Jump to content

Mars Exulte

Members
  • Posts

    5167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Mars Exulte

  1. When it's ready. It varies. A new major update usually takes a while. This one went pretty smoothly, so it probably won't take long. Or... hear me out now... you can just be patient. Or update yourself.
  2. Agreed. These were not generic ''PC hardware'' threads. They were specific to input devices and controllers.
  3. *Slow-mo JDAM busting through roof of tank* *Record screech as driver looks at camera* Hi, there! I'm Jamal! You're probably wondering how I ended up HERE of all places. Well, it's a long story, that started waaaay back when I was a little boy in Damascus... *flashback begins*
  4. Except those numbers aren't at all accurate. They're definitely visible from greater distances than that. WWII Brits reported watching the German flights assembling prior to them crossing the channel, and that's a lot more than ''6 miles +30%'' If you're going to pull something out of your arse at least say so.
  5. But we have intricately modeled wiring underneath the access panels of our helicopter! Spotting is and always has been screwed in DCS, and I say that as a fanboi. Just like the BS about missing and irregular LoDs causing models to pop in and out of existence at irregular distances that has been that way for literally ever. It's not ''impossibru'' like some people say, but it doesn't work very well, that's an objective fact, ranging from shaders and resolution issues to the previously mentioned broken LoD system. It is very much not ''working fine''. It is at best ''poor''. But hey, we have access panels and wiring harnesses @@ BTW, the reason I keep mentioning that is I know 3d modelers aren't responsible for all areas of coding, but they ARE responsible for things like LoDs which are a rampant problem. ED spends a considerable amount of time on things that serve little to no purpose and won't ever really be seen... meanwhile ignoring very basic things for years on end. Like the jet engine prop planes I mentioned the other day, but I am not griping about after seeing WWII sounds getting updated and I don't know if that was part of it (after however many years, I should hope so) Great! And after they're done assigning community fixes to the ban list, maybe they can like... fix it themselves so these things aren't necessary.
  6. That's what turbulence is. You're not generally battling for control or bouncing wildly all over the sky, even if you were it would only be in smaller, slower moving aircraft. That's called a ''severe thunderstorm'' and you usually don't fly in those.
  7. Turbulence is modeled and most commonly encountered at lower altitudes when coming in to land and takeoff, and around mountains.it is also a setting so mission dependent like wind speed, many online servers probably disable it. There is (or was) something like thermals years ago, particularly under clouds (encountered in Yak-52 which is light enough it actually started climbing). I don't know the state of thermals now with the new cloud system as I haven't flown the Yak cross country (or at all) in ages. Also bear in mind heavier faster moving aircraft are less affected by all these things than something like a Yak, but yes they are present in some form.
  8. It's a lot better than the original JetSeat :p This at least has some padding. You can put additional cushions on it though, it will still be ''feelable''. That depends on the sim and how it's set up. That is something that can be configured. I disable that, as it is unrealistic. Which is a completely different deal, if you weren't using SSA. SSA ties into the physics engine directly. If you aren't using that, you just have a vibrating cushion and that's it. It never will because AFAIK the majority of aircraft in that sim lack the physics modeling this is designed for. Again, vibrating cushion most the time. If it's configured properly it should be most/all the motors active and vibrating together, including for most effects. It's highly configurable in SSA. Again, if you didn't use SSA you did indeed miss 95% of the point.
  9. It can't. Just the nature of flight sims in general and DCS in particular. It's the nerdiest end of the nerd spectrum and we are grossly outnumbered. It's no different over there at War Thunder, a much simpler game. It's a smallish population in general, although it dwarfs this one, and the bulk of it is in the arcade section. The realistic and simulation side of the community was basically the same few hundred people and we mostly all kinda got to recognise each other. DCS is like that times 50. The massive time commitment required to operate most the aircraft to a useful level means 90% of people literally can't play, or just offline because they're enthusiasts. Everyone in DCS is an enthusiast, but of them, only a few have the time to be online a significant amount. DCS total online population is only a few hundred active people, with another few hundred to thousand infrequent. Nothing about that is ever going to change. DCS is small and will remain so. Go try to get a few of your friends to play. Note how basically all of them will remark it's cool, but then not actually be interested in doing it themselves. It is what it is.
  10. Yes. It isn't anything ''first''. What it IS is a video game, full stop. Specifically it is a PC video game, and as opposed to the highly uniform world of consoles, every PC is different, necessitating configurable settings. No amount of Mountain Dew consumed, regardless of flavor, will change the fact this is a video game. You cannot log the hours, it is by every definition a game. *clutches pearls* Then play offline or join a clan. Mixing with the unwashed hordes on a public server you will, shockingly, find a variety of people with a variety of machines and mindsets. Console games don't HAVE settings, because they're already optimised for their universal platform. PCs, as previously mentioned, are far from universal. If you want a rigidly controlled environment, join a clan or a tournament tailored for a specific theme. I consider this equally as dumb, yes. So shortcuts and external aides are fine as long as they're ''Blastman approved!'' @@ Good thing absolutely nothing is that drastic then, huh? Labels are the closest thing to an actually relevant aide. I can at least understand the objection there. But ''MUH IMMERZION'' because of somebody being able to change their settings? Ffs
  11. Yeah, me, too. I didn't build this damn thing to play with Minecraft visuals! Play Arma a lot, I already know online 95% of people turn everything as low as they can. It occasionally results in an obvious ''preventable death'' but the majority of the time it's not likely to have been a factor. True, but point is person with it has a big advantage over person without it (easier to do while multi-tasking, usually frees up a couple hats, etc). It's probably even more useful than decent controls as far as being a ''game changer'' goes, it's hard to over emphasise as long as you stick with it through the initial clumsy acclimation.
  12. Correct on all counts. SimShaker Aviators is the only thing you need.
  13. Are you new to gaming or something? It's 2023. People have been doing that since at least the 90s turning down graphic settings to increase FPS (and response times) as well as improving visibility by removing grass and trees. You choose eye candy at a cost, it has always been that way and always will. Guess what else? The guy that spent $4,000 on a high end PC, head tracking, and pro controls ALSO has a significant advantage literally paying to win! Just play your damn video game and stop obsessing over minmaxing nonsense. Speaking from 30 years of online experience, that ain't what gets you killed 95% of the time.
  14. Congratulations on joining the league of disappointed Reverb owners. Cables are a frequent failure point. I'm on my third one and it is very possibly crapped out on me once again. I'm eyeing possible replacements rn.
  15. If it's stuck at 45fps you have motion reprojection on and locked. If you're trying to get a steady 90+fps, that's just now becoming possible with the release of multi-threading. It will become more achievable once DLSS arrives in the presumably near future (I expect they're staggering release to minimise the amount of crap they have to bughunt for). Aside from those things, the AMD series have a reputation for issues with VR, aside from being inherently less powerful than their equivalent Nvidia counterparts. You're not going to get stellar performance from them, especially as it stands right now. You get what you pay for, and that's what you paid for. Regardless, "throwing hardware" at it isn't going to solve anything. The things that need to happen are engine side, and are in process as we speak, so I'd just be patient and chill for a bit.
  16. Shakers (whether buttkickers or a jetseat) help immensely with feeling what is happening with your aircraft. You can feel turbulence (from light bumps to heavier kicks), vibrations from deployed gear or battledamage, gunfire and weapon releases, engine RPMs, shudder during hard turns. Everything. If a good PC, simulator, and controls take you 80% of the way to flight, haptic feedback of this sort takes you another 10-15% of the way until all you're really lacking is inertia (g forces). On that note, I recommend disabling the "g-feeling" selection as it is unrealistic and honestly distracting because of how it works. You get shaking and turbulence when appropriate during hard maneuvers and disrupted airflow, but an aircraft does not have off-axis vibrations while pulling Gs like SSA does. -edit general impression It works more or less identically to the JetSeat, although it has a slightly different feel in some ways (to be expected, considering it is indeed different gear), and is much more comfortable. I was concerned the thick padding would interfere with the sensations from the motors but it does not. It also uses a regular USA plug, if you're from here that means you can get away from any clunky adapters from Euro-US. The control panel itself is much nicer than the JetSeat's as well. I rate the HF8 10/10 and an excellent choice to replace the JetSeat even if you already have one as I did.
  17. I am running the latest version of SSA. It works fine, you must select Forcefeel instead of JetSeat. Sometimes I have to click "restart" in order for it to refresh and recognise. There is is a helpful "test motors" button on the same screen. Make sure they are working before you start the game. Otherwise I've had no issues. Yes, it works fine with USB and SSA.
  18. Can confirm. I have one, it works perfectly fine with SSA.
  19. It's funny you're complaining about this when my flight instructor warned me to be very alert to it. It's a real thing and they are not independent of one another. I can't attest to how accurate it is, and Lace seems to know in more detail how it works, but yeah, it's a real thing.
  20. That would explain why they always seemed the same to me, I reckon.
  21. I got an HF8 today, can confirm it was immediately recognised by SimShakerAviator as a Forcefeel seat and appears to be working as expected. I will update this post with confirmation next time I'm able to fly a significant time, as I'm currently having some unrelated... technical difficulties.
  22. Hehe, yeah Yeah, can't believe nobody jumped on board with that @@
  23. Incorrect. Exactly zero aircraft have simple flight models. All have PFMs or equivalents except the Su-25. Barring AI of course, they all use a simplified flight model. Relative closure rate, is he going much faster than you, maneuvering aggressively, off axis, climbing, descending, etc. These are all subtle clues as to what he's doing. There's no substitute for experience, and you will eventually learn to read the body language of the other aircraft. A common mistake of noobs and youtubers is constantly using fancy bfm terms they heard online. These are indeed descriptive terms for various maneuver regimes and what have you, but you shouldn't be THINKING IN THOSE TERMS during a fight. On their own they don't mean much, as it's all subject to the moment, relative conditions of the fight, and skill levels of the respective pilots. You will generally play to your aircraft's strengths by trying to push things in a direction that favors you, for example a Bf-109 generally is lighter and has better climbrate than most other aircraft under equal conditions so climbing or fighting vertically is usually a preferred option, although not always necessary or ideal. Example a heavy P-47 comes in co-equal on speed and altitude you can simply climb straight up, he'll stall out first (provided he doesn't catch you with a snap shot) and you can drop on him from above while he's recovering energy. You won't ALWAYS do that, because it might not ALWAYS be wise at the moment. In the case of modern superfighters, they all have so much power and so much potential maneuverability, that the differences come down to a few percent one way or another. Helpful, yes, but usually not ''war winning'' on its own. Primary determinant is how the fight starts. If the other guy gets the drop on you, your 1c 2c stuff doesn't matter. Reading the situation. If he's in a very high energy state compared to you, running, climbing or diving won't be options. Turning into him will force him to either try a headon snapshot, aggressively maneuver shedding speed to try to get a shot (which may be able to exploit), or maybe he opts to shed speed by zooming up rolling on top of you and maintaining his energy potential and the initiative. In each of these choices there are possible options for you, meeting him head on, trying to encourage him to dump speed if it's favorable to you to do so, pulling him close if you want to try to force and overshoot, following him into the vertical (probably unwise if you have less energy or thrust but you can maybe try for a snapshot), and probably a variety of other things. The more skilled your opponent the fewer opportunities he'll give you and the fewer mistakes he'll make. A substantially better opponent may be near unbeatable, regardless of his aircraft, simply because he made no mistakes and you did, and that is USUALLY the thing that determines the fight, barring particularly unfortunate starting conditions. But there is no hard rule ''you must do this in this aircraft'' because while your aircraft may be superior in a certain category than another aircraft (or most) it may not ALWAYS be superior in ALL conditions against ALL aircraft, and ALL aircraft can fight in ALL regimes if the conditions are conducive. Experience will help you ''read the room'' as a fight begins, and will help you learn intuitively what the guy is doing (you can even recognise experience and quality of the other guys controls if he's unusually jerky, indecisive, wobbles oddly, etc). You won't always win the fights, regardless, but you'll gradually be able to last longer, or at least exploit those ''one shot'' mistakes the other guy makes, because everyone does. In equal fights, who screws up first loses, provided the other guy is a good marksman. On that note, practice basic gunnery a LOT, as I mentioned it comes down to exploiting tiny windows of opportunity that may or may not come again, it's essential you be able to kill efficiently or ''creating the opportunities'' won't do you any good.
  24. The VR community is relatively small, even viewed globally. The reason that wave of companies just pulling out is because there's not enough to go around. There are not enough people to make ''a dozen different entry level variants'' feasible. Pico and HP are both on the list of those pulling out or greatly downsizing, for example. There's not gonna be anymore Reverbs, and Pico's future is questionable. Everyone, including me, that bought one most likely purchased a deadend product. That goes back to the manufacturing scale I mentioned before. In twenty years, there may be enough people in this and VR sufficiently ubiquitous that it's realistic to have numerous competitors along different tiers of quality and performance. Right now there is not. There's Oculus, Valve, and a handful of boutiques likely to survive the current downsizing. It's not manufacturing capacity, it's demand. Samsung can churn out 20,000,000 phones and expect to sell them all. They cannot say the same for VR headsets, regardless of the price range they are aimed at. It's gonna stay that way for the forseeable future.
  25. Because Facebook (that made $300 Rifts) is a multibillion dollar conglomerate that can afford to subsidise the headset at a loss to get you in their ecosystem. Same reason Xbox's used to be really cheap. Same reason phone companies provide phones cheaply if you sign a contract. That isn't where they make their money. Smaller companies cannot do that. And this is still very much a niche, ultra enthusiast technology that is only a few years old. ''Cheap'' comes from mass production and streamlined processes, neither of which apply to VR in any way at this time.
×
×
  • Create New...