sk000tch

Going from strix 1080 ti to to ftw3 2080ti was an improvement, though not jaw dropping. It’s more than ray racing, it’s a better card no question, DCS looks good at max, and the ability to run it there is an obvious benefit. If disposable income is limited, I can name 3-4 different upgrades that are more bang for the buck. Upgrading warthog gimbal to warbrd, for example, is like bathing in Jesus water.... or something. It is Jaw dropping. If you’re vr, it looks to me like the odyssey plus from rift is similar. I’m still waiting on mine, so can’t say first hand, but being able to read mfds.... that’s like the holy grail Delta sims slew for $60 is the most amazing $60 you’ll ever spend. In short- don’t sweat the 2080 too much. If you geek out on clock speeds and think about delta t, optimizing your loop feel free, 2150 at 40C is absurd, but for your average dude, which this thread proves is the majority, for $1500 by the time you get the card, block, etc.., there’s just better ways to spend money. If you’re dropping 5k on your rig feel free, but if not, there’s better ways to spend money

I will vouch for that. My rig is identical to wags, actually a little higher on the SSD and iirc RAM, and I got pretty lucky on the lottery and can run my 9900 at 5.1 and gpu at 2130 in DCS. I usually stay at 5/2100 to run cooler but the point is that I definitely drop below 60 in certain situations. Don't get me wrong, performance is generally good, but in multiplayer I have to drop to 2x msaa, and at 4x in the f18/PG certain areas will slow things down. Happy to run some tracks/benchmarks or whatever if it helps the cause. I have an Odyssey+ on the way fro the sale the other day so should be able to run some comparisons, steam vs. oculus, etc if that helps. BoX has something similar, its a standard trackfile basically where users can collect data on various settings, how they effect performance and quality. I'm not quite sure how to put something like that together, but happy to participate.

My responses are being mischaracterized or misunderstood here, no where do I say that DCS missiles suck. I am correcting facts, and trying to shed some light on the gross oversimplifications in this thread. You can direct the missile to fly a loft pattern, however, if the effect of drag is modeled incorrectly, particularly if it does not accurately model the effect of air density on drag, then the loft flight path will not produce the same benefit. That said, we don't even know if that's the problem. Perhaps the implementation is wrong. Perhaps players are trying to loft at 15,000 ft. I have no idea. My objection to this argument is that the physics are 'just the physics.' Fluid dynamics in general are poorly modeled in flight sims. I say this as someone with experience modelling fluid flows in engineering applications, and as a high hour pilot. Simulators do not model well the way a wing stalls asymmetrically or partially, or how an airplane skids, or how sudden control inputs induce boundary layer turbulence on an airfoil. Its why the planes feel twitchy, and why real life planes are much more challenging (in some ways) to fly. They try, and in some cases its very good - see VRS in the helos for an example, but again, its an approximation. All simulators, by definition, are an approximation of real world behavior. There are typically a range of scenarios where the approximation is reasonably accurate, and others where it breaks down. Training simulators favor flight model and systems accuracy over graphics. The fly by wire system in the f-18 is another good example. The plane performance improved as the flight model controlling the FBW system improved. DCS is more middle of the road. Neither is inherently good or bad, they are design decisions. The same is true for missile guidance. Again, having some experience programming PLC control, the idea that a guidance algorithm that guides a object traveling at several thousand mph to intercept a object traveling at several hundred miles per hour that is deliberately maneuvering in a manner to avoid being intercepted are simple or that anything resembling our military's most modern implementation is open source is nuts. DCS has some issues. For a couple clear examples - the ATC simulation does not accurately model real ATC interaction, nor do AI wingmen accurately model RL wignmen. The missile models have some issues as well. Proximity fusing is unreliable. Evidence strongly suggests, based on the max aerodynamic range, that drag values are too high. In my opinion, the guidance system over reacts to target maneuvering, particularly in the early phase of flight. It is probably a good thing that PK is lower than RL counterparts, as none of us as as skilled as our RL counterparts. We also tend to fly solo more, or with poorly simulated AI wingmen, SEAD support, etc. We don't know, but it might be a deliberate design decision. Again, my opinion, but multiplayer is better for decreased PK. fwiw I don't hear people complaining about SAMs too much. Jump in a 18 and go buzz the tower of the Kuznetsov, my assumption is that would be a bit more challenging in real life.

Actually no, I'm not making assumptions. Its the opposite of what you are saying. This is a stupid argument to have, the weapons "capabilities and limitations" are the physics and guidance, they are the same thing. A missile isn't a Newtonian baseball thrown through the air. You can't solve a simple equation to determine where it will land based on trajectory and velocity. Its an "aircraft" with 4 wings, and 4 tail fins moving at a high rate of speed, that is then supplied with a fixed amount of force causing acceleration, that makes control inputs while accelerating and while decelerating, inducing drag and changes in direction, in response to guidance commands. The physics aren't "just the physics," that's the whole problem. The behavior of fluids around a wing at supersonic velocities can be approximated, with varying levels of complexity. DCS models it one way, but its an approximation, and by definition it is "wrong" to some extent - as are all models. Drag in particular is difficult, and as loft mode is designed to decrease drag by maximizing flight time in less dense air, the accuracy of the model as it pertains to drag substantially effects whether Loft Mode is worthwhile. Ironically, the capabilities of the older missiles we have in DCS are well documented. We know the type and mass of propellant, weight, shape, battery life, etc. In addition to the issues associated with the model, what we don't know precisely is the guidance (or flight path shaping in your words). RL versions are smarter, they do not make high G corrections during burn or in response to small maneuvers so as to not waste energy like the DCS models do (less susceptible to the DCS Roll), and as a result are better able to use their max aerodynamic range - but the problem is much more complex than that. Don't take my word for it, Ralfi has a good video with the guy who performed the mesh models (and got himself a new job for it):

Maybe being operative word. Not meaning as critical, I appreciate their candor. That said I its not clear what's that patch will include. Wags initially said basic JDAM, HARM TOO and PB, LTWS and TWS, but more recently said D/L SA page and HARM TOO, with LTWS, data carts, and wake turbulence "progressing well." Its not clear whether he's walking back the TWS or saying its all on target and adding SA and HARM TOO. Seems the former to me. Again, not criticizing, just saying I would not be so sure that it will make it in by the 27th. How do you like that odyssey+ btw? I just picked one up in that sale, coming from rift I am looking forward not having to memorize the buttons on all these new MFD pages :)

You're substantially underestimating the complexity of missile flight modeling. Missile performance in DCS is the proverbial dead horse. They are working on it to some extent, but it is not realistic. The 7 is better than it was, others need work. Guidance profiles doesn't matter if the flight model is not accurate. More specifically, whether the missile lofts into higher air for less drag is irrelevant if drag is not accurately modeled. Educated players have conducted fluid dynamics models that takes weeks of processing time depending on mesh size, and provided them to ED to help, but it is not a simple equation or set of equations to model drag and energy loss for a streamline object traveling at several times the speed of sound with very large control surfaces (relative to its overall cross sectional drag), with very high AoAs. Throw in variable air density, the reason loft exists, and you can appreciate the problem. fwiw DCS is a sim, but its an entertainment sim. In general DCS missiles are "dumber" than their RL counterparts, with a tendency to waste energy early in their flight path resulting in decreased hit probability relative to what it should he as range increases. Be careful what you wish for however, let's see how players like zero warning aim-54 hits from 15 miles in a couple weeks.

As others have said there's quite a lot, I keep seeing conflicting reports of exactly what we are getting on the 27th - definitely ltws, but unsure about what SA functionality or whether full TWS implementation. But if not the 27th, then soon. And those are two big systems to cross off the list, particularly SA given the new netcode and complexity. While there are lots of smaller things on the list, or important things that are similar to tech we have in other modules (atflir), the AG radar seems like the most difficult to build. There are so many sub modes, I'm not aware of any module that has the AG tracking (ground, ground moving, sea). The DBS functions seem particularly difficult, especially SAR. That seems fundamentally different than anything we have in game, the image processing requirements, how view distances and such will be handled, what that will do to lag or system resources? But at least it translates to the f-16, the next flagship product, so I'm sure we will get it eventually. Given the challenges involved I imagine it might be a while as it probably makes sense to focus on releasing/finishing some simpler things first.

I have never successfully restarted an engine after a fire, despite having the procedure down when I flew the hog a lot. Generally it’s on fire for a reason, so I just put the fire out, check your fuel situation for leaks and cut pumps/x feed as necessary and fly home on one. And remember to check your landing gear

Y, I understand why, for example, a lantirn pod cannot just be plug and play into avionics. It’s not like that in rl either (though oddly I’d did kind of appear overnight with harrier). What I don’t understand is how different weapons deploy the same munition with seemingly much different effect, or follow different flight paths, etc., depending on module. Granted a cbu-105 is a much different weapon, being guided and wind corrected. But from an a-10 it is devestating to a column. The AP and AA variants share common bomblets in their respective categories right? It’s just the guidance and such that are different?canisters munitions are the same, so why is the damage different.

Dude discussion was relating to a little later in the flight, when you're running and you got a lolipop with a 29 in the middle flashing in the bottom of your hud and that high alternating tone that says you're about to die. That 25k was gone long time ago otherwise i agree in principal, except very very rarely do I ever find a circumstance where'd I'd rather have a 7 than a 120, I carry them to not be a dick on multi where suplies are limited. With current state of IFF its nice to be able to break lock, and if you hauling ass head on to help someone running, where there's a chance it'll go active and hit the runner. Maybe a bomber intercept mission or something where I want the extra punch but I can't remember the last time I shot a bear. The main reason is because IFF is so bugged. I'm glad they've improved, especially for the tomcat, but in hornets current state with vanilla STT, no L&S or DT2, much less tws, at least you can rescan and designate another brick once it goes pitbull

Agree with other posters, I have much better luck running low in general, but depends on circumstance. AWACS bogey dope will give you range. If your locked up and range is 5+ most likely you can burn, mask where you can, and get out. If its under 5 and you're getting launch tones there is not a lot you can do. The only advantage the 18 has is it ability to point its nose quickly, so you might be able to position for CM dispense, override FCS and get a hobs 9x shot off, but you will probably die. Regarding effectiveness as CAP though - right now we have the most basic implementation of STT, and even then we can only display a single trackfile, no L&S or DT2. No auto IFF, no IFF at all really. The SA page, evidently coming very soon, will help but it won't add the offensive capability we are missing. Its the radar modes and ability to engage multiple tracks that's killing us. TWS will add the ability to display and simultaneously engage what? 10 track files? Both in A/A and A/G we are really seeing a fraction of the offensive capability. Once fully implemented, whenever that is, there's really nothing else in DCS that will match it. The FC3 planes all have limited avionics implementations, the Mirage has the advantage of working, but limited payload and older avionics, and while its going be a lot of fun, the F-14 its arguable a full gen behind a our lot 18C. that's a lot of beta releases away though, and very complex systems. Might be a while

Yup i got it, I took a closer (less frustrated) look at it and replied

So after the long wait i installed mine and am immediately having a problem. Throttle did not show up in game controllers, only joystick, but was functioning correctly in device manager and USB bus in hwinfo. Debug software side, no luck. Eventually reinstalled the old one, same problem. If I depress the old slew it will be recognized in game controllers, but there is no axis control (the buton depress does not register either). Updated firmware (was already updated), bootloader, checked all connections, reisntalled drivers, etc. Nothing. Cannot get it to work. Looks like I'm one of the only ones to have a problem and the other guy never fixed his, now posts questions about his virpil. Anyone have a similar problem they resolved? For what its worth, everything was installed correctly and carefully. Every other button on throttle, including right side, works fine, so if part of the pcb fried its isolated to the slew? anyone successfully fix an issue like this?

No worries, didn't mean to come off like a dick either. I can't help it For those who were at all intrigued by skydive piloting story, found an Otter do 12k to grass in 4 minutes. He flew a long downwind, we would corkscrew straight to base for a long fast final, cross control for drag to slow down (e.g. stick/yoke left right rudder to floor) and hit the same little worn down patch of grass every time. Wasn't a moving boat, but the parties were better. btw attitude indicator looks broken in this (useless anyway), check the horizon and altimeter

ehhhh I don't disagree, but its about purpose. In a 172 or any other GA you trim to relieve control pressure for given speed, vertical velocity, W&B etc. We are mixing physics with piloting. I agree its not hard to slow a 172 down we are talking performance. I have spent an absurd amount of time pushing 172/182/205/208s. As a CFI, but especially as an elevator driver trading rides for jumps flying skydivers to 13k and back 30 times a day. That's max performance climb in a gutted plane (just pilot seat and jumpers siting on floor), drop 800-1000 lbs and max performance descent, reload, repeat. CHT is high from the climb so can't shock cool the engines, but still beat the jumpers down. If we were busy I could sustain probably 3,500 fpm, dirty, 45 degrees nose down. Insane flying but honestly I"m just guessing because the VSI pins at 2k. Hornet will do the descent in what? 10-15 seconds? And lex, dude, whether on a boat or runway pilots still take pride in their skill, whether its 3-wire or hitting the numbers, squeezing an extra 100fpm out of a skydive plane or save a few thousand lbs of fuel in big iron they most definitely care about accuracy and precision. And there are as many different trim systems as there are airplanes. Old school jack screws or trim tabs vs actually, the hornet doesn't even have trim surfaces. The FBW system continuously calculates control surface actuator movement based on AoA, sideslip angle, pitch angle, density, yaw rate, pitch rate, pitch angle, yaw angle, thrust, current actuator position of the stabilator, aileron, rudder and leading/trailing edge flap positions, against a flight model that evolved over 30 years. Its worth googling, just be prepared for math. The airplane got better as the math got better and flight models improved. That's a long way away from a little metal trim tab the size of a playing card, that exerts an opposite force and relieves control pressure...

Having never flown a real hornet but having plenty of 172 hours, I don't really agree. I'm not sure it really matters but other than having wings there's not much similar. The hornet is unique. The 172 trims for pitch, and the difference between cruise and approach speeds are about 30kts? I agree that its not difficult as-is, though I can see how others would disagree. I believe there is supposed to a HUD indication of trim position isn't there? That would make things easier. I believe the real jet is less sensitive as well, the current FM is way too pitchy in landing config. But its fine, bigger priorities. Ironically I think the hornets probably easier to land? I mean, there's more to do and it happens much faster, but so long as you are decent stick & rudder there are tools to correct deviation in altitude or speed. About 10,000ft too high? Np, role her over nose down till you're where you want to be, pull and hit the brakes. Not a choice in a 172, if you're high on approach you can cross controls and slip, but that's a far cry from a barn door that pops up off the roof. Civ aircraft also don't have a handy velocity vector to point at the runway, and very few aircraft, military included, will take 700fpm landings. The 16 should be a ton of fun, and very different. The thing I struggle with in sims is not having the butt sensor. You can't feel the plane. It makes greasing a landing and holding the nose gear up difficult, for me at least. Anyway, to OP - the best advice has already been given. Watch the videos, fly around trimmed up practicing 180 degree turns, practice cruise to trim while holding altitude, etc. Its all about the throttle, constant adjustments but you've got to practice so you know what's happening, as you really need to be proactive about it (small things like adding a little gas before turning base, etc).

Can? Ok. Easy? No, but more importantly why? This is a dumb thing to be arguing about, but every pilot, at every level of check ride, has to demonstrate proficiency in dead reckoning navigation. Arguably its useful for systems failure and to force low hour pilots to get their heads up and eyes out, but relative to GPS it is obviously vastly inferior in accuracy. Its the same thing, heading, ground speed, time, etc. Its a pain in the ass, and besides being horribly inaccurate, it takes concentration from other tasks, puts pilots further behind the airplane. All of these systems are designed to aid in SA and decrease pilot workload. The alternative is to enter TGT and TOT - literally punching in 7 numbers, 10 if you want GS, and the benefit is a clear visual representation on the HUD of where you are vs where you should be, allowing the pilot to concentrate on higher priority tasks. The system as implemented in DCS works well enough, the only inconvenience being having to change TGT on ingress, but that is minor, and only necessary if you are using AUTO delivery or another TOT. OP: I would probably just manually watch your time for join and fly legs as indicated. Don't bother with TOT for join, just go to HSI data page, bring up wptseq, enter 4 for TGT, 055536 for TOT, and 580 for GS. The HUD representation won't be helpful until WP 2, but if you get a bit off speed on the decent or whatever it will give you an indication of how to adjust your speed to hit IP and target on speed and time.

Ya I don't think so man. I am open to being proven wrong, and I have never flown a real fighter jet. I have flown many planes however, and a lot of DC's. Mental math dead reckoning navigation at 500kts hitting waypoint within a second? Fwiw TOT works fine for enroute waypoints, you just need to tell the system where you want to be (not just when).

Not necessary, I got it. I went back and tested it and concur, it seemed counter intuitive to have to set a Marshall or en-route point as TGT to access TOT functions, but that's how it works. If you are then doing any kind of auto bombing you need to change it, but that is easy enough Its just a line and carrot, line to the left, slow down, to the right, speed up. As a pilot i get the difference between TAS, IAS and GS, but remembering where each is displayed on which screen, well, I"m not quite there. The HUD i believe shows IAS? the HSI TAS on the left and GS on right? I usually check the attack radar display as its easier to read, but in any case it doesn't matter much. IAS/TAS and GS differences can be very different in civ aircraft, but generally irrelevant in DCS. The main difference between TAS and GS is due to winds aloft, which is significant at 150kts, less so at 500k. I also generally find myself pretty low, where winds are negligible. I don't think you can set multiple TOT though. I was just playing with it, and as soon as you designate a new waypoint it overwrites the previous one. That would be nice though

I flew it again real quick, partially to experiment with the push time timing from 4, but no idea what I was talking about. No big birds. I play in VR and in a cluttered EM situation DE and look like BB, could have been another mission or something though - I haven't really mastered the defensive systems of the 18 yet. For instance, the disp switch on the CM control panel. If we are flying SEAD, is there a setting that will prioritize SAM guidance radars like we can with interceptors (I'm not actually sure this is functional yet)? Same with the tones, when a new emitter is detected, or when one moves to the critical band, etc, not second nature yet.

Interesting, I didn't care for the unrelated chatter. I like communication, but relevant. See Sedlo's red flag for example. Not saying I expect wags to be doing voice overs for these, just that they were distracting. Would be nice to have a toggle. The mission is pretty easy so I am not sure it matters but as I recall the wpt elevations are close to 10000m. Weird to be flying missions that high since we are all used to low level stuff (guess we should get used to it with the tomcat coming). I only flew the mission once but went back and looked at the tacview file. I picked up BB on the way in and immediately prioritized those over the SA-6s for obvious reasons. My 88's though homed on the 6 clusters. Do SA-6s also use BB search radar? I don't see any sa-10s. For those newer/struggling the 6's give off a lot of smoke so you can see them launch and are very vulnerable to chaff. You've got energy and altitude, and there is a ridge low if you need terrain. Careful though as there's some mid-range stuff down there

I am curious if anyone has this really figured out as well. It is easy enough to enter HSI data page, press WPTSEQ and enter TOT. However, its either bugged, or I don't know how to enter it correctly when in the context of a non-target Push Point. I believe this is the same situation OP referring to. Wags' HARM Red Flag mission (and many others), have a marshal point with an associated push time, but the target is several waypoints later. One could designate the marshal point as the TGT via, i forget the acronym, but its the right side bottom most button on HSI, but that would create other issues (if, for example, using JDAM or stand off munitions later, or auto bombing of any kind). Every time I think I've got this entered correctly the HUD indicator isn't even close, I end up arriving early then orbiting. So does anyone have this one figured out?

ya it works well, I still grab the mouse half the time because its faster but try to force myself when not trying to catch up to the plane. Also consider the trigger thing- I don't do it in the 18 but for the a-10 shifted trigger zoom is fantastic. Its smooth as silk, you can kind of feather it in and out as needed, check your alignment, release PAC and readjust, zoom, fire or don't engage any zoom at all. Takes a little getting used to but super smooth once you are.

I also hear this thrown around constantly, I've never been able to determine where it started, and I have heard some particularly absurd explanations from people that don't have a clue what they are talking about. However, being a lawyer, pilot and working frequently with the government, there are scenarios where it could be true. 100% Pure speculation (but based on experience), but the contract could provide for pre-approval of any changes falling within certain criteria, at significant expense to the company of course. In such a scenario a texture update would be fine, but any change to avionics or flight model would trigger the approval. Again, I have no specific knowledge. It could just as easily be a business decision to not put dev resources into a product that's produced most of the revenue its going to produce (between the 18, recently revealed 16, I could understand not wanting to pull a dev from that to update what is already considered the most complete module). Personally, I would buy the a-10c again for a later avionic package (JHCMS alone would be life changing in a-10). My point I suppose is just that its not a totally unrealistic excuse

its... beautiful... have same bit kit btw, probably favorite gift i've received in years.