Hippo

Believe me, I feel your pain - please don't shoot the messenger. Your point re Kegetys is entirely valid, still - better late than never. Personally I think VR DCS w/o AA does not provide an image quality that is acceptable. I would simply not use it if I had to turn off AA. And there's no way I'm going back to pancake. I've felt let down (and even betrayed) by ED since 2018 when they made the (deferred rendering) engine change that killed performance for VR /w AA - how they could've inflicted a 50% fps drop on their users remains inexplicable. Unfortunately, performance-wise, it's been downhill ever since. I am not optimistic that things are going to get better. However, we are where we are. All I can do is make my views known on here: I will NOT be giving ED any more money until I see efforts (and results) being made in this direction. I will certainly not be giving them any more money for pre-purchase or early access stuff that might only be completed by the time it requires a future version of the engine that I may no longer be able to run because of future graphical enhancements that tank performance. P.S. EDIT: From my very limited and specific test, performance appears to be getting close to what I was getting with 2.5.5. If you're not using AA, you'll probably see no difference - as I say, I feel your pain.

Is an answer that ED really should provide in the patch notes. In its absence I can only speculate: The AA mask limits AA to an area in the centre of your view, its size specified by the number. I assume 0.5 is a rectangle half of your screen area. I only briefly tested last night and I have to say that visually I did not think that this was doing anything. If you run Kegetys's mod, it's very easy to see his implementation of this working. Bloom (sometimes referred to as light bloom or glow) is a computer graphics effect used in video games, demos, and high dynamic range rendering (HDRR) to reproduce an imaging artifact of real-world cameras. The effect produces fringes (or feathers) of light extending from the borders of bright areas in an image, contributing to the illusion of an extremely bright light overwhelming the camera or eye capturing the scene. It became widely used in video games after an article on the technique was published by the authors of Tron 2.0 in 2004. (with thanks to Wikipedia). Precisely how and where it's implemented in DCS - your guess is as good as mine.

Performance notes 2.5.6.49314 Please see for reference: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...8&postcount=73 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...&postcount=324 Running my usual mission. We now have two new options under VR: bloom effect and MSAA Mask Size. I flew the mission twice, first with bloom ON, and mask at 1.00 (second image), this gave performance indistinguishable from 2.5.6.47404. I then ran the mission with Bloom off and mask at 0.42 (first image). This gave around 5%-10% less GPU util, so nearly as good as what I was getting with the last 2.5.5 OB. I was (surprise, surprise) hoping to see more of an improvement. Still, this is definitely a (continuation of a) move in the right direction, and to be welcomed. I think that finding as many graphics options as possible to offer to VR users to turn down to gain fps is an approach that is worth looking into further. Great to see the two new options - thank you. I cannot give up AA, as I find the shimmering jaggies from buildings, runways, and shiny cockpit edges unacceptable. And thanks for getting the landing lights working again on the Stennis at night. Very nice to have the ship lighting as well, although perhaps it's a bit too bright.

None whatsoever. What the free for all proved to me is that I already own all the aircraft I really want. Paying for the others to try them for a short time, think "hmmm, that's nice", and then never use them again, is not only a waste of money, but worse, an incentive to ED to produce stuff I don't want. Improvements to the base game, many of which have been repeatedly requested for years on the Wish List forums, I'd be happy to pay for. The Supercarrier and F-16 I would ordinarily want. But they both seem to be at such an early stage of development, that I think I'll wait until they're much closer to completion.

From CV NATOPS MANUAL. Dated 31/07/2009 - perhaps procedures have changed since then?

Can I start to get excited and read this as VR performance has increased over current 2.5.6 OB?

Hopefully one of the guys will respond. For this sort of thing, I like to go to the NATOPS documents, and mention them in case you weren't aware of them: I can't find any mention of the speed in the spin, so assume it's pilot's discretion. 300 - 350 kts works well for me. EDIT:

Although I have a number of issues regarding early access / pre-ordering, my main issue with ED's financing model is that it distorts the market, and does not reward ED for providing what users of the product actually want. Personally, of all the DCS aircraft that are available there are only a few that I truly want. When I pay $x for an F-18 I would like that $x to go into F-18 development. I am very keen for the base engine, and VR performance, particularly, to be worked on, and am happy to pay for this. I do not want to buy an aircraft that I'm not going to use to fund this. I think the model that the company that makes the F-35 uses for its flight sim is the way to go: a chargeable base system upgrade every two years or so. I would be happy to pay around $100 - $200 for this. I would also be happy to pay a proportionate upgrade fee for each aircraft I actually want to own, every time there is a base product upgrade, to bring those aircraft up to date. P.S. Are you a fan of a certain space sim (best d* one ever) that has been going nowhere for nearly a decade? They have a business model that you might like.

You need to raise a support ticket at their main site: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/

Are you using the Microsoft Speech Recogniser 8.0 English - US? (in speech recognition properties). I am using two other (VAC for DCS, VoxATC for <other_sim>) voice recognition products, and they improved considerably when I changed from UK to US. This could all be a placebo, but I strongly suspect that these types of programs depend on the US variant being used for some reason. Worth a try. I am British, so don't speak "American", but the above change made a big difference. I realise that it sounds implausible, and that it could be due to something else, but I made no other changes that I'm aware of.

The best I've ever been able to achieve is by deleting the following (I use a batch file, as the files are replaced every time DCS is updated): del "D:\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains\Caucasus\Kneeboard\*.*" /Q del "D:\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains\Nevada\Kneeboard\*.*" /Q del "D:\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains\Normandy\Kneeboard\*.*" /Q del "D:\DCS World OpenBeta\Scripts\Aircrafts\_Common\Cockpit\KNEEBOARD\device\init.lua" Always backup before making changes. I am unfortunately always left with at least one blank page.

TBH, I wasn't even considering VSI lag, and had assumed it's not modelled in DCS. I assume that the lag effect that is being modelled is engine spool time, which seems to be very long. Does it seem too long to you? I was referring to very minor thrust adjustments when I'm already very close to s+l. I get that adjustments will be necessary, but continuously? (calm day)

Thank you - that was very interesting and certainly backs up your point. EDIT: But... doesn't it also suggest that the response to the throttle changes must be almost instant?

Let me attempt to ask my question again. Set the aircraft with GEAR DOWN, FULL FLAPS on speed AOA. Attempt to fly as straight and level in this configuration as possible. Once nearly there, say you have a negative vertical velocity (vv), you make a small thrust increase and wait... 1. it now takes several (around 3) seconds for this thrust increase to cause a change in fpm (flight path marker) motion / vv. 2. the fpm very slowly oscillates up and down around a central point, rather than settling It seems to be impossible to end up with 0 vv, without constant throttle corrections, no matter how small. This is what I see in the sim, does the real aircraft behave in this way? The behaviour I see in the descent is the same in that I can't maintain a constant rate of descent - I see the same oscillations once I stop moving the throttle. I would expect that the vv would settle to a constant value (on a calm, no turbulence or gusts, day).

(real life) Source for this claim, please.

is very interesting, mainly because it's very clear at a decent res and you can see a lot of detail (hud on ddi, engine indications). It seems like the engine response is quicker to me. Notice how much the pilot is using the thrust levers. (Admittedly - bad weather, superhornet.)

How realistic it is is precisely what I was hoping to get an informed opinion on. You did notice I said FLAPS FULL, GEAR DOWN and ON AOA? Are you telling me that you can keep the aircraft straight and level in this config (constant 0 fps vertical speed indication), without seeing the behaviours I described, and without constantly jiggling the throttles?

Thanks for your replies, but this is going slightly off topic. Maybe I should've have phrased my original post differently. Perhaps forget landing for now. Try and fly the F-18 straight and level with full flaps, gear down, and on speed AoA. Then read my first post re stable flight. My questions were are the engine spool up times realistic, i.e. it takes ages between a minor throttle change and the aircraft reaction. And after the reaction the aircraft fpm oscillates slowly for a long time before settling. You will find it very difficult if not impossible to fly straight and level. Are these behaviours realistic? I think this has been discussed repeatedly on these forums for some time, and I was just wondering if a consensus had been reached?

Thanks for replying, but I think you might've misunderstood / misread my original post. I've gone over it, and I think I have explained myself clearly.

Hopefully it's not bad form to bump this up. I use the kneeboard A LOT in VR, and it's a real pain that its bindings are unusable whilst the sim is paused. It also doesn't make much sense to me. I'm assuming it's a few minor changes to a table to enable this. Please consider. And no, sorry, I haven't tried the 3rd party app suggested. Old dogs, tricks, etc.

I am certainly not a fan of EA / pre-purchase. Whenever I have gone down this road (and I doubt that I ever will again), I have always accepted that I could lose my money and end up with nothing. I would say to anyone that if they don't accept this, then they shouldn't partake. Personally, I am willing to forgive ED if they might've bitten off more than they could chew with the F-18, and would be ok with paying the same amount again if the current economics mean they can't finish all the features. What I won't be doing is paying for aircraft I don't want to support features (i.e. base engine, VR performance improvements) and aircraft that I do want. I don't see why the base product should be free, considering the amount of work it takes to keep it updated, and think that a lot of ED's problems stem from this decision.

I have an X52 Pro, so only 1 axis, I have read others also mention "walking the throttles" so perhaps having two axes helps somewhat. Don't get me wrong, I can certainly manage to land, and my adjusted throttle curve does make it easier. But it seems almost impossible to hold a constant descent rate, and it takes far too long for thrust changes to compensate. I find it implausible that this would be the case IRL, as it would be too risky for the pilot's safety. Night case IIIs are more challenging with the latest OB now that the carrier lights don't come on. :)

When configured flaps full, gear down, on AoA and trying to maintain a stable approach (glide) path (even with no wind) I notice that: 1. There is a very long delay between moving the throttles and the path changing (by watching the FPM and descent rate). 2. Even after setting power, there are long, slow oscillations with the FPM and DR taking a very long time to settle (if ever). Q: What's the latest opinion on these, is the FM finalised in this respect? These behaviours seem unrealistic to me (i.e. it can't be this much hassle IRL). I have gone to a lot of trouble to adjust throttle curves so I have very fine control over thrust - however, even the minutest motion of the throttles translates to considerable (and highly delayed) changes and oscillations of FPM position and descent rate. By stable I mean descent rate and flight path marker position not varying. **** I usually take the time to search before posting, but on this occasion I suspect the matter has been discussed often and at length - and simply couldn't bear to trawl through it all. I was hoping that someone who keeps up with this can just clear it up for me with a quick answer. Thanks.

I tried to do the survey, but just wanted to give everything a 1. I just gave up with it. Why not have a survey where people are forced to rank the items in order of preference? So, I'll just add my general preference that basics should come first (i.e. FM and stuff in the NATOPS). Weapons second. The F-18 is extremely complex, and I'm very impressed with what has been achieved already. Although it would be great to get everything done yesterday, I have no problem with the current pace. Much more important that all these features are still planned for delivery.

2.5.6.47404 From my usual very simple test, I reckon this is now the second update that has shown a slight performance improvement. The issue with the ka-50 insurgents mission has gone. So moving in the right direction, I think.