Tom Kazansky
-
Posts
2164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tom Kazansky
-
-
it is not about what side is more right, alone. It is about how this battle is fought.
If this does not end soon, WE will be victims.
-
6
-
1
-
-
On 4/21/2024 at 3:32 PM, vishkar said:
...all Control Settings are wiped out.
It does not avoid the pain, but maybe it helps mitigating it. There's another thread where it is stated that your settings could still be there and restorable:
Others posted some methods to save control settings in the same thread.
-
8 hours ago, NineLine said:
We will continue to update the list here and on the store page as we have more info.
Thanks! Very much appreciated, and longed-for.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Aronis said:
We can't zoom in real life...
Darn cheater!
-
4
-
-
besten Dank für die ausfühliche Antwort. Das deckt wohl alles ab was ich wissen wollte und macht die Crystal für mich auf jeden Fall zum interessantesten Nachfolger für die Zeit nach der G2 (bis jetzt).
-
1 hour ago, Air Joker said:
Ich habe bei meinen Umstieg von der G2 auf die Crystal ungefähr 6 FPS (Situations- und Einstellungsabhängig) dazugewonnen.
Ich möchte den Thread hier nicht in ne Einstellungsberatung lenken, würde aber doch sehr gerne kurz wissen wie viele Pixel du die G2 und die Crystal rendern hast lassen.
Meine G2 war am Anfang auf 100% und damit auf ca. 3000x3000 pro Auge eingestellt und ich konnt einfach nicht mehr mit weniger leben.
Nach meiner naiven Meinung könnte das ja dann auch für die Crystal reichen, oder fährt man die auch gern mit 40% mehr pro Achse damit das Ergebnis richtig gut aussieht?
-
29 minutes ago, HWasp said:
Withholding all payments, if true, is a real brute force method even if the cause is legit.
Priority should have been to keep the show on the road while lawyers fight in the background, if necessary. This way both parties loose in the long term on this.
Agreed. By holding back purchases we risk the entire amount of investment we put into DCS. I don't know what is right or wrong, but I for one don't want to wait and see whether some day some other company will deliver what ED did and does.
In good times, and bad times...
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:
To be honest I didn't expect this so soon!
Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
Me neither, and it is still to good to be true. Like many German users here there would be a (small) chance that our home towns are part of this map. I would be too hyped to post my feelings if this came true.
-
3
-
-
.
-
2
-
-
I just checked the BALT HOLD behaviour in the Hornet again, and what I find interesting is:
1) If your stick is not totaly centered in pitch (Y-axis) when you press BALT on the UFC, a warnig tone sounds, the BALT does not engage BUT(!) without doing anything else but moving the stick slightly into the center of the pitch (Y) axis, the BALT mode still engages. Again: This happens without another press of the BALT button on the UFC.
2) And this is why no. 1) is helpful: the BALT mode does not disengage by releasing the slightly uncentered stick, because (and that was news for me):
The limits in wich the stick must be centered to engage BALT are significantly smaller than those you have to exceed to disengage the BALT mode by deflecting the stick.
So as a workaround I recommend to move the stick in the pitch axis as soon as you hear the warning tone (that is heard after a non engaging BALT mode after BALT-button-press) until the BALT mode engages.
Btw. If your stick is uncentered in the x-axis, there is no problem at all with the BALT mode. You can even deflect the stick quite a bit to the side, as long as your pitch is centered to engage BALT.
EDIT:
and now something completely odd:
I slightly deflected the stick from the center in pitch axis, pressed BALT, the warning tone sounded and BALT did not engage (as expected), then I waited more than 10 sec before moving the stick to the center and BALT still engages (without pressing BALT on the UFC again). I have no proof from real life, but this seems odd, doesn't it?
-
1 hour ago, PawlaczGMD said:
I don't have a deadzone because I don't like it,
+1
Deadzones kill precision in formation flying and air to air refuling. It makes no sense to spend hundreds of bucks for a good stick/base and add deadzones.
No offence to the work around here, but the limits in the DCS Hornet seem too narrow to be realistic.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Swiso said:
It concerns me that somebody hasn't been learning too much over the last few weeks.
-
7
-
1
-
-
Will we be able to drive e.g. a Humvee right into a CH47? And of course out of it again by ourselves with Combined Arms?
-
14 hours ago, Yurgon said:
Ich finde es aber schon etwas fragwürdig, etwas zum Vorverkauf anzubieten und sich noch gar nicht festzulegen, welchen Umfang das fertige Produkt später haben wird.
Ich finde es auch komisch, aber tröste mich mit der Aussage, dass die EA-Feature-Liste vor dem EA-release veröffentlicht wird.
Es wird mir also die Möglichkeit gegeben vor dem Kauf zu sehen was kommt, wenn ich das wichtig finde.
Übrig bleibt nur die Frage ob das dann nur beschreibt was im EA kommt, das heißt, ob das was später kommt auch aufgelistet wird. Das wär schon wichtig. Gerade wenn/weil ich nicht ein total überzeugter CH47 Fan bin, aber mich dafür interessiere.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Hiob said:
Dear customers and community RAZBAM Simulations is actively working with EAGLE DYNAMICS to reach an agreement to resolve our internal dispute and we don't want the discussion that our public declaration has generated to escalate any further. We want to assure you that it has never been nor will it be our intention to abandon our products. We look forward to a prompt and satisfactory resolution, turn the page, and move forward.
Thx @Hiob
Just requoted that because on my end the format wasn't readable. No offence.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Qcumber said:
Sorry that should be to 70% but this varies by settings and does not factor in DLSS. With DLSS Quality this brings it to about 30%.
Base settings are with meta link set to x1.7 for 2880x2700 pixels = 7.78Mp per eye
With QVFR vertical and horizontal set to 0.4x0.4, centre res 1.3 and periphery 0.5. this gives an overall pixel count of 5.37Mp per eye (5.37/7.78*100=69%).
Add in DLSS with scaling set to quality and this brings the total pixel count to 2.16 (scaling applies to horizontal and vertical pixel counts rather than total pixel count). This gives an overall reduction to (2.16/7.78*100) 28% of full res.
Edit: as the CL has a resolution of 2880x2880, if you apply the same QVFR settings you should get similar overall performance but in fixed mode. 0.4*0.4 centre size is about as low as you can go in fixed mode. 0.5*0.5 is better.
thanks
-
13 minutes ago, Qcumber said:
QVFR ... reduces my overall pixel count by about 70%
Is it by about or to about 70%?
Just curious.
-
40nm turn radius would be quite off, according to the following info:
Found some good insights on almost every AAR aspect where it is stated that a RL* pattern is more like max. 20 nm x min. 50 nm
https://wiki.ivao.aero/en/home/specialoperations/Documentation/AAR
Edit: *the info is from the IVAO website, so I don't know how close it matches RL info.
-
Ich bin gespannt wie die 3840 x 3840 Pixel pro Auge (mit FovRendering) der "Super" einschlagen werden. Obwohl der Aufpreis natürlich heftig ist, sehne ich mich sehr nach mehr Auflösung. Vielleicht auch weil damit die Qualität der Kantenglättung immer weniger ausschlaggebend wird.
Interessant sind aber für mich alle angekündigten Varianten. Auch wenn ich (noch) kein Pimax-Fan bin.
-
By definition, "Phantom pain" refers to painful sensation perceived in a part that is not present.
-
6
-
-
... the first plane with an even bigger angle of stabilizers to the outside, that came to my mind was the YF-23 Black Widow II and I found the following interesting behaviour:
while taxiing on the ground the YF-23 moves its stabilizers clockwise in a right taxi-turn. correct me if I'm wrong, but this should mean a right rudder press.
the control surfaces ot the much more perpendicular (i.e. vertical) stablilizers of the Hornet move "counterclockwise" (or to the right, in this regard) with a right rudder press.
This tells me, that if the stabilizers are installed with an higher and higher angle to the outboard sides, the effect I described in my previous post becomes so pronounced, that it is the better solution to invert the stabilizers' movement to get the roll/yaw you want to get.
Here is a YT video of the right taxi turn (starting at 34min 50s), you might need to slow the replay speed down to see it better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLiMYGBE2Q#t=34m50s
I admit that's a far excursion, and not a proof by no means, but it helps me understand what could be going on, till proven otherwise.
-
17 hours ago, Figaro9 said:
This behavior is not speed but AOA-dependent according my today’s tests.Above ~4.7 alpha the roll is in direction of the rudder input. Bellow ~ 4.7 roll is very slightly in the opposite direction. Can’t tell why. Probably the outboard angled stabilizers play a role here…
Couldn't stop thinking about that, so I came to the following:
let's assume hypothetically(!) we could increase the angle of both of the vertical stabilizers even more to the outboard sides, and consider them almost like wings:
so a (e.g.) left rudder input would look exactly like a right aileron input (if those stabilizers were wings). The right control surface would point upwards and the left surface downwards. The result would be a right roll.
You get what I mean?
So this would explain why a smaller angle of the stabilizers to the outboard side could induce a smaller (but noticeable) roll to the opposite side of the rudder input.
(Does not explain why it is AoA dependent, but ok.)
-
1
-
-
I have to correct myself: the FCS of the Hornet does not do "nothing" with the control surfaces, it does adjust the rudder itself while changing AoA (of course not to the opposite direction).
I did not manage to reduce the influence of the FCS to stop that, not with the Gain switch, nor the Manual Spin Recovery Mode switch (thanks @DummyCatz )
I fanally saw some unclassified aerodynamic formulas* (thanks again @DummyCatz) that explain that the Hornet is able to create such opposite rolls at certain states and all that lead me to my cautious and tentative conclusion that it's ok for me at the moment.
Thanks to all of you for your interest and helpful replies.
(*
I'm not quite sure I'm allowed to post here, so I don't) EDIT: the link should be ok, I guess:"AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF HIGH-ANGLE-OF-ATTACK RESEARCH VEHICLE (HARV) ESTIMATED FROM FLIGHT DATA", NASA TM 202692, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19900019262/downloads/19900019262.pdf
-
2
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Figaro9 said:
This behavior is not speed but AOA-dependent according my today’s tests.Above ~4.7 alpha the roll is in direction of the rudder input. Bellow ~ 4.7 roll is very slightly in the opposite direction. Can’t tell why. Probably the outboard angled stabilizers play a role here…
checked that today and I can confirm your statement.
was able to control the direction of roll (with pressed and held rudder) just by adjusting the AoA with the elevators at any (tested) speed.
thanks, again
(got to change the title... again, we are getting further here)
-
2
-
DCS: CH-47F Pre-purchase
in DCS: CH-47F
Posted
dito