Cgjunk2

I see. I do think those are cool details as well. The Tomcat is full of details like that, and it’s fun to sit in the cockpit in VR to take it all in. But for some reason, lack of those details doesn’t make me feel like it takes away from the hornet experience. Also, ironically, sometimes too much specific detail makes it look less realistic. In the sense that it might end up looking like a picture of a particular airframe parked in a particular museum. When something is picture perfect, it cam ironically seem “less crafted”. It’s fair to say that the tools you use to create cockpits are just tools, but what’s important is the final work and the feeling it gives a user. It is an art form regardless of the tools used. But everyone feels differently regarding what makes good cockpits (or good enough). As long as textures and other details are highly optimized to avoid unnecessary performance loss, it’s hard to be against the idea of improvements. As long as it doesn’t look worse lol.

I would think that laser scanning/photometry is more useful in situations when shape or dimensions are unknown, irregular, or difficult to obtain. That may be the case with the F18, but it would be surprising to me. I would think, you could do an accurate job by just measuring panels, curves, and distances within the cockpit.

Are the F-18 cockpit dimensions known to be inaccurate? I was under the impression it was pretty accurate in that regard. As far as rendering, textures and art looks great to me on the Hornet. The new Fulcrum and Hornet look similar to me, with maybe the Hornet a having slight advantage in clarity and performance (FPS) in VR. Quality is always subjective though, and it’s a balance in terms of ensuring the final product is well optimized. Insane levels of details are not fun if it ends up being a low-fps hog. Case in point, the F5 remaster got the royal treatment in terms of graphics, but the lower frame rates make it less fun to fly. My personal opinion (again, in VR) is that the Hornet is the gold-standard module in terms of cockpit art, quality, and efficiency. I think the Mig29 has come close to matching it.

I messed around with the settings a little more today. It seems that you are able to tick the “every screen” and the “ sequential mirror” options within the game. They take effect live. That’s how I was able to verify that checking either of those options causes the frames on the mirrors to drop significantly. I have both unchecked, and the mirrors are nice, sharp, and run at good fps. Maybe these options are better suited to flat monitors, because in VR it’s very hard to ignore that your mirrors are lagging. Either that, or the options work relatively better if you have a really slow computer.

Generally speaking, Is the frame rate penalty with mirrors on the same as before?

This exactly! What I wouldn’t give for a visor in the Mi-8!!!!!!!! The automatic exposure compensation of the pilot’s virtual eyes never adjusts to the outside lighting level in the Hip. Probably because the pilot sits so far from windows compared to a fighter cockpit. A visor would take care of that problem quickly!

The other option besides trying to learn how to use it effectively, is to just pretend you’re a billionaire with enough disposable money to buy and feed your own mig-29. Then just fly the jet with total abandon, roll coal, and make very, very expensive holes in the sky. This plane has the perfect FM for that!

If I recall, I currently have the mirrors set to the max resolution, and turned off sequential mirrors. I’ll report back if I start experiencing low mirror FPS again. DCS used to have the option of setting lower resolution on mirrors which worked well. But then that option disappeared for a while. This new system, when it drops the mirrors into low FPS, makes it seem like the mirrors are running on a seperate CPU processor. It’s a very weird, disjointed effect. That first night it didn’t always run in low FPS, but it seemed to drop into low FPS based on graphical demands. It was weird because it happened even if the mirrors were set at the lowest resolution. edit: I know this was marked that the solution was to tune the mirror settings, but I tried that the first night and nothing changed. Even with changes to the sequential mirrors. I didn’t think a restart was necessary for changes to sequential mirrors, but maybe it does need a restart, since my problems went away after I shut everything down and restarted the next day.

I’m glad you solved this. I had the same exact problem, but it was happening on the FC3 Mig29, the Hornet, and several other modules. I made some changes to the mirror settings with no effect. It was bothering me enough the first night of the release, that it actually gave me VR nausea. I decided to shut down my computer and VR headset completly, and when I fired everything up the next day, I no longer had slower frame rates for the mirrors. I’m glad for it, as that was truly horrible in VR lol. Hopefully it doesn’t return!

If I had to guess, they kept the same FM, but altered the stick limiter behavior, and behavior after critical AoA is reached. This is based on guessing that the new and improved flight dynamics of my FC3 Mig29 is the same as what the new FF Mig29 has.

I’ve been flying the FC3 version of the Mig29 as my primary plane for the last few months. It’s always been a fun plane for just messing about in aerobatic flight, and generally felt great to fly. It had its idiosyncrasies, that for the most part, simply made it feel unique and rewarding to master. For example, engines that can blast through the trimmed speed and send you off like a rocket before you can feed in more nose-down trim. Or the “AoA squat” and feeling how it digs, plows, and mush through the air during low speed turns. Love it!!! The only thing I didn’t like about the FC3 version was the dynamics at the edge of the envelope, specifically during stall break, where the wings sharply rolled hard left and right (also in a way that seemed unexpectedly violent given how much it generally likes to mush through the air), and unloading the wings wasn’t really able to make it recover. Sure the stick limiter is there to protect against stalls, but that’s no fun :). Also, because the stick limiter was annoying in how it cyclicly pulsed the stick forward at a set rate, making the nose bob up and down in an annoying manner. Imagine my surprise when I did not buy the FF Mig29A, but yet, my FC3 version has been cured of all its nasty habits!!!! The FC3 version feels absolutely fantastic now at edge of the envelope! It not longer has a hard stall break, but rather progressively mushes, adding power tends to increase AoA until you’re basically vertical at zero airspeed like a hornet! Also I noticed the stick pusher behavior is much more subtle, only kicking in when you’re it’s really high AoA, and it does not do so in a predetermined pulsing pattern! Honestly flies so nice now, that it almost feels like I stole it something from the guys that paid for the FF version I held off on buying the FF version out of fear that the graphical demands would be excessively increased (like the F-5 remaster). But it sounds like it’s comparable to the hornet base on comments here. So maybe I will buy it just so I don’t feel guilty flying around the new and improved FC3 version lol.

I held off on buying the full fidelity Mig29A since I just basically fly this one for fun and aerobatics. But I’m pleasantly surprised to see the FC Mig 29 version also got some handling updates with the release of the full fidelity version. There is no longer the janky stall break that rocks the wings back and forth sharply even after you unload the wings. Now the stall feels more natural, and recovery seems to happen in a more predictable manner. It’s also capable of much higher AOA, and the stick limiter does not intervene until much much later. The stick pusher behavior is also more specific when it pushes, instead of simply repeating a specific push-release cycle of pulses. I have no idea how accurate any of this is, but I will say it certainly feels like it acts more naturally at the edges of the envelope. And it’s much more fun! Now it can definitely give the hornet a run for its money!

Ah jeez, I really, really do agree with the sentiment of this post, so it pains me to even say this (I feel like an ass actually lol)… It’s probably more useful to a developer to describe the problem purely in terms of the observed behavior like you say near the end of your post. In this case: “inaccurate ground handling” or something similar, with a description of the various ways to reproduce the problem. By saying differential brakes are the topic of this discussion, it presumes the reason for the problem behavior. That can complicate troubleshooting when trying to diagnose complex problems. In fact, I should probably take my own medicine and not describe the problem as inaccurate tailwheel behavior, because it presumes the cause is the tailwheel. There’s been a lot of back and forth on this thread, which honestly was a bit surprising to me. But I think it’s just a result of how interested people are in this module. We’re all a bunch of high-octane plane nerds here, so I suppose I shouldn’t be that surprised at some level of passion. I can imagine developers getting frustrated during a debugging process, especially if they follow along with these threads too closely lol. For my part, my passion comes appreciating the work that’s been put into it already, and wanting to contribute towards the dev’s efforts to make it perfect. So I do apologize if I just look like a dweeb “nerd-splaining” my point or point of view.

What’s the problem with creating a bug report thread for that? Otherwise it will just get lost in this thread.

My first online game ever of any sort was Operation Flashpoint. Playing in a group with comms was such a great experience, and I also have longed for something similar. A little extra development of Combined Arms will go a long way to making DCS even better than it is. I don’t have CA because it’s not VR supported, but if and when it does, I’ll be back here begging for further CA development.

The problem (incorrect turning behavior) DOES exist without wind! And that’s what causes it to be unable to turn when there is wind. Remember, just because you can manage to turn it in zero wind by using tons of brake and horsepower, doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. If it were behaving correctly, you should be able to make the tail swing around all by itself at walking pace, with no power, with just a short jab of one of the brakes. I can’t make the tail swing around in zero without using tons of brake and power.

A little earlier in this thread, the developer (Rudel) acknowledged a problem and said it’s on their bug list. That’s an interesting observation that the problems between the modules seem similar. Earlier in this thread, Rudel mentioned that DCS models tailwheels, not as a rolling wheel, but as a stick touching the ground. In that case, it should have a fairly limited amount of variables that could be tweaked. That made me think the problem could be as simple as an incorrect “friction” value applied to the point of the stick that touches the ground. I would imagine there aren’t many more variables if the tailwheel is modeled as a stick. Maybe the angle of incidence of the stick, based on its length and where it attaches to the fuselage. Who knows though, I’m just taking guesses on limited understanding of coding. In any case, this makes me think the problem is simple, and that resolving it could be as simple as making the tail-stick contact point more “slippery” . When a castering tailwheel is unlocked, the friction forces that resist the tail from freely swinging all the way aroundis minimal. In the sim, the friction imparted by the stick’s contact point should be consistent with the rolling resistance of a small tail-wheel rolling on the ground.

I’ve read the thread title, the thread, and the OPs clarification of what was intended in original post. I believe I’m in total agreement with your understanding of the thread’s focus. As the thread progressed, it became clear that differential braking wasn’t the cause of the problem as some proposed. Differential braking just revealed how inaccurate the tailwheel was behaving. This is because in real life, a short jab on differential brakes would lead any taildragger to swing the tail around with it’s own momentum. So that said, it’s fair to say diff braking isn’t the cause, but a good way to *demonstrate* how badly the tailwheel steering is acting . Please understand I’m not claiming any policing authority when I say the following. Crosswinds cannot be a contributing factor to the problem when there are no crosswinds. However, it stands to reason that if the tailwheel doesn’t steer as expected in zero-wind, it will be even worse with crosswinds. That’s why I think we can conclude that crosswind behavior is a symptom, not a contributing factor to the cause. After the tailwheel behavior is fixed, then it becomes possible to assess if crosswinds are unduly affecting ground handling. And if that’s the case, then it would be clear the problem is related to aerodynamic modeling, (because the core physics modeling of tailwheel has been fixed) Edit to clarify: Maybe this disagreement is about how we are using terms. Do you mean to say that crosswinds can be a contributing causal factor for “loss of control” while taxiing? Because I agree with that. What I meant to communicate in my posts is that crosswinds aren’t one of the causes of the incorrect tailwheel behavior (which leads to loss of control in crosswinds). Sometimes I end up less understandable when I try to explain myself lol, so apologies if that’s the case

The focus of this thread is to discuss the inaccurate tailwheel steering behavior. This problem happens in zero-wind conditions. This means the problem exists completely independently from crosswinds. Logically, it also means that crosswinds aren't contributing to the cause of the problem. Some comments on this thread regarding crosswinds are confusing the issue by seeming to suggest that crosswinds are part of problem, which is an incorrect conclusion. Crosswind issues are a symptom of the poor tailwheel steering, not the cause. I think it's fine to report that ground handling in crosswinds is more difficult (or impossible) without proper tailwheel behavior. That makes sense. But if someone suspects that crosswinds inaccurately affect ground handling...that's a separate issue and seperate bug report. And you won't really be able to verify that problem exists until after the tailwheel steering is fixed and behaving normally.

Thanks for the info! Yes, I've noticed the bugs moving throughout the flight. Hopefully somebody can provide more info on what the number scale means. It's interesting that the manual indicates you can fly with full collective for 60 min. Does this apply to the real thing as well? I remember a few years ago reading about a brand new mi8 on it's delivery flight that ended up shearing the main rotor shaft. It seemed like the accident was due to flying with too much torque, for too long, at high gross weight. I never found much source information on that accident, and actually I'm not even sure it happened lol.

Hello, Sorry for the dumb question, but I haven't been able to find a clear answer to this in a while. Now that I'm playing more with the internal cargo feature, I've become more curious to learn what it measures. The EPR gauge on the bottom left area of the pilot instrument panel is named in the manual as the Engine Pressure Radio instrument (#2 in picture). Is "radio" a typo, or is it meant to be "ratio"? Also, am I correct in assuming the instrument is measuring the same thing as engine torque (expressed in percentage of total), with the red bugs indicating some sort of maximum for the current conditions? Also, why are there three separate red bugs? Any help understanding this instrument is greatly appreciated!

I usually fly on AO Aerobatics server, and they have a variety of cargos prespawned into the mission. I can confirm that the barrels do not load. The only ones that load are the small heavy ammo crates, the palletized bombs, and the UH-1 Cargo in a net. It would be nice if the Hind (edit: oops I meant the Mi8) could load up a bunch of the barrels. Maybe even one of the smaller oil tanks (if they dimensionally fit through the opening). It's been really fun to fly with a variety of cargos and feel how the Mi8 responds at different flying weights. With three ammo crates, it even becomes necessary to do a rolling take off, which is extra cool lol!

I'm not sure if this would make the developers better understand what the light orb/bloom problem is, but attached is a perfect example of how unrealistic it shows up in game. While this screenshot is of the VR mirror from my flat screen, the blooms actually looks a bit bigger in VR since the pixels are physically closer to your eye. But by showing what it shows up in flat screen, it should demonstrate that this is not a problem that only exists in VR (as some have mentioned in other threads on this topic). I included a zoomed in version that show these lights are coming from the island lighting on the carrier. I'm not sure how bright these are in real life, but even if they are extremely bright marker lights, luminosity should be rendered via brightness of the pixels. Right now I'm starting to wonder if maybe devs chose to express luminosity in clear atmosphere via the size of blooms. This isn't what happens in real life. Somebody perceiving a distant small bright light (in clear weather) would see a bright point source, not a huge bloom. The only way you would perceive a bloom is if you had certain eye conditions, like if you have cataracts or extreme amounts of astigmatism. Or if the light was so extremely bright that it lit up the inside of your eyeball and you start to see the light reflecting off of the inside walls of your eyes. That only happens looking at the sun or if somebody shines a flashlight directly into your eye at close range.

Maybe I updated my thoughts regarding the sounds on another thread, but obviously not this one. Current sounds seem to be much better on the whole, and more environmentally immersive given the addition of the blade slap sounds. It’s really hard to hear any differences between the current sounds and real Mi-8 videos during startup or flying operations. I’m not sure if the sounds remain WIP, but after getting used to the differences compared to the previous sounds (which I also liked a lot), I think the current sounds are excellent. Again, I was perfectly happy with the previous sounds, but the new sounds seem more accurate and broader. After listening to several vids, I think even the apu sounds are accurate (if a little quiet). Somebody had mentioned a while back that the blade slap frequency was slightly off. I’m not sure that was ever resolved.

Internal cargo finally works! Awesome addition to the Hip!!!