Katj

I've noticed that you really need to fly very low to get any kind of effect on water as well. I don't know how low exactly and can't test right now but about 2-3 feet maybe? If memory serves the effect appears just before you submerge the fuel tank on the viggen (which by the way isn't a big deal).

Check out this excellent video on DCS antialiasing.

You don't want DCS to be an arcade game, but you propose unlimited fuel as an option to some sort of easy mode AAR? That doesn't make any sense. I also think your fear that more options would somehow make DCS more arcade is totally irrational. This would be a great feature for the group I fly with. We always have a few new guys or veterans flying new modules. Easy aar would allow for the person hosting the weekly mission to disregard whether person A can reliably refuel module B and focus on making the most interesting mission. Meanwhile in the real world I'm sure manual AAR will be obsolete in the not too distant future. Why should the pilots worry about formation flying with a tanker when they can build some SA, talk trash on the radio, have a snack, do some sudoku on the kneeboard,, and get some vlogging out of the way, while the computer does the tanking better and safer than they ever could? I bet they won't miss manual refueling either.

The F-14 has a landing autopilot. For the carrier, no less. As you have noticed bombing autopilot is a thing too, it's called a GBU. Anyway, I can't see any harm in it. I wouldn't use it, as I can refuel all my modules, but if someone wants it I can't see why not.

Well, maybe some people can't invest that sort of time, i.e. 5 years, to learn a very particular skill. Those people might still enjoy most other aspects of DCS. I don't think it's wise to exclude them. I know lots of people struggle with AAR, but they might otherwise be pretty proficient in their aircraft. I'd still enjoy flying missions with them if they "cheated" at the tanker. Maybe they are really committed to learning AAR, but are only 3 years into their 5 year learning period. Let them have it says I. You know, one could make the argument that if it takes you 5 years to learn how to refuel an aircraft, then DCS isn't for you. And if you want realistic ATC, then DCS isn't for you. Or if this and that, then DCS isn't for you. In the end DCS wouldn't be for anyone. I, on the other hand, would like DCS to be for everyone.

Back in 1980 they were all new, and the DCS model is pretty much based on museum artifacts. I don't personally mind the worn look much, but I can understand if some people think they overdid it.

Please try enabling MFAA and report back! It should be easy on performance.

I'm also in the process of tuning my system for my g2. Everything in the cockpit is very readable, but I'm not really happy with what's outside. This is my first vr headset so perhaps my expectations were too high, but I can't really see a reason for far away stuff being blurry while stuff in the cockpit is very crisp. Anyway, I haven't had the time to thoroughly test this, but I sacrificed some supersampling and added 2x in-game MSAA in combination with Nvidia control panel MFAA (multi frame AA), and I think it looked very promising. It just dawned upon me that the correct way to tune this is probably to turn all the graphics settings all the way down, and then play with SS and AA until you're as happy as you're going to get with the clarity, and only then add eye candy until you can't keep your fps target. I'm very interested in hearing what you guys think about MFAA, so please try it out if you have an Nvidia card. In case anyone wants to know I'm running a 3080 and a 5600x.

One thing that caught my ear was that he claimed to have reached Mach 2.35, which is way faster than what I've heard from other pilots. The F-14D guy ("Oral" was it?) Mover interviewed before said something like Mach 1.6 if I don't misremember. While I imagine that an A directly from the production line is the faster bird, the difference seems rather big. It's almost as if most pilots didn't actually go for a clean max speed run. (Not that surprising) So, do you think 2.35 was actually feasible with an operational aircraft? What's your personal best in terms of Mach?

Turn up the render resolution or add some MSAA or other eye candy until you're GPU bound again. Problem solved! Single thread performance gains have been pitiful in the last decade or so, but personally I finally retired my haswell CPU and got a 5600x to replace it.

What we really need is something like: DCS WW2 DCS Korea DCS Vietnam DCS 80's It would have been great if ED would have done a 1988 Hornet, a 1988 Viper, and told third party developers e.g. "You can make any F-14 you want, as long as it is a 1988" The apparent problem with this approach, apart from the fact that ED and third party developers have spent a lot of money developing systems that wouldn't fit in the scenario, is that the kids wouldn't get any fox 3's and I don't know if they'll pay for that. Though fox 1 combat is more challenging and fun, imo. More often results in great dogfights, too.

The 2080ti is at like 85 %, and the 3090 at 70 % for the most time. But nevermind that, as the fps is locked to 45 look instead at the GPU frametime. The 2080ti is 20ish ms, and the 3090 is 15ish. I would have liked to see average frametimes as well as 99 % highs, but that isn't shown. The CPU is at 14ish percent, but that's just because the 9900k is an 8 core CPU and DCS mostly uses only one of those.

It's not that all threads run on the same core, the operating system will see to that, it's that almost all the important work is done on only one thread. Think of it this way; a supermarket has 50-64 cash registers, each with a queue, (threads) and 8 cashiers (cores). The cashiers run between the cash registers to serve any arriving customers. Do the number of cash registers or cashiers matter much when there is a guy with an Eagle Dynamics t-shirt that directs 99 % of the customers to the same cash register? The answer is no. Only one cashier at a time will be able to do any meaningful amount of work while the others update their Tinder profiles on their phones. It's directing the customers (the work to be done) to different cash registers (threads) that is hard, because it turns out it's black friday and they're all trying to buy the same TV.

It's not, but at this point I don't think you'll change your mind. Enjoy your ignorance. Yeah, flaps up, gear up or down, no DLC (as it will deploy countermeasures in this mode). Then wiggle that axis. If you look back at your wing you'll see the slats come down. I just use manual when preparing for take off. I suppose there could be some other edge use case that I don't know about.

I think the problem is the total lack of lateral stability. I.e. if the aircraft ever so slightly off trim - it will start to roll. It won't stop at some (small) bank angle as a laterally stable aircraft would, it just continues to roll until you correct or fall out of the sky. What do you guys think, am I on to something?

No, VC is talking maneuver flaps. You can deploy them before you take off from land. It's mentioned in the tutorial, and is my preferred way to take off from land. Why don't you try it out?

The thing is they didn't make the best or latest B model. So it's more like they have chosen the variants with the most amount of overlap. That's fine, but it's not what I hoped for. If glove vanes are useless, what good are liveries? And would it really be so bad to put those old liveries on the B? The glove vanes are a cool feature that the A had, but the B and D didn't. Now all the A has is worse engines. I think I'll stick to the B, which is a great product.

I would have liked to see an early model the glove vanes. I don't really get the rationale in doing an A that is more or less contemporary with the B we already have. They are barely contemporary with the Forrestal class carriers.

I'm not arguing with that. The "statistical reasoning" doesn't make sense, though.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Go to Nvidia control panel and crank up "Sharpening" or something like that. You need somewhat new drivers for it to be there. Definitely helps with spotting, but you might not like the effect it has on everything else.

Well, if you completely unload the nose gear, not only do the mains have to support the entire weight of the aircraft, according to Newton's third law of motion they must also counteract whatever downward force the stabilators produce to unload the nose gear. It's exactly like a car with a spoiler, and the very definition of "down force".

Of course aft stick increases downforce! Just look at that the control surfaces are doing when you pull aft stick, it's obvious. It's only when the stabilators produce so much downforce that the nose gear lifts off the ground and the AoA increases that the lift of the wings overcomes this downforce! Of course, in an aircraft with canards, it's the opposite, stick forward for downforce.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but in general more wings mean more drag. I.e. two small stabilizers are more draggy than a big one.

Hey guys, perhaps you can help me out. I read somewhere on the Internet the ramblings of an ex. Tomcat pilot who wrote about a particular bird, and how that bird seemed to be faster than the others. I can't remember if it was some forum post, or a blog or something. And my Google-fu comes up short. Does anyone know where to find this text? There were some images as well. I feel like I might spoil the read for you guys if we mange to find it but the twist was that this particular Turkey had F-111 engines of some variety. I can't remember which, perhaps TF30-P-100? Edit: Of course I found it just after I asked for help. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/f-14-questions-answered-ask-away.191767/page-12#post-3882538 (The engines were supposedly rebuilt TF30-P-7s.)