KCferrari

I have, but due to the piper not actually being predictive, it still tends to throw me off. It doesn't work at all how you'd think it would by just looking at it, when you're not used to this gunsight style. I'm more used to the air to ground and F-15 style sights where you line up the shot and the bullets simply land in the middle of the piper.

I can't hit anything with the snake. The shots just never seem to connect for me. I have better luck aiming manually with the gun cross.

As a small indie dev, it is quite worrying to me. In Canada, a 1080 Ti costs over $1600 due to this bitcoin nonsense, making it incredibly difficult for most gamers to keep their systems up to spec, and making VR content is not worth the effort at all due to monetary investment needed in order to properly test the software, so as much as I love VR, bitcoin mining could potentially entirely destroy it. After all, no one's going to buy a brand new headset which needs a GPU they can't afford. Since only a small percent of players can take advantage of the best GPU's, it's not worth developing content that does either. AAA developers obviously have much better resource to make games more scaleable however, but lets face it - no one wants to play the latest and greatest on "Lowest" settings. People want better GPU's but simply can't afford them, and with the global GPU shortage, can't even buy them because the stock is gone. In DCS, the standard is of course much higher, but you're also only looking at the small sample of people that actually post on the forums. The steam average is far lower, and being a free to play title, there are countless numbers of people that may try the game and quit shortly thereafter due to its particularly high system demands. So really, the hardware sample here is incredibly warped towards the high end, whether the players are active on the forums or not.

Hmm.. That could also be true. Perhaps the numbers used for this just need to allow a few more decimal places to fix this. I guess its either that or update frequency, but who knows. Either way, I love the G effect for the immersion and realism of being tossed around by the forces, but the laggy stepped feeling of it has made me turn it off, since every time I roll, it feels like i'm dropping frames.

Well.. It's an attacker.. The 3rd type of aircraft :music_whistling: Not really sure why you're all debating its usefulness in air combat though, since it was really never meant to do that. It's meant to only attack ground targets while operating out of makeshift airbases and small ships, which the hornet can't exactly do. Either way, its systems may share some similarities with the hornet, since it has a more modern display setup. In my opinion, it could probably prove to be good for some hornet training, if you're dying to get some flight time in something a little closer to the jet we're all waiting for here. :smilewink: Even though I have yet to get the harrier for DCS, it has always been a favourite of mine in other simulators due to its uniqueness.

Yea.. I think you meant to link something else, lol :music_whistling:

I still fly it with a twist stick - obviously not ideal, but it does the job. I love just flying the thing around vegas, skimming treetops and dodging buildings without any computer help. It feels much more alive without the autopilots :)

Well, without triple buffering, you only have a front and a back buffer. Once the back buffer is full, The GPU is at a standstill if it's waiting for the screen refresh. With triple buffering, the gpu can still be pumping out an extra frame to display. Pre rendered frames is basically the same thing, but works for DirextX, and you can choose how many additional frames it will prerender. In other words, 2 prerendered frames would mean 2 back buffers, which is the same thing as triple buffering. Therefore, if you set it as such, it should provide you with a little extra leeway for frame drops, and hold 60fps more easily. The more frames you pre render however, the more input lag it may cause. For instance, if you're some sort of madman and set it to 10, what you're seeing could be frames rendered up to 10 frames ago. It will of course only fill up the back buffers when it has time to, though. Set it to a reasonable number like 2 or 3 if you're using it. It is a standard option available in your gpu options, like triple buffering. Also, i'd highly recommend not using DCS vsync. Driver vsync gives much smoother results in my experience.

Triple buffering only affects OpenGL programs. DCS is DirectX. Instead, you'll need to change the maximum pre rendered frames.

Well, I ran into this issue myself, in a ground attack mission I threw together. I had a loadout of quad rocket launchers, alongside some Belouga bombs. Both weapon types can be selected and fired perfectly fine, however the button for the ext rockets does not appear. Only the int rockets can be fired. If mixing a/g weapons like this wasn't allowed, its a bit weird that you can fire some rockets but not all of them.

Honestly this is no question to me. In terms of lighting, the global illumination of the deferred shading makes the lighting look much more consistent with reality. The PBR materials have their proper characteristics as well, which are completely ruined with DS off. Without DS, the sun is also a basic directional light, making the landscape and exterior views look like a game from 10 years ago. There are still issues with the cockpit light levels and whatnot especially at night, but overall, DS is something i'll never turn off. Personally, I find the ideal look right now is DS with a reshade sharpen filter, alongside minor color correction, if you'd prefer the more subdued look. Either way, we know that many elements are still a wip, and will be improved in a few patches. It's still a beta, after all.

Personally, I'd love to fly an F-20. To be able to fly the F-16's rival that never was, in a fully detailed sim would be pretty damn cool. I'm sure all of the information for its parts and avionics would be available, but I also doubt it would be possible since we don't know much about it, especially compared to many of the aircraft in modules we have now. Even though we know the performance of its individual parts, how they all come together is a different story. Are detailed performance stats even available for this thing? There's also not exactly any pilots around to explain how it flew, and we all know that pilot input plays a crucial role in nailing these flight models.

It seems like the camera movement from this option has a noticable jitter, as if the camera shift movement is being calculated at a much slower framerate than the rest of the world. I do not use TrackIR or VR, so my camera is firmly planted forward, making any movement of the canopy frame dependant on that. I am also running at a constant vsync 60fps, with nothing around causing lag of any sort for this test. When the setting is on, sharp rolling from side to side is the most obvious case, where the frame seems to jitter back into place. The scenery remains perfectly smooth with the setting both on and off, and yet the canopy's shift seems to skip frames. So, it really just seems like the camera shift isn't being updated as fast as the rest of the game for some reason.

Even running at a constant framerate, the game has terribly inconsistent frametimes and will sometimes microstutter when flying low over trees, if you have them set too high for your pc. Unfortunately i cannot capture a graph overlay, but even in regular flight, instead of a smooth flat line you will see a rather jagged mess, and this definitely needs to be addressed at some point. In the meantime though, I've tried countless combinations trying to fix this, since it bothers me to no end as well. Rivatuner's limiter does not seem to work in DCS, and it's usually a go-to for fixing this sort of thing. The best solution that i've found so far is to disable the ingame vsync and try using nvidia inspector's standard vsync, alongside a 60.7 fps cap. Vsync alone doesn't seem to smooth out the passing terrain, but in combination with the limiter, it seems to do a decent job preventing the jittering scenery. No idea if this will help you, but it certainly helps me.

Well that's not quite true, trim works without autopilot, but in a slightly different way. Without it, trim is pretty much just regular stick trim. With autopilot channels on though, trimming also actively attempts to hold the current pitch/heading/etc. The reason i bring it up, is if you usually fly with it off, the autopilot will try to pull the nose back to where you last trimmed, which could mess you up, I guess. Either way though, the description here seems like it would be more severe than anything autopilot would do. Exiting auto hover has only ever been smooth for me though, even with the most recent 2.5 patches. The only button that has ever caused me to completely lose it is accidentally bumping the trim reset button.. That never goes well.. :music_whistling:

Did you forget to disable your autopilot channels when leaving hover? The buttons don't illuminate properly in 2.5 right now, so it's easy to forget if you left them on, and that would certainly screw with your flight if you're fighting it. You also might want to check your stick trim setting in options. One of the options requires you to center the stick for the trim input to function, and that would also mess you up if you had that on by accident and weren't aware of it. The rudder trim setting can also be a dangerous one.

Yea, I'd really like to have the skybox mirrors back. I miss them, and the blank textures don't exactly do any justice for the viggen's gorgeous interior. Hell, I'd like to have those skybox mirrors as an option in every plane.

If you have FC3, how about getting used to some higher speed ground strikes with the su-33? It can carry a good variety of bombs and rockets, like the F-18. The hornet will also have AGMs and whatnot, so I'm sure practising with some of those in the A-10 wouldn't hurt. I have no idea how similar the actual process of locking and firing is between the two, but either way, you'll have much less time to fire off shots, since the A-10 can float along at a much slower pace. Personally, I like to just play around in a few custom missions with ground targets littered everywhere.

When you zoom in or out, the detail of the world adjusts to match your view. With that ridiculously high fov, the distance it renders is reduced substantially. On medium or low view distance, it's possible to see the edge of the world when you do this, so you'd have to turn that up to high to avoid it entirely. That said, it would be nice if there was some sort of extra filler terrain just to avoid seeing the world edge on the lower settings. With a normal fov on medium though, you shouldn't really see it.

I think this might be more of a Viggen issue. In general, the viggen seems to have much lower framerates and tends to stutter for me, with lag from things like rocket volleys. On the other hand, i've played the same mission with rocket armaments on the mirage, su-33, a-10a, su-25 and they've all seemed pretty smooth to me. It used to be an issue on all modules for me until I switched to a ssd.

A lot of people seem adamantly against the idea of fictional maps for the sake of realism. Personally, nevada and caucasus might as well be fictional to me, since i've never been there and probably won't. Also, fictional locations can possibly create a lot more interesting tactical situations that simply don't exist in reality. Just because a location is fictional, doesn't mean it has to look like some retarded dreamland that could never possibly exist. A fictional location could consist of canyon networks or seaside bluffs that could provide natural cover to ground units and limit approaches. You could also have smaller, interconnected internal bodies of water, which would make the landscape more interesting than a massive endless sea on one side of the map, creating interesting naval scenarios as well. It doesn't have to mean flying mountains with purple skies.

I found that air to ground combat in general is having some major issues in this update. Free flight isn't perfect, but most modules seem to run decently smooth for the most part in caucasus, but better in nevada. As soon as I load up any ground based combat mission though, framerates tank, and the game stutters terribly. This happens to me using both the Viggen and Mirage, yet if I switch to an exclusively air to air mission, everything seems to run smoothly.

I've managed to get DCS 2.5 running at a quite solid 60fps with good visuals on my GTX 970. I use high textures, medium shadows with flat terrain shadows, high view distance, 70% trees, a reasonable grass distance, and high water - I like the pretty waves >_> The things I've found that affect the performance the most are the ingame MSAA and vsync. MSAA tanks performance, and though vsync prevents tearing and at first seems nice, if you set up a performance chart, it's anything but stable, with ridiculous stutters. Instead, disable all that stuff and use nvidia inspector to force vsync and a 60fps cap, as well as 16x AF. This runs far smoother than the ingame settings with far less stutters. To replace the MSAA, I use reshade's SMAA. It still has a little shimmering on distant buildings in nevada, and particularly thin HUD lines may suffer a bit, but for the most part it does the job with no performance cost, especially in caucasus, which is mostly foliage. Also, be sure to run in exclusive fullscreen mode. Hopefully this helps :)

First of all, I have to say the Viggen is an absolute work of art. It's a joy to fly and the artists have done a beautiful job. :thumbup: That said, I have noticed a few issues which persist through today's patch, and I'm not sure if they have been noted, so here goes: On the front gear door flaps, there is a small texture bleed issue present on all skins, seen as a sliver of dark grey protruding out of the side. Also, the gear door mesh does not perfectly line up with the fuselage, leaving a small sparkling gap with visible sky. When the gear is down and door flaps opened, there is also a small amount of sparkling on the edges of the doors themselves. Another issue is shown here, where the forward weapon pylon mesh clips slightly through the intakes. This is probably just my own nitpicking, and i'm not sure if anything can be done about it, but the afterburner is beautiful from all angles, except this one. Looking straight down (or close to) the flame really shows that it is just radially placed planes and kind of destroys the illusion. As a result the flame is also rather dull from this view as opposed to the brilliant plume when viewed from the side. Perhaps a shader that reduces transparency of these at low angles, and another circular flame texture to fill it out at these angles might help this? Anyway, hope this helps. :smilewink: