Mars Exulte

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.

Yesterday everything was fine. Today, can't even get the headset to boot properly. Blue screen flickering in and out randomly, and the tracking pops in and out. It's never done this before, but is apparently fairly common based on a quick search. It's just so damn out of nowhere. It was fine YESTERDAY. Now this crap? I really should have bought an Index...

You will literally always have a bottleneck. That's not a ''problem'' or something to be fixed, there's always some part of your PC that's ''in the way'' of the others. The question is ''how much''. If you're trying to jam a typhoon through a 2'' pipe, that's a problem, and that was the issue we had on CPU side. We had extremely powerful processors that were being choked down to two cores, and it was causing a back up in other areas. Now that those areas are freed up, your primary restriction is the GPU itself, which is the ideal scenario. Again, there is no such thing as ''no bottleneck''. A G2 is capable of extremely high resolutions (several times 2d 4k in pixel count) and a 3080 cannot handle that many pixels easily, meaning it's going all out, which is normal and to be expected.

All good =) I just flipped back a few pages and saw one referencing diecasts with four posts, if that's what you're referring to. I never even saw that one, this is the only ''models'' thread I knew of offhand, and it's just ''a'' thread AFAIK, not ''the'' thread. I did not, but it's not terribly surprising there is one floating around somewhere.

Never said it was Never claimed it was. In fact, specifically said it wasn't a few posts back. Correct. Feel better now? Went to the Dallas museum of aviation a few weeks ago, they've got a B-17 with a 15ft wingspan, give or take. It's insanely detailed like that. Really cool, but takes years to do, I'm assuming. I can't confirm it's plastic, maybe wood, maybe metal. Probably a combination. Just putting that there as a trigger warning for MoW

Heh, yeah. Not judging. I have a lot of bad impulses, according to the bank.

Mirrors are a big pull yeah, and ReShade can be, but I'm surprised TacView would have any impact when not running.

This kind of nonsense usually is. That's what happens when you impulse buy. Not really anybody else's problem. I am 100% certain it got exactly the amount of consideration it needed. Which is exactly why this sort of thing will never happen, incidentally.