BlackLightning

I would like to use the supercarrier with the F14 and if you read my signature, you’ll understand why I am a little worried... . In your signature I read that you use a 1440p monitor. Do you get those FPS at that resolution?

I have used a T16000M standalone joystick for three years before buying the kit mentioned in my signature. After all, the twist grip has an analog axis, like the paddles on our TM throttle, so it's playable. You could use the twist for the rudder, the paddles for differential braking and the knob for both brakes. I just want to warn you that I and other people have experienced some troubles getting used to rudder pedals after having developed the muscle memory for the twist grip, so consider this if you think that in the future you may switch to pedals. There are two problems: • The obvious one: when you want to use the pedals you instinctively twist the grip instead. • The fact that you will push the pedals in the opposite direction. If you want to turn to the right, for instance, you will turn the grip clockwise by pushing with your wrist to the left. With the pedals, instead, you would push with your right foot and the left pedal would come aft like if it was being pulled. The pedals, therefore, will sort of rotate anticlockwise. Because of this, maybe it would be better if you inverted the axis of the twist/paddle. You should also consider that my cheap model of pedals are small, weight little and work fine after one year of casual usage, so you could buy them and keep them off the floor when not in use, like I do. You should also consider that probably, if you will ever fly a real plane (I guess that you don't, like probably most of us) being used to pedals should help you.

Well, you have found a good compromise, I think. Thank you for the explanation.

Some hundred of posts ago (it was about a year ago, I think, or maybe six months) someone wrote that in this server people are allowed to land, refuel and load missiles, including the ones with radars. I don’t like that, BTW and I never do that. Edit: I’ve found the post: #86: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3734603&postcount=86

Ahahah. I think that, once in a while, a little humor on this forum is not amiss. Don’t fighter pilots tell jokes in the locker room, after all?

I don't own the F16 module but I like physics and I'd like to give you my .02. According to this simplified model, if thrust/weight>1, then you can accelerate vertically and it seems to me that the OP is keeping this model in mind when he states that he expects the F16 to gain speed vertically. On the other hand, we all know that horizontally, like you can see in the picture linked above, thrust works against drag and I see no reason for which drag shouldn't affect vertical speed, too. So, I think that if thrust/(weight+drag)>1, then you can accelerate vertically. It also seems sensible to me that thrust depends on the conditions. I expect speed to put air into the engine with higher pressure and so I think that the higher the speed, the higher the thrust (maybe things change in the transonic and supersonic ranges). There are supersonic prototipes which can work with just ram air! Air density affects thust, too, because the denser the air, the more oxygen it contains. On the other hand, air dansity and speed affect drag, too...

Thank you for having shared this. I've googled gpu brace and I've noticed that many braces support the plastic of the heatsink. However, I've attached an image in which you can notice that my OEM graphics card was supported on the PCB. Maybe I'll do that the next time I open my PC to remove the dust (I'll do that more often than I used to with the old GPU, don't worry :) ) and I think I'll implement the following procedure: 1) place a bubble level onto a surface of the case which is reasonably supposed to be parallel to the GPU, 2) add shims under the PC until the bubble is centered, 3) carefully place the level onto the PCB of the GPU, 4) create a brace which makes the bubble centered and anyhow stop if I feel that too much force is being applied to the GPU.

If I were buying my first DCS module, I would consider the F18 because, like daarseth wrote, it can do a lot of things. I would also consider the SU 33 for the same reason: it's a supersonic jet it has a professional flight model it's good in aerial combat it has a helmet mounted sight which is a rudimental equivalent of the JHMCS of the Hornet (basically those systems allow you to lock a target by just looking at it) it can attack the ground with rockets, bombs and bullets it can be refuelled aerially it can operate from carriers It's also way cheaper than the Hornet, but its systems are simplified, it lacks a clickable cockpit and it hasn't got specific weapons for SEAD (which consists of attacking anti-aircraft assets in the ground). It also probably lacks other features I don't know. I don't know what happens n VR, but in non-VR it has a 6DOF cockpit, like advertised here:https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/f-15c_dcs_world/.

Actually, no DCS aircraft has a standard flight model any more and most of the FC3 planes, F15 included, have a professional model (PFM>AFM>SFM). Source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/505/ Anyhow, I’ve tried the F15 and the F18 modules and they are easier to control than a TF-51 IMHO. They both have fly by wire (FBW), so it’s not surprising.

It looks like a blast, but I wonder whether my rig will be able to run it... .

If they really have different focal lengths, that may be for a number of reasons. Probaby manifacturers take into account factors like the dimension of the display and its distance from the lenses and choose the length they think is more suitable for the rest of the design. limiting their choice only by making sure that a person without sighting problems must be able to focus properly with those lenses. They probably expect people with sight issues to do something to deal with that, like wearing spectacles or contact lenses.

IMHO this difference you have experienced could be caused by a difference in the focal lengths of the lenses in the headsets. Maybe the Reverb puts the image so far that you don't need glasses, whereas the other two put the image at your "medium distance".

Ok, so I understand that in VR our crystilline lenses don't change their shapes because the display in the headset is always at the same distance. I don't understand why the convergence movement happens since, as already written, the display is at a steady distance, but I guess that it's what gives us a stereoscopic view in VR. Maybe this is accomplished thanks to the fact that there is one image per eye and so the headset can somehow trick our brain. After having read about Fresnel lenses applied to VR, I Googled it and found out that they are used in lieu of usual lenses in some headsets becuase they are lighter. So basically, as far as I've understood, all the headsets, including the cheap ones where you utilize a smartphone as a display, have a display which is way too close to the eyes to be on focus and that's why there are lenses: they let us focus even at those very short distances.

I don't know about split vision but I've got mild astigmatism in one eye. I don't even have a VR headset (one day I'd like to). I just base my opinions on logic here; if, according to your experience, something I say is not right, please tell me and I'll have learnt something. Being astigmatic means that, instead of having a single focal point per eye, we have two or more. Therefore, I think that if someone has astigmatism, he'll never be able to focus properly regardless of the settings of a possible focuser, unless he uses spcific lenses for that. The reason is that without an asymmetrical lens which merges all the focal points into a single one, even if you put one of the focal points on the retina with a focuser, the other points will not be there. If someone is nearsighted and/or farsighted but not astigmatic, this person should be able to put things on focus by using a focuser, provided the focuser has enough stroke available. The same principle holds good for telescopes (I have one and I can confirm) and, I guess, microscopes.

I think that, like other people have written sometimes on this forum, the visibility of afterburners in videos and pictures is different from real life because, depending on the settings, camera sensors can be more sensitive than the eye to the light and some say that sometimes common cameras are affected by IR light from remote controls, for instance. Therefore, I consider only the opinions of those who have seen the afterburners in reality to be reliable.

I tried it yesterday and it works properly: if I press the button in the air, i get a target point on the ground.

IIRC, you can press MAPM and then N-UP in order to toggle between north-up or your direction up.

I've watched about 20 minutes of that and I find it quite interesting, thank you. He uses another simulator but a lot of things should hold good for DCS too.

I’d like to know it as well.

The jetwash is blatantly there: I've put an SU33 behind a tanker, whose wingtip vortices were visible. When I was right in those vortices, the Aircraft was heavilly rolled to one side. I think that now the propeller wash is there, too: look at this experiment that I carried out in the past versions of DCS without noticing changes when changing the angle of the elevators: EDIT: Sorry, I must have remembered wrongly, because we already had the effect: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2990927&postcount=20

Reading the latest changelog of OB I've found out that it was a bug: I've updated both the driver of my graphics card and DCS and now cluster bombs work.

I've set this one: http://7-themes.com/6980827-f14-tomcat-rear.html (I haven't managed to post the image directly, sorry).

Thank you for the help but apparently the list that you've posted, which holds good for the P8H77-M PRO bought independently, doesn't apply to my version because it's a prebuilt version with its own specific UEFI/BIOS which doesn't allow to expand the RAM. For instance, I've never found settings which let me adjust the timings and the voltage. As I've written, I researched on the internet in the past about it and found only people who had problems in expanding that specific model and no one having success. Besides, we are starting to be quite off-topic here... But thank you again for the list; I appreciate the help.

There's a sticker on my Asus motherboard which says P8H77-M PRO/CM6870/DP_MB CM6870 is the PC model. I've read more than a thread on forums where people asked for help because they were having trouble expanding the RAM of that model and in none of those threads there was anyone saying that he had eventually found a way to succeed...

You can read my specs in the signature. (I have to stick with 8 GB of RAM because mine is an upgraded prebuilt PC and it seems that the BIOS doesn't allow to have more than that). I play with high settings @1920 X 1080 because I really like the look so much and because I also guess spotting things in the sky or on the ground is more realistic with high settings. It seems that I am little sensitive to FPS an therefore if I have to lock them @ like 22 I'm pretty ok with that. With FC3 aircrafts I can have like 50 FPS, but with the F14 it's different. For instance, in my ground attack mission, if I release a cluster bomb and I press F6 to enter its point of view, the sim crashes at the bomb splitting moment and the same happens if I look at the bomb from the plane. I have to release it, wait until it's landed and exploded, and then I can look at that area and check the damage. I can do A2A combat in single player but in MP it's unplayable, whereas I have almost no problems with the F15 (except for the fact that I suck, but that's a different story :)). There is a training mission about takeoff from the carrier with other planes on the deck and I had to lower the settings level a lot to make it playable.