Vertigo72

I dont think I ever actually exceeded 16GB on my machine, even in MP, but I dont have SC module and dont do VR. Nor do I have the channel map. Considering how close to 16GB I do get (especially online), I have little doubt any of those things will push you over the 16GB edge and upgrading to 32GB is definitely worth it. The only reason Im still on the fence, is my fear running 4 dimms, my DDR4 speeds might be knocked back to 2400 speeds, and I do know that makes an astonishing FPS difference (scales linearly with ram speed). So I may just buy 2x16GB dimms and then see if I can run 2 new and 2 old dimms together at 3200 speeds for 48GB or if Im better off donating my existing 16GB. But for now, I just diligently close background apps.

Clearly meant for civilian sims. Even looks like it has thrust reversers, not so much afterburner detents? Unless you really really must have dual throttle, I think their TWCS is a far better budget option for DCS, it has a fairly generous amount of hat switches, sliders and buttons. And for those 4x per year where you want asymmetric thrust, you can use the throttle on your joystick to control the right engine. I had it double mapped like that by accident, but it actually works. My single hotas throttle controls both engines, unless I move the throttle on my stick, then that moves the right engine throttle. Not ideal, because every time you move the main throttle again, both will move, buts its good enough for flat spin recovery or something.

Be careful if you look at task manager to determine ram usage. Windows will use ram for things like disk caching. If you install 256GB ram, it will use most of that eventually (provided you do enough disk reads to actually fill that much), because its better to use ram as cache as not using it. And caching does help, its not wasted, but that doesnt mean the amount of ram windows uses is what you need.

Aw maaaaan; just when you guys convinced me making a high fidelity military simulation based on FS2020 is stupid, impossible and will never happen, I see this: https://www.vrsimulations.com/rhino.php Tacpack and F18-F rhino, the follow up to their F18E superbug module, are being developed for FS2020 with an ETA somewhere in 2021. WTF? Those 2 guys think they can do it. In less than 10 years even. Silly buggers. What do they know, right, you guys here are the experts. Its not like they already sold combat enabling FS mods and high fidelity F18 modules to the military. If they had even tried, they would know its not possible and no one cares. So other module developers will see the folly and not bother implementing tacpack API to weaponize their military FS2020 planes. I mean, sure, some did it for tacpack on FSX/P3D, but none of them will any sell modules for FS2020 because, well, they just wont, its a civilian sim with bad weather. Just look at those screenshots, it rains and snows and freezes like all the time. We want icing on our cake, not on our wings or cockpits. It may have iceland and every other patch of land on the planet in 3D, but who even wants to fly over iceland? I bet even icelanders dont. That volcano could blow up again. What people really want is clear blue skies and beaches. Paying extra for endless tiny brown desert map modules and waiting forever for playable VR framerates. ED clearly has nothing to worry about.

Got something: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4399059&postcount=1

This came up in another discussion, that sometimes there is a significant delay between moving the joystick and the the stick moving in game. Ive seen almost 2 seconds despite decent frame rates. I tried recording the effect. Of course as always, when you want to record an issue, you cant reproduce it. So what i did record is no where near as bad as Ive seen it, and not at all a problem while flying, but it still shows the issue I think: ${1} direct link: &feature=youtu.be the top indicator is a joystick testing app and has no meaningful input lag, it actually shows the position of my joystick. As you will see, the amount of delay in the video varies between almost nihil to noticeable. I didnt get to reproduce the times its bad and dramatic, but it happens. Im using a microsoft sidewinder FFB2 stick

Maybe we could have a F14-AM. The Iranian ones. Sure, not much hard data on those, but what Ive found: - The radar has received new digital / CPU, which would make it comparable to the APG-71 of the F14D and very similar to the one in the F15. I have no problems believing this claim, its not like processors that are many orders of magnitude more capable than what was available in 70s is difficult to acquire even for Iran. - MFDs. I havent seen any pics though. Could be duct taped ipads or anything else. This would be guess work unless someone knows more than me. But even if you leave out fantasy MFDs, im going to assume they also updated the HUD and didnt reinvent the wheel. And a fantasy HUD is something I would welcome very much. - Fakour and maghsoud missiles. Nothing credible is known about them afaik, except for some claimed ranges (200 and 300+Km). Probably best to leave them out. - APUs. Hey, why not.

Thats not how it works. There is an overhead (and a fairly significant one in DCS I think) that is independent of your resolution. Go ahead and measure frame rates at 640x480 or whatever lowest resolution you can, its not going to give you a bazillion FPS. Then and scale it up to 4K and draw a line through the numbers and it will give you a rough idea. I think you may find the loss due to increased resolution is rather low, and the overhead quite significant. Multiple projection angles should also not decrease speed linearly. In DCS it does seem to do that, or close to it, and running multiple monitors is really painful. In my other sim, going from 1 to 3 screens makes relatively little difference, despite tripling the number of pixels and camera angles, FPS is maybe 70% compared to a single screen, not 33% you might expect or the 50% or so Im guessing it is in DCS. .

You must have bought the wrong one. The EB29 has a whopping 64HP

IIRC that mig problem was limited to the latest nvidia driver. So maybe nvidia screwed something up there that you are "unscrewing" with changing that setting.

I wanted to, running OBS to record, but now I cant replicate it. Now when I pull it behaves as youd expect. Ive heard others say that they suffered severe input lag, I think specifically with FFB sticks, and that might have been what I noticed. And even weirder was I did get that high G readings, just the cockpit barely budged at all. But there still is some delay. Sometimes. Just repeatedly pulling full back on the stick instantly, sometimes DCS input seems to be slowed somewhat. Same with centering. Not as dramatic as earlier, but its almost as if they implemented the "force simulation". I cant show it on video because the delay is between my joystick moving and the stick in the game (as well as in the control overlay). So it would just appear as If pulling slower and centering slower than I really am. Can maybe someone with a non FFB try this? Just hit instant action / free flight. I dropped my ordenance not sure it matters, and keep yanking that stick as quick as you can (set invulnerability to on) at various speeds and check with the control overlay if there is a "smoothing"/delay or not

I just did a little testing and noticed something that seems off. Fly straight and level at around mach 1, and enable the info bar. Pull back hard on the stick. Your attitude will not change meaningfully for the first second or so, but you will be pulling 10-15-20G. That doesnt seem right to me. It may be right that the tomcat takes a little while to start pitching up, but I cant see how you can pull 20g and maintain basically the same attitude. Might explain why some people snap their wings when they try to judge g load by look at how fast their attitude changes. edit: trying it again, it pitches up instantly?

I have one. There isnt any noticeable difference in centering force that changes with speed. Even on the ground, standing still, the stick is about as firm as it is at mach 1. Same when you stall out. Dont know how realistic that is, I would expect the stick to be pretty limb standing still or stalling but then I only have limited RL experience in 1970s navy jets. In DCS its only the trim that affects the stick force (moving the center position) and some vibrations when stalling or at high AoA. Regardless if the stick centering force really changed with speed or or AoA or not in the real tomcat, two things Im pretty sure off: - I bet F14 pilots couldnt pull 20g and snap their wings with 2 fingers on the stick when they sneezed. - They would have noticed that g load, and loooong before it snapped their wings. 10+G is kinda hard to not notice. And that is the real issue. It cant be solved 100% realistically, until we get gravity modification devices. But IM all for at least some visual feedback to let pilots know what it is they cant feel, and I dont think its crazy or cheating to allow a stick force simulation setting to slow down stick movements if in reality a non super human would need to pull with both hands to get it to move so fast..

Nope. ED need to make their engine (far) more efficient. It cant even run smoothly at sustained 90+ FPS for most people on on flat panels. If they dont fix that, nothing can fix it for them. My future ideal VR goggles will most definitely require more, not less performance. Foveated rendering will allow the system requirements to be closer to current VR goggles, rather than just multiplying the requirements many times over, but its still gonna be harder. because you simply need a bazillion pixels to get "retina" resolution and decent FoV. Im not going to wait years to get eye tracking only to have that further degrade the image quality outside my focus compared to todays VR sets! I have 3x 1080p and my humble 1070 can get >200 FPS in a flight sim, i feel confident Id get 90 with 3x1440p. Just not in DCS.

Kewl. So to complement that 5000 euro VR goggle, all we need is 2 $5500 quadro RTXs and assuming DCS even supports that, if we are lucky we may get 45 FPS. Or, you can wait a few years, and spend a similar amount of money to fly an actual mig 29 almost to the edge of space. Or do simulated air to air combat in two actual L39s. No screendoor effect there. Not a difficult choice for me.

I did, didnt I. Then again, I think everything that can be said about easy AAR has been said, so we widened the scope of the discussion to making DCS more accessible noob friendly.

Its only 5000 euro. And still only offers 90 degree FoV and no dramatic higher resolution, and Im not even sure foveated rendering is already supported, let alone dynamic focus. Oh and no PC on the planet will actually run that with DCS. Its coming, but we arent there yet.

Like I said, I dont really see how it could help, as Im pretty sure physx isnt used and isnt usable for DCS. ED doesnt support even nVidia's gameworks API in areas where it could be massively useful (hint: VR!) and at the same time physx, if still at all useful, is generally only used for for particle/smoke/cloth and other visual effects. Its more likely you are seeing DCS' inherently variable performance. If you turn off your computer and put it upside down dont be surprised to see see a similar performance boost. Or drop. Try a few orientations and see what works best ;) That said, @imacken, a 5 GHz i7, 2080Ti 32 GB, and 25 FPS. Ouch.

I have to doubt that. If they are exactly at the aerodynamic center, there would be no natural pitch stabilisation and not even an aerodynamic centering force on the stick. In some flight regimes that might even reverse and you would get an unstable aircraft with a stick that wants to pull forward if it noses over. They may be relatively close to the center to keep forces manageable even when air hits them at mach 2, but they will be positioned so that the airflow pushes them towards neutral and if there is any such force, its strength will depend on airspeed (unless countered by hydraulics).

no, but I do think they should rethink their business. Not sure which ms sim you are referring to. But flight simulator X wasnt free and I looked it up, it came with 18 planes (24 in the deluxe edition) and 24 thousand airports across the planet and thanks to a public SDK, tons of downloadable free content as well as commercial addons. It was widely successful. 14 years later it still isnt quite dead. Microsoft flight was free, came with 1 free plane and 1 smal region and a DLC market place for everything else, no public SDK and thus no user generated content and it flopped. Dead as a doornail just a year later. There may be other reasons, but I bet those mattered. FS2020 will come with the entire world, and so far 14 planes ranging from a cessna 152 to a boeing 747. And a public SDK. And it wont be only for those reasons, but I bet its not gonna flop. DCS now uses a model that is pretty much exactly like MS flight. The FS2020 approach may not be feasible, but I think the condor / FSX business model would be, and be better suited to it. A non-free base game with a good selection of planes, additional paying addon plane modules (in condor's case, often 3d modeled by the community with the devs doing the rigging and creating the flight model) and a free landscape development toolkit that allows anyone to make sceneries. Which is a lot of work, and some sell them commercially others dont mind doing that to create their favorite flying area. We saw that with FSX. We see it with condor, a community much smaller than DCS. But the result is 100+ free landscapes covering much of the globe, some of them quick and dirty others multi year efforts by small teams and made with stunning attention to detail, and that in turns makes the sim more valuable. and it allows the entire development team (all 2 of them) to focus their time on the things the community can not make, and is happy to pay for. Only if that doesnt mean ditching MAC and switching to DCS. It should be the same sim and interoperable. Very much like FC3.

No, not related to the design enveloppe per se. Just related to how much force it requires to actually move the stick. Which may help prevent snapping wings. In condor I can still easily snap my wings even if I set stick force simulation to max, the point there is also not to provide a cheat to prevent that, its actually intended to be more realistic and disallow instantaneous stick movements particularly in roll when flying at high speed. Which you cant really do IRL unless you have almost superhuman strength, in most gliders at speed its going to take you a a few seconds to push that stick from full left to full right unless you are either really strong or really determined. Its nothing like moving the stick at regular cruising speeds (or pushing most joysticks). Indeed, no idea how it is in the real tomcat. At low or high speeds or if it even makes a difference. Unlike in my glider, they do have hydraulics. They could make it as light as they want, I just highly doubt they made it super light and I would expect them to make it so its light at low speeds and a lot harder at high speeds. Well, even if they dont vary the hydraulic power, the aerodynamics would do that anyhow. of course. But it would require more deliberate "effort". We cant really simulate that effort without (much stronger) force feedback, but time is a way to mimic it. Keep pulling on your joystick and your virtual pilot will use more strength. In my glider sim, its configurable, more or less mimicking how much force you would be applying IRL. The same setting will have no impact on the ground as the stick is numb there, and an increasing impact with speed/stick force. On hindsight, Im actually fine with the current blackout modelling especially in sustained turns. Im just surprised how easy it is to pull 10-20G briefly if you are careless with the stick.No idea if a 1 second 15G pull should cause a blackout. I do feel confident you'd notice though :) so maybe even if IRL you wouldnt black out that soon, giving us at least some feedback we are doing something no real pilot would ever do, would be a good idea. Even if its just a blackout with almost instant recovery.

I had hopes when I saw iris dynamics magnetic force feedback sticks a few years ago: But no one seems to have to taken the bait for (PC) flight sims so far, maybe its too expensive or too power hungry, or there is some other issue with the tech. Havent even seen a kickstarter. Then I got my hopes up when I saw a video of the CEO of I think (?) VKB being taken up in a real airplane and being surprised at how heavy the stick is and how it "feels". I thought maybe that would open his eyes why we need force feedback. Still waiting and hoping....

Im talking about appeal. There is nothing wrong with a Yak 52 as trainer (provided you can get an english cockpit). Its just unfamiliar and appeals to no one outside a small niche. And its 40 euro with no "growth path". Add to that you can only fly it in Caucasus, which hardly anyone could locate on a world map, without spending more money, you cant fly in any place you are likely to be familiar with, and its kinda hard to see anyone looking in to getting in to flighsims going that route over xplane. Its not enough that DCS would be suitable, because I agree, it is. But it also needs to be "marketable". Go to DCS website with the mindset of a flightsim noob with no skills. Does that look the right choice for a first sim? Not to me. Then start counting what it costs to get a few planes and places to fly, and those customers are gone forever. So I get why they want a separate product to appeal to "flight sim noobs". I just think it could be the same product, with different models, different marketing and different pricing structure. By all means give it its own name if need be, but make it fully compatible with DCSW.

There are plenty of reasons actually. Those trainers are much more forgiving, easier to learn, easier to land, and allow students to focus on the basics. You learn faster in them than you would in a high performance plane, . Test pilots are also required to fly on as many completely different plane types as possible, because it increases your skills in ways you can not by flying just 1 type. And simple planes teaches you skills and helps you understand flight in ways a modern fly by wire jet can not. Just like you want kids to learn to drive in a family saloon and not a Lamborghini, and you want to learn how to race in a cart, not a formula 1. its not just because those are cheaper. They are better tools to learn. Which is particularly true for gliders btw; you say "even civilians" dont train in gliders, many do, but also many airforces do. Not just because its cheaper, but you actually learn things in gliders like how to conserve energy and the importance of coordinated turns that do help you in combat. Gliding skills also allowed the captain of Air Canada Flight 143 to land his 767 with no engines, not many other pilots are trained in slip manœuvres to adjust your glide slope. Its definitely not part of 767 type rating. I also highly doubt Flight 447 crash would have happened if their pilots had any gliding experience, or more cessna hours.

No it doesnt. Buffeting relates to AoA, not g load. Grim Reapers did a useful video on the topic, explaining how the tomcat has fatigue modeled and also giving a really useful tip: Basically dont jerk. If you are smooth on the controls, your pilot will black out before your plane breaks. And while that makes complete sense it also exposes a limitation of our sim. You wouldnt ever jerk like that in RL. Because of the stick force needed and the acceleration you would feel. In a sim with a light joystick that you can move with 2 fingers, and no gorilla jumping on your chest when you do, its much easier to accidentally pull 20g for an instant (especially force feedback users who accidentally uncover the stick sensor and get a limp stick, if that happens at high speed, its an insta wing snap). In my glider sim, we have a setting that may be helpful here without being unrealistic. Its called "stick force simulation". It has nothing to do with force feedback, but it "simulates" the reality that at high speeds, moving the stick requires a lot of force and the pilot has no infinite strength. I dont know how heavy the control are in a real tomcat, but Id be surprised if at mach 1 you could flip the stick remotely as easily as a PC joystick. The stick force simulation settings slows down your input at high speeds ( to simulate a heavy stick), eliminating the "jerk". It isnt "fly by wire", but it does decouple joystick input from game stick input to some extend, because different physics apply to them anyway.