Mars Exulte

Can confirm. I have one, it works perfectly fine with SSA.

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.

That would explain why they always seemed the same to me, I reckon.

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.

Hehe, yeah Yeah, can't believe nobody jumped on board with that @@

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.

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.

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.

Some planes, some vehicles. It's particularly obvious when part of a mixed group, some disappear and some don't. And yeah... after twenty years I would safely say they don't care. We still have jet flyby noises for WWII planes in the distance despite having them for however long that is. Meanwhile we have fully modeled wiring harnesses in a helicopter people will look at exactly once and enthusiasts quibble over rivet count while basic elements of the game itself are ignored for literal decades.

The high detail model you see up close to an aircraft is not used uniformly at all distances. It actually switches to progessively simpler models as the object is further away, lessening the burden on your PC without discernable loss of detail. This is called LoD (level of detail) and typically there are 5+ models it switches between. Aircraft disappearing in between two points of visibility (you can see it zoomed out, can see it zoomed in, but not at a halfway point) is typically due to poor or outright missing LoDs. None of your settings are going to have an effect on something that is literally NOT THERE and there's not really anything you personally can do about it. It affects a number of units. In particular the MiG-21 used to vanish at intermediate ranges as I remember but I THINK they fixed that a while back, but don't take my word for it.

I... I have an idea. More of a notion, really. A tingle in one of my brain folds. We all agree spotting is hit and miss in this game. Reasons vary widely, I'll not list them all here as we mostly all know them and have hashed it out a million times. Some of it is even just due to slapdash devwork, ie missing LoDs that make them literally disappear. So, my idea is dynamic LODs... but with a twist. So, the smart scaling we had before was... suboptimal. It applied to all units at all times and resulted in skyscraper sized tanks and all kinds of bizarre crap that's unwanted. Kind of like labels, it technically solves ''the issue'' but creates new, often worse, ones as well. How about this, the scaling is only applied to airborne units like planes and helos, and only within the troublesome range where stuff should be visible but often isn't. No giant planes on the tarmac, no huge bombs, no titanic tanks. Distant objects are still specs, etc. Wouldn't apply to VR.

Debatable, honestly improbable. A paid mod doesn't even preclude another team also making a paid mod for the same aircraft, which has nearly occurred several times already and possibly is happening now with the Su-17/22. A-4 is as likely or not as anything else, the UH-60 is likely to be done regardless eventually, just from its popularity and wide service history. That is an excessively dull and passionless approach to life.

This is presumably all stuff that is done by the groundcrew before the pilot touches the aircraft, right? I'm all for nuts and bolts simulation, but it does seem this is one of the things that could be glossed over. Especially since we can rearm and refuel in less than 60 seconds. The things ED, and by extension the community, obsess over, are as always... irregular.

I like how many of those assets are like... right over there (points at DCS today)

Interesting to have the PC-9 (from which the T-6 derived) and the A-29 (which is very similar) both in development. Be fun to compare the two.

I should think if it's leaking that much you should be able to see the oily stuff on the bottom side. And concur it's probably dielectric grease, although it seeping out is a bit odd, and yeah definitely keep that <profanity> out of your eyes whatever it is.

None of this has anything to do with mods. 99% of games out there support mods to some extent or another, some of them rely heavily on mods even. All that aside, the presence or absence of mods has exactly zero effect on your gameplay experience personally. There are ALREADY a metric ton of flyable aircraft mods, including several to the level of paid for modules (A-4, T-45, and several mods became full modules like the MB-339 and others) and it has exactly zero effect on you unless you A. Use one of them or B. Play on a server that does, both of which are completely optional. He didn't ask for the ability to rip off paid for content. He's talking about better mod support in general, ie making it more convenient to use. It's not going to ''destroy'' DCS or affect your experience one way or the other. Like literally every game on the planet, in order to use mods on a server, they have to be used by everyone.

There's nothing stopping you from making simple modifications now, but as far as your request goes, it's not possible to subtlety tweak the FMs on the major modules because they are not table based as in many older games. It's not particularly simple to mod a LOT of the things, because they're tied into the model or physics. There isn't any way around that, except to use the simpler aircraft as your base or build your own. There is a lot more to it than just two more pylons, thus the intensity of actually designing modules or making mods around here. There is a Super Hornet mod available already, probably several, AFAIK. It isn't particularly easy to do that sort of thing and never will be because this is not a particularly simple environment.

Exactly this. It's not ''mislabeled'' it's misunderstood. One is about aligning the lenses with your physical eyes, and the other is positioning for the two ingame cameras you are ''viewing'' through (technically the same thing, but the practical effect is different). The first one needs to be as close to your physical eye dimensions as possible or you will get distortion, headaches, fuzziness, etc. The second one is adjusted to taste.

The MiG-15 FM is known to be completely borked, and has been for years, OP merely repeats what has been stated a million times before. Completely irrelevant. It's been screwed up since day one. Likewise with the AI F-5, although the MiG is a much worse offender. Unfortunately true, despite the fact it could be fixed with some table adjustments in an afternoon, those sort of easy fixes are typically the ones that linger longest around here. And before somebody comes in spurging about my ''easy fix'' comment. AI literally use what is effectively a spreadsheet. It is not a FM like for player aircraft. So yes, it is literally adjusting numbers. You can even do it yourself, or used to if it hasn'tbeen encrypted since then

Well, since my headset has crapped out and I have yet to fix it I cannot test in VR, but I did fire up the MT executable today on my 2d UW screen. Before, with most settings maxed and a few minor allowances for particular hogs, I was getting 75ish, with MT and all settings maxed it is steady at 120-130fps, sometimes surging to 180ish. It does have some sporadic microstutters, but I gather that's a known issue, but goddamn. That's a huge improvement. I'm excited to try it out in VR one of these days.

Windows is designed to use a pagefile. People frequently try to minmax their performance by removing or shrinking it, but it is usually a bad idea. Even if it doesn't cause problems with the one utility you're tinkering for, it's likely to cause problems somewhere else eventually, because the OS itself is intended to make use of it. It doesn't matter how much RAM you have. MT helps with a lot of things, but doesn't really have anything to do with the way Windows is designed to operate. There's a lot of reasons it might or might not cause a problem and why it did or didn't before this. Just monitor if it starts doing it again, but yeah, like above, that's generally something prone to causing problems.

The GPS module we have provides a pop up fully interactive unit, albeit not 3d, for each module. Making an actual 3d model is waaaaay more work, because it would need to be set up and tuned for the individual aircraft with altered 3d models, etc. It's not like the bobbleheads for some games where each plane is designed from the outset to allow for it in designated spots.

The difference is the melting (voluntary or otherwise) of your ships is a normal part of the gameplay loop there, and you having (or not having) a particular ship is a simply a matter of personal will, ie there is nothing stopping you from accumulating all of them via normal gameplay anyway, regardless of whether you spend more past the initial purchase. Those ''ship sales'' have little real world relevance to the player or their gameplay cycle, and are bizarrely akin to NFTs. DCS is exactly the other direction in basically all relevant ways. It's such a poor comparison I don't know why we're even seriously discussing it except I'm bored and have nothing better to do while waiting for this timer to countdown at work.

I'd say not super common as military units fight as a unit typically, formation against formation, but hardly unheard of. Probably be most common after skirmishes when everyone gets scattered and individuals roam looking for easy meat. Dangerous... eh, kind of, but kind of not. A Lone fighter would be hard to spot compared to a gaggle of aircraft, so he'd be able to pick his fights a bit unless he got crept up on by another lone aircraft. But yeah, definitely a thing, if you've got fuel and ammo, you'd look for a fight, regardless of whether you had separated from your unit.