, all the cast lines are at equal spacings on the circle edge. Now look at the flat plane where the lines are projected on. You quickly realize that beyond a certain point the cast lines diverge, thus creating the distortion you see on flat screens. Now! If you were to take a given FOV and find the spherical projections (imaginary) center point next to your monitor, you would see the image as natural. If you go up, down, left, right, forward or backwards from that point, you see the image distortion... I'll continue on the next post... :book: Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

And that is not realistic. If you look infront of you, you should see what is in front of you. If you look to your left next to a cockpit metal bar, you should actually see the terrain that is in fact near the said bar. If you set the cockpit to a smaller field of view and the terrain larger, you see way more terrain that you should be able to see at that part of the cockpit. I might just draw a bunch of images when I get home. This is a difficult subject to explain in pure text. Meanwhile, the point is, you can't separate the cockpit and the world field of view without breaking the simulation. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The problem with large field of view is the fact, that the image gets distorted when it is spread over a flat surface (=a screen). If we change the cockpit to not distort (i.e. not change with field of view) we create a problem, that the outside world is distorted (though it is harder to notice as it is farther away and movement parallax occurs slower) but the cockpit is not. Pilots use cockpit structure as hints to identify if a target is at their 3 or 9 o'clock or somewhere else, and this only works if the whole image acts as constant image. What you are asking is that the gameworld and the cockpit be separate entities with separate render fields of view. in shooters this might be viable as the gunmodel is there only for the visuals. The human eye and a flat screen act very differently. The difference is the same as with looking at a world map with mercators projection, and then looking at a globe map where everything is as it should. Unfortunately what you want here breaks some of the visual functions of the cockpit and will not be done. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The repairing system for the most part is very gamey in DCS anyway. In case of real aircraft damage with modern aircraft there is a thorough inspections at least, not to mention the time to repair. If you ever want realistic repair systems to DCS, my call would be: if the Aircraft is damaged you lose it for the mission (may be fixed earliest in the next mission, if playing campaign). I don't know about on-theater battle damage. I guess as long as critical systems are functional you can fly if you really need to. On the other hand, WW2 aircraft might actually be repaired "on the spot", but even that takes more than 5 minutes :D Back to the topic. Is someone here familiar with skripting DCS? I mean, I'd like to see someone try to make the game spawn fuel trucks next to every reserved parking place. That way the trucks don't magically appear when a player spawns in.

Looks brilliant! What does the script do at the moment? Find assigned Aircraft parking slots and drive next to them?

Hey Boedha, could you try skript a fuel truck that spawns next to the aircraft upon cold start if the player is not in one of the cramped hangars...? That would be a start...

Great Idea. I've been silently hoping we would see something like that in the future. When I do my own little missions, I tend to place fuel and gpu-trucks near the aircraft parking spot just to make the ramp look a little bit more lively. I'd like to see a stock refueling truck as a ground asset that's tied in with the airfield, and when you request refueling, the car would actually drive to you before the refuelling would start. Something similar with armament too. Even that would give so much more immersion to the ground operations, not to mention actual visible ground crews... And ground crew is vital to making checks in more manual aircraft if you can't see your control surfaces. They can show for example flap and airbrake position when you test them. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I believe the distortion should only take place if you hear two transmissions on the same radio (i.e. the same frequency). There should be no distortion when listening to two separate radio transmissions on separate frequencies. Having a separate transmitting antenna should also have no effect on this. So working with two or more radios should not cause you any trouble even with the distortion enabled. Ciribob, can you confirm that's the way the system will be created? Just to be clear about the function of the distortion. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Now that you put it in precentage it feels more reasonable. I guess I was hasty. DCS being a CPU hungry sim I hoped to see some magic ;)

That, and windows 10 is known to break installs when upgraded. So you might want to re-install DCS.

Interesting to see how little effect the overclock has. Of course this is just one PC. I'd be interested to see multiple similar benchmarks to see if this is true with lower clockspeeds as well. Are you intending to do similar test with multiple AI units and combat?

Also, as DCS is quite heavily dependent on CPU, you might want to try slight overclocking. Nothing major to require additional cooling or anything, but just a bit to squeeze a littke bit more frames. Otherwise your setup looks fine, and as long as it's over 30 fps it is still playable albeit not necessarily desirable...

Unless you get an official 3rd party status, then no. The tools required to create maps for DCS are distributed only to official 3rd parties. Technically anyone can become one, but that requires demonstration to ED that you could actually create something worthwile. If you are up for the task and want to create maps, then contact Wags for 3rd party status. You probably need to have a bunch of projects to show to get access, but if you do, go on ahead. The only thing I know that can be done to the excisting maps is re-texturing the. Such a mod was created by Starway a couple of months back for Caucasus.

Intersting to see how much the ground personell has to manage the positions of aircraft on the deck compared to an airfield. Back and forth depending on are other aircraft taking-off or landing, do the helos fly or not, and are there any wider-wing aircraft in the mix at any given time. That must be one of the busiest places to work...

The DX-version of the software running the map doesn't actually have much to do with the maps. DX is about rendering and CPU usage, not filetypes. What I meant was that the map mesh files, textures and all objects/assets that are included in a map must be in the same format to be interchangeable, and I belive this is not the case with DCS and other sims. But the bottom line is, as you said as well, the maps are not interchangeable. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I don't believe it is possible, I'm afraid. ED is only currently working on even getting it's own two existing maps into a single .exe. Besides I highly doubt DCS maps and FSX maps share the same file format. Interchanging maps from one sim to another requires those sims to be built to support exactly the same map/file type. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

People here talk about "most people" or "a lot of us". Do you actually have statistics either way to back you up other than say "me and my buddy here hate/love trainers, so that means most of the community does too". And for those who say making a full blown combat aircraft is easy because "someone made a mod all by them selves and it worked", consider the following: A clearly you have no clue how software developement works. There ARE very talented individuals who can do all things in the world if they want, yes. But most developers won't be able to aquire such talent even if they wanted to. Those rare successes are the exception, not the norm. As many of you here have stated, there are people who want and do buy trainers. Others who don't. Remember that there are airforces in the world who use trainers for combat purposes. Also note that not every pilot flies every aircraft. You don't need every simmer to fly every aircraft. Its called "variety" When it comes to integrating different weapons or systems to different aircraft with the mentality "this already works in A10-C so its easy to just put it in the other aircraft...". No. Each aircraft has it's licence owned by some company. In order to develop an aircraft for money you need specific permissions from said company to develop all the systems in it, including weapon systems and thus weapon integration. If no permission is granted to develop a system, no matter if similar system was already in another aircraft, its a no-go. Also, developers create aircraft they feel comfortable with and want to develop. You buy the modules you want. There clearly is a market for trainers or otherwise they would not be made. There is variety there. And we ARE getting combat aircraft all the time. As a lot of you said, VEAO is working on combat aircraft, so is Leathernec, RAZBAM, ED, Aviodev and Polychop. We just haopened to get a couple of trainers at a similar timeframe. And talk about trainers and training. Say, you have a friend who really would like to fly, but has no idea what anything is or how anything works. I for one would buy a trainer module for him/her to get up to speed because that's an easier step into the sim. Simpler procedurds, less systems to worry about, all that sort of thing. I've heard plenty of people tell newbies "buy the A10-C now", without realizing that might be way too intimidating. If you have an interest but not the knowledge, an advanced aircraft may seem too much to handle. Remember that none of us here look into this without a bias. We are already "in". What we do need, is proper simulation of ATC and navaids and then proper, in-depth training missions to qualify you from a newbie to a fighter/attacker pilot. From what I understand, VEAO has such a campaign in the works when Hawk and Typhoon are working as intended. Now relax. Chill. Enjoy. And remember: even if you don't believe it, DCS is better than it has ever been, and continues to develop further. Let's not be ungrateful. Go shoot down a trainer if that makes you feel better. Humble regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I would be interested to know as well. DCS needs a better options menu in terms of available customization and especially tooltips. Not every user is tech savvy enough to know what's the difference in performance between different Anti-aliasing types and so forth. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Interesting.

It is interesting to note how big Viggen is... I mean its not the largest of aircraft, but compare it to Draken and Gripen... massive... The extra wheels on the main gear may help bring a bit more "umpf" to the appearance... what's the MTOW on Viggen?

The purpose of aerodynamic braking is to slow the aircraft down without the use of brakes, and only use brakes at lower speeds when the airflow is not enough to keep the nose up. This is done to conserve the brakes and avoid overheating them due to long application of brakes at higher speeds. When it comes to wear and tear of the brakes... that has nothing to do with DCS since you always fly with a fresh aircraft. If you really need to stip the plane quickly, reduce aircraft weight (by burning fuel and or jettisoning external loads) to achieve the lowest possible final approach speed, drop the nose right after touchdown and bake hard. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Hey, if you need a professionally done tutorials in using Blender go check out BornCG on youtube. The guy apparently teaches blender irl, so it's way easier to follow than random hour long tutorials. He pretty much covers every tool within the program. I feel you might benefit from those to get you more up to speed with your work. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

That would make CSAR missions way more engagin with helicopter pilots... you could also simulate as seeker device that roughly points to the beacon from a short range. That could simulate having a handheld locator in the aircraft. All you would need are posiyion of both ELT and the locator, then add line of sight calculations (as with other radios) and off you go! The device would be usable via the GUI. How about it? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

For all intents and purposes it seems that clockspeed is the one you want to be as high as possible. DCS uses only 2 cores (1 for the game, 1 for the audio), so getting more cores helps only if you have other programs running parallel (so they don't share the core DCS desperately needs). High end i5 should do the trick.

This is probably the millionth wishlist thread, but all'right. The AH-64 and the Hind are the only choppers that spark my interest, so yep. I would like to see one of those... I mean, I don't mind at all which choppers we can fly in DCS. I'm just not personally interested in flying unless... Here's waiting for Apache.