qqQ

Geforce Experience ist ein optionales Nvidia-Tool. Es dient zum Updaten des Treibers (vereinfacht diesen Vorgang aber nur), ShadowPlay (Aufnahmeprogramm), dem streamen auf ein Nvidia Shield und ermöglicht ausserdem das "Optimieren" von Grafikeinstellungen in Videospielen. Es trägt überhaupt nix zur Treiberfunktion bei, wer es nicht will, muss lediglich den gewünschten Grafiktreiber von der Nvidia- Webseite ziehen und beim Installieren das Häkchen bei Geforce Experience entfernen, verzichtet damit aber auf oben erwähnte Funktionen und muss, wenn gewünscht, den Grafiktreiber manuell updaten (gewünschte Version von Nvidia-Webseite herunterladen). Meiner Meinung nach ist die einzig lohnenswerte Funktion für Leute ohne Shield-Tablet (wer hat sowas?) ShadowPlay und wer das nicht verwendet, ist ohne besser beraten.

Wenn, dann nicht zuverlässig genug. Hatte jetzt selbst mit meiner geringen Zeit im Multiplayer schon diverse Male asynchrone Wolken.

Du hast aber Ansprüche ;)

Das ist mir durchaus bewusst. Allerdings hatte ich eher an die Umsetzbarkeit in näherer Zeit und Kosten-Nutzen gedacht, und da die AI zurzeit nur das SFM verwenden kann (correct me if I'm wrong ;)), bleibt natürlich nur dieses zur Wahl (so schön das AFM auch wäre). Ganz zu schweigen von den Entwicklungskosten für ein paar seltener wirklich aktiv an Missionen partizipierenden Einheiten. Außerdem stellt sich natürlich die Frage, ob ein AI-AFM für Verkehrsflugzeuge (die hätte ich jetzt hauptsächlich gemeint gehabt) wirklich so einen großen Unterschied machen würde, was das Abfangen angeht, da solche Flugzeuge gängigen Jagdflugzeugen hinsichtlich der Flugleistungen ohnehin weit unterlegen sind (wieder die Kategorie Kosten-Nutzen). Damit kenne ich mich aber zu wenig aus und überlasse das Urteil deshalb den Experten unter uns. Generell würde ich natürlich aber niemals Nein zu einem realistischeren Flugmodell für AIs sagen, vor allem bei Kampfflugzeugen (und -Hubschraubern, falls ich die mal fliege) wäre es mir sehr willkommen (Mig15, mach dich auf was gefasst ;)), solange es umsetzbar ist. Ob es bei wirklich allen (Zivil)flugzeugen nötig ist, ist, wie oben erläutert, zumindestens meiner Meinung nach fraglich.

Mich würden zivile Flugzeuge jeglicher Art nicht stören, solange die Entwicklung der militärischen nicht darunter leidet (immerhin heisst es Digital COMBAT Simulator), genauso wenig wie die Merkmale, die ein Simulator für militärisches Fluggerät, wie es bereits vorhanden ist, aufweisen sollte/muss. Fluggerät, das sowohl zivil als auch militärisch verwendet werden kann (z.B. die bereits erwähnte Cessna) oder militärische Transportflugzeuge (bevorzugt natürlich solche, die nicht nur für strategische, sondern auch taktische Rollen geeignet sind) wären meiner Meinung nach ein realisierbarer erster Schritt, da diese ohne große Änderungen an den derzeitigen Möglichkeiten des Simulators sinnvoll implementierbar wären. Rein ziviles Fluggerät ist im Moment meiner Meinung nach eher Zukunftsmusik (wenn überhaupt möglich/gewollt), da zivile Simpiloten Anforderungen andere Anforderungen haben, die DCS im Moment noch nicht erfüllen kann (real. ATC etc., größere Maps (Detail wäre bei Verkehrsflugzeugen nicht so wichtig, do normalerweise eh weit weg), real. ziviler Flugverkehr nur mal als Beispiele). Ein für beide Seiten realistisches/interessantes Zusammenwirken im Multiplayer kann ich mir auch kaum vorstellen, und ob für den Singleplayer wirklich beide Seiten "vereint" werden müssen, glaube ich auch nicht (damit ein ziviler Pilot mal abgefangen wird, braucht er keine Riesenauswahl ultrarealistischer Jagdflieger, genauso wie ein DCS-Pilot auch keine Riesenauswahl ultrarealistischer Zivilflugzeuge zum Abfangen braucht). Da würde eine für die AI reservierte Fraktion ziviler "Einheiten" mit SFM und weniger detailliertem 3D-Model für DCS mir weitaus angemessener und umsetzbarer anmuten.... +1 übrigens für zivile "Bodeneinheiten"

In the game options menu (special tab i think), you can select between simplified and realistic nosewheel behaviour. IF you have selected realistic, you have to "catch" the nosewheel, meaning you have to move the rudder to the position the nosewheel is currently at. The Nosewheel should then be coupled with the rudder (after depressing the NWS button) and is now ready for steering with the pedals. Note that the nosewheel can be in a position where you cant catch it (to much turned in one direction, do not remember exact values, requirees you to taxi straight with diff braking to realign it). If you have selected simplified, the nosewheel should be coupled when you depress the button. When I remember correctly there also should be no position where it wont do that. Make sure you have hydraulic pressure on the Utility system (to read out the pressure you must flip the switch next to the gauge to utility), required RPM is between 40 and 50 percent. Also important: In the manual, a few illustrations mistakenly show the wrong button. The NWS button is not the red thumb button (that is the radar target selector), but a grey pinky button. Last but not least: Dont expect the NWS to be A10-like. Its less precise, reacts slowly and you cant make sharp turns, for those you need diff braking. PS: @Buzzles: The Flaps are fully electric, thus need no hydraulic pressure. Also it doesnt matter if you leave the Hydr. valve for the Speedbrakes open and do not set the switch to neutral. Once the Speedbrakes reached maximum deflection, no hydraulic pressure is consumed anymore, as the piston doesnt move anymore. It does only lower the pressure while moving.

Tried it out, but no change. Its not easy to recognize when slewing the TGP around, but when looking at the Axis Tune window in DCS or the Raw values in Windows Gamecontroller or Target Device Analyzer you can clearly see a low latency. Did you checked there? Just want to know if its normal.

When looking at the Axis values of the HOTAS Warthogs Slew Ministick whilst moving it around, the values do not change smoothly, but instead they jump around (like if the Ministick had a very low polling rate, means that the registered values are transmitted to my PC with very long time intervals between). However, I can still move the Ministick to every single value. Does the Ministick have a very low polling rate or do Ive got a faulty one? All other Axis on both Joystick and Throttle unit work like expected.

Yep this ruined me quite some dogfights (would have ruined most of them anyway with stupid mistakes, but still...). As soon as you are hit by a lucky bullet you have to disengage, because you cant use the full potential of your aircraft anymore without breaking the engine in a few minutes (by either running to low or high RPM). Dont know if this is realistic or not, this is up to be discussed by people with more in depth knowledge of the aircraft. I just find it strange that I lose my proppitch every second time I eat a bullet, but my liquid cooling system has never been damaged (and I get shot up pretty often) by a bullet causing leakage (doesnt the cooling system provide a significant vulnerability with liquid cooled engines and is their biggest disadvantage to air cooled ones in fighter aircraft?), only by overheating the cooling liquid in steep climbs on high power settings. All in alll this vulnerability is just another reason for me to fly manual pitch, as then I am more likely to have the governor set to a setting that doesnt completely srew you before it breaks up.

Georgian Spring and last weekend (if I remember right) there was a simple furballing server that was populated with about 25 people. Had a great time there.

Also searching.... If somebody wants to fly with me, just leave a PM. Have some limited experience on the Sabre and also in general, so dont expect me to be an expert. I know the systems of the aircraft, I can takeoff and land, I scored some victories against both humans and AI, I can execute more or less (definitely closer to reality ;) )accurate ground attacks, but I still have to practice a lot. @Rob : Nice server, but the AI Migs still do not seem to show interest in me. Today I got one flying evasive maneuvers, but it didnt tried to engage me (when I overshot and turned away, he went into straight flight again until I reengaged).

4 out of 4 hit on the Georgian Spring Server today. Two bugging AI Migs flying straight, lined up, aimed little bit above and waited for a safe lock. Well, they were dead. Other 2 were on a Mig from 30 degress left and below + on a Mig from above close, maybe 15 degrees sideways. Both Migs seemed in Idiot mode (interfered when they met some AI Sabres). @Jogui3000: You joined right before I left. Maybe we can one day fly together.

If you launch it at straight (slight turns are also allowed) flying targets approx. from behind, nose maybe a little bit up (+ lead the target as much as possible) its a pretty deadly weapon. Just make sure you arent pulling significant G's and make sure your lock is solid (dont immediately launch on sound change, listen a second or two, always make sure you are not looking in the sun). Having best success with some 0,5 nm distance, but also splashed once from 0,1 (in a missile only dogfight against a friend) or from greater distances (only on large aircraft, on smaller ones you wont get lock from distances significantly greater than approx. 0,8 nm). Launched about 30 missiles in total, definitely more than 50 % hit. My hit probability against fighters is btw far higher when the target is human and not AI. Coincidence? Or do player aircraft have differences to the AI variant in case of IR signature etc? Pretty useful against Migs who start a straight climb duel with you, without Missile you can basically just scare them with gunfire once they got some distance and hope they stop the climb flying evasive maneuvers (or disengage and hope they come back). Just be aware that the Missile wasnt awailable in the Korean war, so its not exactly realistic in some scenarios.

The main reason why I wont buy a VR-Headset in the next years is that I cant be sure whether I m able the VR-Games I want without fearing that they might only be released for a different system. Hope we will get some kind of VR-standard.

So, got my Warthog for some time now, and well, it worked fine....for a few weeks. Then it developed stiction + a second center spot. Knowing that this might happen, I prepared myself with some high quality grease (Molykote 44 medium) and regreased it (after sanding a few edges) => stiction fixed. But the centering fault was quite a mysterium first. The rubber ring was virtually not glued in, but it was perfectly flat, even without the rubber ring (you can actually run it like that, if you grease its no problem, some people reporting no significant wear after years, but I dont like the more distinct center detent that comes with it) the problem was still there (the ball joints contact surface also was perfectly flat). Got me some hours of trying, then I got a solution: The slider and guide rails may not exactly fit together => the entire slider can wobble. You can try to rotate it or in a more extreme case like mine just disassemble the white part, rotate it and put it back on. Now its perfectly fine. Just keep in mind that you need to recalibrate the stick afterwards with the thrustmaster utility, as the center will likely shift a few hundred values (You need to confirm that the stick is non-wobbly manually, dont look if the raw data output changes, the Warthog has a non-removable little deadzone (bigger steps betweeen the values 32767-32768-32769) in the calibrated middle). PS: Even if you dont disassemble the whole ball joint, regreasing the guide rails is heavily recommended as they can cause a lot of stiction if they are not properly greased. The Warthogs gimbal is the biggest weakpoint of the stick.

Get some HVARs ;)

@Platypus: This heavily depends on your airspeed. At higher speeds you enjoy better maneuverability in most aspects (sustained, seemingly also instantaneous turn rate as well as roll) but at around mach 0.5 it is not advisable to turn with him as he enjoys the better sustained turn (whilst your instantaneous is better). You may be able to turn tighter, but only at the cost of sacrificing energy, thus only for a limited amount of time, whilst seen over a long time, he can turn tighter. Because of this, he wants you to turn with him to let you bleed energy, slowly giving him an advantage, whilst you want to ease up on the stick and conserve as much energy as you can without loosing him, trading it at the right time for position by using your instantanous turning capabilities. EDIT: Just want to say that this may only be correct for a human mig. as the AI may fly the plane totally different and/or may have a different flight model. Not sure about that. @reflected: You may try to change the target speed/drop speed switch (located above the gunsight mode selector) to improve your pipper accuracy. The .50 cal is to ineffective (or the mig to robust), yes, but you can still improve your results by aiming at the wing roots, which are extremely fragile compared to the fuselage (which can survive a HVAR impact near (tried that on a parked Mig). This works best when shooting a little bit from above. If you dont cut a wing off, he sometimes toggles idiot mode (when damaged) and tries to reach the next airport in straight level flight. This makes him easy prey, as he may outaccelerate you, but cant outrun you. You dont need the wingspan when ranging is done with the radar (Its only needed in manual mode for rangefinding, as you have the correct range if the target fits the diamond circle). The "Handbraking". Hadnt had it that much, but at low speeds this tactic is very advisable for the Mig as it can force a guaranteed overshoot due to its lower stall speed. Still never experienced it slowing down that fast, try counter with barrel rolls.

Well, I want to know the syntax of the keywords the script supports, espicially the one called while, which I intend to use for a while-loop (a structure (excuse for my maybe not perfect english) that repeats until a condition is matched). A List of the supported keywords according to the manual (where their syntax is not explained as it is a basic manual and an advanced one seems not to exist): char, byte, short, word, int, alias, float, struct, include, if - else, do - while, while, return, goto, break This would help me creating a function in my script, as I could make sure that my faults are in the logical structure. Currently I am not sure whether my while loop is terminated after the condition is matched. Edit: This is my best try at the moment: loop1 = EXEC("while(rind3 < 0) ActKey(PULSE+ KEYON+ ch1);"); ch1 (function) creates some keypresses and sets rind3 (variable) to rind3+1 however, the whole thing is executed only once, no matter what rind3 value you use as long as it is smaller than zero => replacing the while condition with an if condition does not change anything

Is it possible to create such a loop? If yes, can anybody explain the syntax to me? Thank you in advance.

Thank you, just wanted to make sure I do nothing wrong.

[ame=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20586543/NO%20GUTS%20NO%20GLORY%20-%20A%20GUIDE%20TO%20SABRE%20COMBAT.pdf]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20586543/NO%20GUTS%20NO%20GLORY%20-%20A%20GUIDE%20TO%20SABRE%20COMBAT.pdf[/ame] found it linked in Chuck's F86 guide: [ame]http://server.3rd-wing.net/public/Manuels%20DCS/DCS%20F-86F%20Sabre%20Guide.pdf[/ame] well, seemingly I cant just copy in the link in....

Thank you for your advice, but coming back to my question: Do I need to leave CH Control Manager running for the calibration to be applied or can I calibrate it once and then dont need the program running to use the calibration?

(IMPORTANT: I am no expert, my flying experience is limited, so I do not guarantee that everything said below is correct!) Not exactly. The chart represents both instantaneous (upper line for both aircraft, you lose speed) and sustained turn rate (lower line, you dont slow down). Looking at the chart, we see that the Mig enjoys a better sustained turn at mach 0.5 (18 vs 14 deg/s), whilst the sabre has the better instantaneous turn rate. This leads us to the conclusion that its not advisable to turn with the mig for a long time at such speeds, as you will slowly bleed energy => the Mig slowly gets an advantage. When fighting at such speeds, the Mig wants you to turn with him to let you bleed energy, slowly bringing him into an advantageous position whilst you want to conserve your energy as good as you can and try trade it for a better position once the right moment has come. This is quite difficult and you dont want to rely on intuition, but keep cool and carefully decide when and what to do, as a mistake can get you in to serious trouble. Lag pursuit with a slight descend like SgtPappy in the linked thread suggested worked quite good for me to conserve energy whilst waiting. If you are unable to get a firing solution before bleeding of to much energy, disengage (When coming from other games, this is something important to learn: Sometimes you cant get that kill. Was a hard lesson for me.). General advice for dogfighting in the sabre: -Keep some altitude to escape a Mig when necessary (you are the better diver because you are heavier and have a higher critical mach number, meaning you can go faster before loosing control) -Never fight at extremely low speed, as your plane is difficult to handle there + the Mig has a lower stall speed, meaning it can force you to overshoot + the Migs better thrust-to-weight ratio gives it more options, allowing it to often escape you and turn the tables, which is extremely dangerous for you as it regains energy faster (if you cant dive away), often resulting in your dead -Dont climb with a Mig if you havent got an energy advantage and can use that to get an advantage. The Mig has the better thrust-to-weight ratio and because of this is the better climber in sustained climbs. However, in a zoom climb you might get an advantage due to your greater weight (=> higher kinetical energy). The Sabre is best at energy fighting at high speeds at a sufficient altitude, as at such speeds the Mig looses its sustained turn advantage, is negatively impacted concerning roll rate + the advantage of its better thrust-to-weight-ratio is limited (it cant accelerate a long time before reaching max speed + the higher speeds allow for longer zoom climbs) + you only need to accelerate a little bit to reach a safe speed where the Mig cant reach you (due to its lower critical mach)+ you can use your dive advantage. Also I have the feeling that, although the chart says otherwise, the Mig doesnt enjoy a instantaneous advantage (or at least not a big one, maybe because they simulate now that the Mig pilot had no g-suit (also for the ai) EDIT: Reading the MIg forum I found patchnotes of last years september where it says the maximum load factor of the Mig was decreased at certain altitudes). But maybe some of the more experienced pilots around have something to add/correct/etc.

1. Corner velocity: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=141719&page=2 2. Flight controls : https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/planes/sabre/?PAGEN_1=3 The alternate hydraulic pump is operated by an electric motor and not directly by the engine (like the primary one). That means it can be operated by your battery for a short time if your engine fails or during startup with ground electric power. The disadvantages are: Less powerfull, try to move your stick and look at the pressure (you must set the hydraulic pressure gauge switch to alternate to get it displayed). I can only speculate on other disadvantages, maybe less powerefficient (mechanical-electric, electric-mechanical, mechanical-pressure instead of just mechanical-pressure energy transition). => Use the alternate system during startup when the primary system isnt yet pressurized or during engine failure, otherwise use the primary system (because of the stated advantages + maybe additional ones; it surely isnt called primary for no reason). PS: The picture (in the link) may not be entirely correct (Or I m just stupid), as the alternate pressure leads to no alternate return but to a second primary return....maybe sb can explain 3. Climb speed: Not entirely sure, usually I climb with a rather high airspeed and try keeping it constant. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/de/products/sabre/index.php?PAGEN_1=2 According to this the maximum climb is about 2,8 km/min. Hope this helped.

Just keep in mind that improving the AI damage model (fixing sounds kinda weird since there is no bug or similar) will also require to improve the AI code as it needs to be able to handle the damage. But I agree that an inprovement would be nice, also for DCS WW2. THe damage model was made for missile engagements, and for those explosions it must not be that accurate, but now it should be improved as there are many aircraft that rely on guns only A2A. @Platypus : Maybe you dont need to slightly lead the Mig when changing the target velocity selector in the gunsight controls panel (next to the rocket depression)? Havent experienced that yet, the gunsight was pretty accurate for me....limiting factor was my bad aiming, really need to practice!