Jump to content

VC

Members
  • Posts

    698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VC

  1. The binding itself does what it says, I hear my pilot make the call, but in MP last week I never got an answer. The radio is tuned correctly, if I hit "/" and go through the menu I get an answer fine. I tried using both VHF and UHF first then clicking the "bogey dope" binding to try to force it onto the right radio, but no luck. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong here?
  2. VC

    Rift S or Index?

    I'm not dead set on the Rift S, I'm just phrasing my questions like that to push people into giving me the answers I want because the Index is more clear cut and I don't really need more info on that. I haven't made a choice yet. Ultimately though, it seems these things have excellent resale value so that's another safety net.
  3. VC

    Rift S or Index?

    Thanks for the help! My system specs are: i5-9600k RTX 2080 32GB RAM M.2 SSD I can just about hit 90 FPS with the settings I have now in the Vive, no supersampling, 4x MSAA with 0.2 mask, medium vis range, 2x AF, most other stuff on medium. I used to run 200% SteamVR supersampling and 0x MSAA that gave similar performance. I briefly looked at the Reverb and dismissed it, it just seems to sacrifice everything (like wear comfort) for huge pixel count that I'm not even sure I can comfortably run. Plus it has the same availability issues. Rift S audio - I wear a Corsair Void Pro headset over my Vive, it's super comfortable and sound and mic quality are amazing. Can I comfortably wear this over the Rift S halo? Rift S FoV - how bad does 90 decrees really look? That's a step down from Vive but given the edges are fuzzy to look at anyway I'm not sure how much it would matter.
  4. As a current Vive user the Index (headset only) should be a no-brainer upgrade path for me. However, I recently started having some tracking issues and I'm starting to suspect failing base stations, which changes things in two ways: Firstly, it pushes the price up for upgrading to the Index if I need to buy replacement base stations as well Secondly, it creates a bit more urgency to my upgrade, not the "ships in 8 weeks if you're lucky, probably way more and you have no idea when" of the Index Yes, the Rift S is out of stock as well, but in some places I'm seeing stock expected back mid-June. Obviously the Index is better... but is it that much better that it's worth waiting months and months for, and potentially having to pay extra if I commit to it then my base stations die? I've read a lot of good things about the Rift S, seem to be plenty of happy users (even Wags recommends it). If I see a Rift S in stock way sooner than Valve can ship me an Index, should I just get it there and then and be done with the base station risk/complexity?
  5. Do they? My knowledge is that they do a very similar job, almost the same, but MSAA only looks at edges while SS does the whole image including textures.
  6. That's what I used to run, currently trialling 100% SS only with 4x MSAA and 0.1 mask. Image quality seems to be worse so far but spotting may be slightly better. I always thought the advice for VR was "in game MSAA is crap just supersample instead", but I keep seeing conflicting advice.
  7. VC

    VR MSAA mask?

    I will run with the assumption then that low means less area AA. I also saw little to no change though in FPS with varying this setting. Could it be we are CPU bound instead? I checked performance and none of my threads are maxed out though.
  8. Which way round does the new MSAA mask slider work? Larger number means the MSAA is rendered in a bigger area? Or larger number means more is masked?
  9. Hmm, I was trying to do the left then aft sequence but even that wasn't working reliably. I'll try to follow it next time see if it works better. I wasn't holding down the SS Fwd, but good to know that's a function!
  10. I have been having some issues with ACM radar modes in the F-18. I know how to select them but it doesn't always do it and I don't know why. I press Sensor Select Forward and I get default boresight mode, that's fine. But when I press Sensor Select Aft to get to Vertical scan... sometimes it doesn't do it. Sometimes I have to press Sensor Select Left, which also does nothing, then Aft will get me Vertical Scan. It happens the other way around as well, basically first or even second press of the button is not respected. Sometimes I have to spam around the Sensor Select button up/left/down before it finally lets me switch modes. As you can imagine, this is really frustrating in the tight situations you need these modes in. Am I missing something in how it should work or is this a bug? Another issue I had is it locking seemingly random things. I thought it was only supposed to lock out to 10 miles, but when using it online last night it felt like I was getting locks way outside parameters. I would go ACM wide or vertical scan, wait for the lock, then start looking around with JHMCS for the target box... I would follow the arrow and in one case it was behind me! In another it was way high up on a target that was 40 degrees off boresight and 30+ miles away instead of the guy down low right in front of me. Again, not sure if this is lag or user error but it was confusing and frustrating trying to use it.
  11. I get you have very strong feelings about this. Don't misunderstand, I would love to have this feature otherwise I wouldn't be asking about it. But the A-8 is beautifully modelled anyway and I already had some success with it online. It is far from being a bad plane, it's an interesting challenge to fly. Would C-3 injection make it better? Sure! Do I want it? Of course. Is it fine without it? Also yes in my opinion.
  12. That bit from the shop is unclear if it means the C3 will be added only with the F-8 version. In any case that is not correct, since the regular A-8 was fitted with it and used as such in figher operations. If ED have simply decided that we're getting an earlier version A-8 without the boost then that's fine. Do we have an actual statement on that? Interesting to see further development on this type anyway.
  13. History is the best tutorial. Don't shoot until the target fills your whole windscreen. Or even closer if you like! :D
  14. Apologies if this is known or asked before but I can only find references buried in other threads along the lines of "I wish we had this". Is the C-3 injection Erhohte Notleistung something that is planned to be added to the Anton (on the development roadmap) or has it been stated this will not be implemented on the DCS A-8? Or do we just not know if it's coming or not?
  15. That could certainly be the case, after all by 1945 109K-4s were flying sometimes without radios or missing instruments. I can see for example in the IL2 cockpit the plaque with "kuhlerklappen - auf - zu" is above on the upper panel, which I accepted as a manufacturing variation.
  16. Yup, they're both wrong. Oh well, I can accept the Dora model is old this is not super crucial, nice to have some understanding. I guess these are simple controls that you are not supposed to see all the time, just know what they do and use by feel.
  17. Nice picture! And in DCS this is as low as the head position will let you go. It looks like the coolant flap control is in the right place relative to the engine instruments and the red pull-levers. But it's still completely hidden by the upper panel even though in the picture of the real thing from the same angle it's fully visible.
  18. I'm enjoying this free Dora in DCS but I have a question about the cockpit 3D model. Flying in VR, I noticed it's very difficult (almost impossible) to see certain elements on the lower panel, in particular the dial for adjusting the coolant flaps and the lever next to it. It's no problem in practice, I bound some buttons for it and I can use them. But I want to ask why this side of the cockpit looks so different to the one for example in IL2, where this area can be seen much more clearly. Even all the instruments on the lower panel, water temperatures etc. become half hidden in DCS with a normal/natural head position. Surely it's a 3D model of the same thing, so who got it wrong? :music_whistling: Look at the screenshot from IL2, the head position is very high but still the instruments, dials and levers on the lower panel are perfectly visible, with room to spare. Now look at DCS, very low position for the screenshot (eye level is basically on the seat) but some of these objects are still invisible, hidden up under the upper instrument panel.
  19. I am unable to do that because the K-4 is no longer on free trial and it didn't impress me enough to persuade me to buy it at this time. I admit my observations are based on more of a "first impression" basis but I don't have vast amounts of free time on my hand. I don't think it's entirely fair to dismiss this, since I was playing in fairly typical conditions, 1k to 3km alt dogfighting, it doesn't take hours of sterile condition testing to draw good conclusions as to how something feels. Now, I am perfectly happy to take at face value Yo-yos explanation regarding pitch instability with power (I had MW50 on for the majority of my messing around), and to accept that this may be something DCS captures as accurate that IL2 does not to the same extent. The physics makes sense and I don't need to test it to believe that. However this creates a conundrum for me, since the aircraft still felt very hard to stall (in DCS). If it is unstable in pitch, then it should easily be able to produce the kind of pitch rates that would exceed even the deployed slat AoA limits and cause some kind of shuddering, stall and/or wing drop, benign as this may be due to the design. The closest I came to a fair equivalent test was this: 400km/h approx 2 km altitude, full throttle, bank 90 degrees left and pull all the way back (as you might if you were turning after a breaking enemy). Result in DCS: the plane simply turns on a dime and shows no signs of stall, holding stick full back turning all the way down to 150km/h. Result in IL2: plane initially pitches very fast before the turn is arrested by the stall and there is a slight wing drop. Reducing aft stick deflection recovers and continues the turn, but you can't hold the stick all the way aft as the plane slows and expect it to keep turning smoothly, let alone quickly.
  20. Having tried the 109K-4 on the free trial I found this thread that echoed some of my thoughts, so I just wanted to recap and add a bit. Full disclosure, I have quite a bit of time in IL2. No, I'm not trying to start a war and I am absolutely not claiming IL2 FMs are superior. But I will draw on my experience there for comparison because the feeling I get from flying 109s in IL2 matches my expectations from reading historical accounts. Yes, I am aware of the "109 myths" page posted earlier. I've referenced it in the past to argue for improvements to the 109 in IL2 in areas I feel that sim doesn't do as well (in particular too early and too strong control stiffening with speed). This thread was originally about "instability" and I think everyone understands something different here. What I consider my experience of instability in the DCS K-4 is very fast control response and reversal, particularly in pitch. To me the plane feels very light and bouncy, it does not give me much feeling of weight or inertia on the controls. I feel the same about the TF-51 and was told that was normal. But the 109K-4 is an aircraft that became, relatively, heavy for its size and many pilot accounts complain of sluggish handling. Of course it has amazing P/W ratio and that can be felt in climbs and level acceleration, but pitch response feels almost FBW level to me. You can argue all you like that this is because of a lack of "feeling in the seat", but IL2 captures a level of sluggishness I expect. The closest comparison I can make is that DCS 109K-4 feels like flying IL2 109F-4 i.e. a much lighter aircraft on the same wings. Now, stalling. 109 stall should be very docile, retaining roll control at high AoA due to slats and being easy to avoid and recover from. That's fine, and mostly that feels the same in DCS and IL2: that fantastic feeling of confidence in hard maneuvers and high AoA controllability that only a 109 can give you. But I don't for a second believe the 109 is not possible to stall in real life. In DCS it feels a bit like that. Full stick deflection at almost any speed doesn't produce shudder or wing/nose drop (I'm talking about accelerated stall behaviour as you might get in a hard combat turn). Even with full stick and rudder I can't get it to snap roll. Slats aren't magic, this is still a high wing loading aircraft with it seems (in DCS at least) amazing elevator authority. I should be able to exceed the limits by flying totally ham-handed but instead it feels nearly idiot-proof. As I said the feeling of control in IL2 is similar up to a point, but then the plane kicks you if you go further. Gently and easy to recover, as it should be, but it tells you and you feel it. One thing I will say though is DCS K-4 beats IL2 hands down in take-off experience. IL2 is far too easy. DCS K-4 got my pulse racing and hit all the quirks and challenges I expected from reading about how 109s handled in this regime. Like I said at the start, I'm not trying to start a war and these are just my personal observations. DCS K-4 feels amazing to fly but in some ways it surprised and disappointed me because it feels too good and too easy. I may well be completely wrong, but I'd like a constructive discussion about my observations.
  21. I took the Tomcat out for a spin last night but noticed some weirdness. From last patch notes: "Fix for radar ground stabilization at high roll angles" I asked Jester to STT a target for me, so far so good. Fire, crank... but the line to target on the TID is not moving at the same rate as the target. As I roll out from the crank the line keeps moving until it's back on target at wings level. Is this what the above patch was supposed to fix?
  22. After trying the Viper I'm a bit confused as to what exactly the "A12" timer/countdown under the HUD missile range box is showing me. I watched the Wags video and he says it's the countdown to missile pitbull, but it doesn't behave like that either in his video or when I flew the plane myself. It seems if you or the enemy start turning the timer slows down and eventually stops before reaching zero. But in many of these cases the missile is very close to the target, I've even had missile impact with the timer stuck on A2 (2 seconds), so it must have already been pitbull for a while. That timer therefore seems useless as a pitbull indicator. By contrast in the Hornet the timer reaches zero and you can use it reliably as your cue to turn cold. Could someone help me understand the Viper countdown and how to tell if your missile is pitbull?
  23. So I didn't find a washer but I made one by cutting a ring of EVA foam and inseting it up into where the collar grips down onto the stick base. That seems to have helped so far. No wonder it was slipping, that's a metal-on-metal join there's no friction there. Curious why TM didn't design it with a washer in there already.
  24. Yeah, the threads are not loosening. The grip is twisting despite the thread being as tight as it will go. Still haven't had time to take it apart and see where exactly I might fit a washer (which I don't have in the first place). Might try just shimming it with some paper or cardboard, I really don't think it needs much.
  25. Alrighty, I'll see if I can find something suitable and give it a go this weekend!
×
×
  • Create New...