LoBiSoMeM

Well, I don't think DCS:BS is so great "simulator" in many aspects, like damage model of ground units, AI aircraft FM, some weapons effects, etc. I really like the Ka-50 FM, but we can cut the collective and make some "hard" maneuvers, exposing the "not so simulated" reality of the simulated reality. It's the life, we just can't sim all and have a decent performance. In a combat sim based in real hardware, it's cool to have some realistic behavior in combat, tactics, visuals... and IL2 still great in provide the WWII air warfare feeling. We can use real tactics, and the amout of simulation in FM is enought to provide the need to use a realistic aproach in combat. We can read a book about AA combat in WWII and use it all in IL2. The objective in IL2 is re-create the air combat dynamic of WWII, not re-create the perfect FM of one specific airplane of WWII. I never will call this "bordeline arcade". In full -real, with experienced human players, we need a lot of discipline, teamwork and real air combat tactics to just survive. In DCS, we only have one module, with one flyable. And this flyable have a beutifull FM, perfect cockpit, real instruments. But it's not a simple flight sim, its "Digital Combat Simulator". We don't need the perfect FM, we need the "perfect" combat simulator. And we just have a personal computer, not a mainframe... That's the real beauty of IL2: we can have the needed amout of realism to acomplish the immersive goal with an outstanding performance. But the discussion is about the performance in BS after the patch. I can understand the problem about the "sim factor" in CPU aspects, FM, etc, not in eye candy, displays, GPU and view distance. DCS:BS uses the LockOn graphics engine, and it can't handle very well the actual needs. Maybe in the next DCS modules we can have a newer and better graphic engine, DX10-11, etc.

Well, IL2 certainly aren't "bordeline arcade". The solutions used in IL2 for make one sim with tons of flyable aircraft, ground units, great graphics (even for today parameters) and massive MP capability are a trade between performance and realistic sim. It's unfair say that for a sim produced in 2001 and still great in 2009. "Basic stuff" can work in a sim for personal computers. Maybe is better have some "basic stuff" hidden than "complex stuff" hidden in gameplay, for performance issues. IL2 still a software masterpiece! And with volumetric clouds and great overcast solution...

Well, the collision meshes are computed whatever the view distance, or not? Maybe it can be "scenary compexity" dependent, but never "view distance dependent". I alway hear "DCS don't have processing bubbles"... So, all the units movement are processed on the fly in any view distance... With the collision meshes of the terrain and static objetcs. In this scenario, the view distance setting is mostly GPU dependent, not CPU. The graphic engine is outdated. One exaple is the lousy performance in simple overcast conditions. And this drop in performance just for draw simple boxes and simple terrain mesh, I can't understand in 2009, with a 4xxx card with 512+ memory... Maybe some LOD work? I don't know, I can undestand losing performance with Shkval and ABRIS, but with some distant boxes rendered? Sounds illogic to me. DCS:BS uses or not "bubbles"?

I like to fly the Ka-50 just for the amazing FM, for my lonely fun! Don't care so much with large AI groups, view distance, etc... And fly IL2 for hours online, with great graphics and a lot of action... and with huge FPS! In 2015, I will fly DCS:BS 1.0 with 200 FPS too! It's the sad life we nerds have: wait some years to have the hardware to run the software in all glory! And in 2020, SoW: Battle Of Britain... :) By the way, my GPU can handle much larger view distances. But the LockOn graphic engine maybe isn't so optimized, I don't know... And when I set far view distance, the FPS have a huge drop... And isn't a lot of CPU processing, the graphics ins DCS:BS are really simple, etc... Need some work in this area for the next modules releases...

I think this option will be perfect, for all modes.

+1 I use a head tracking device too, and it's anoying have to click twice...

Just for Prophet: http://www.cfar.umd.edu/~daniel/Site_2/Code.html "All Code is Free for Download, Reuse, and Modification" When you have pride of your "hard work", maybe you like to spread it with others, not use anti-competitive behavior and illegal commercial practices... Please, don't post this kind of niilistic "reverse engineering" crap again... 6DOF HT is an available and free technology... it's 2009... the only thing really blocking the use of free and unified API for 6DOF HT in major sim games is the DESIRE to use it. But in capitalism, money talks...

Again this crap? People really don't know the meaning of "reverse engineering"... Let's begin a technical discussion about HT technology, please? Will be really fun... http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/5521/http:zSzzSzwww.cfar.umd.eduzSz~danielzSzdaniel_papersfordownloadzSzPose25Lines.pdf/dementhon95modelbased.pdf http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/26154/ftp:zSzzSzpublications.ai.mit.eduzSzai-publicationszSzpdfzSzAIM-1378.pdf/alter92pose.pdf Please, read all, study, and come back to talk about "reverse engineering"... :thumbup: Really... FreeTrack devs needed to "reverse engineering" all available free math in the world... Thanks God Descartes, Euler, etc didn't bother if someone used your "hard work" to make the life better...

I never undestand the "paradigm" of need to center the joystick after trimming to set the new trim or regain control of the shark. We don't need to put bigger deadzones or fight against less precise input devices. Just press the trim button when in the desired stable new trimmed position, and center the joystick with the trim button pressed. It's the best solution for joysticks without FFB: when you release the trim button, regain control and the trimmed position is the FIRST state when you pressed the trim button, not the last. If you are careless, you will have some "jumps" if release trim button far of center controls, but is better than explode on ground... Ok, the "real Ka-50" meybe uses a logic more similar to the actual trim system, the actual trim system in ideal environment are very precise... But real Ka-50 pilots don't fly with simple joysticks with imprecise deadzones, old pots, loose springs... This trim logic maybe work better for a lot of people. Deserves a try in my opinion.

Sugestion for a trim logic option: - First position when press and hold trim button: set the new trimmed position for center stick+rudder. - When release the trim button: regain control, without need to center the stick. Simple.

DCS:BS case: Infantry = cannon. All other things = ATGM, rockets and cannon. The russian and american rockets proved in all major modern conflicts to be weak against spread infantry. Maybe the damage model isn't realistic or precise, but the outcome of rockets attacks against infantry are.

Never said full-range 6DOF HT APIs support is a "requirement". But the reasons why this subject cannot be clearly discussed are a little bit obscure to me. Why can't ED even talk about the POSSIBLE implement in DCS:BS of multiple 6DOF HT APIs? What is the technical problem? I am one and know a lot of ED customers who will like this kind of support. We don't "require" nothing. We don't even need a flight simulator to live. We like it, we buy it. ED needs to sell, but we don't need to buy. I think will be a great marketing policy maximize the support for 6DOF HT solutions. I know a lot of simmers with money to buy ED software but not so much to acquire expensive 6DOF solutions. They don't need more respect and support? What really bothers in these freetrack discussions is the lack of information by the software companies. But I'm tired to discuss this. Just will post a link to some people know about the life beyond TrackIR, a little bit "home-made": http://code.google.com/p/ehci/ If you like commercial aplications, try FaceAPI... Quad-cores, we can do that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P7I7DOJJB0 Implement the "requirements" ED pretends to be necessary, not the customers requests... It's sooooooo dificult to put FreeTrack open-source API support in DCS:BS...

To the same utopic and fair place they are going: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/ :music_whistling: Direct, pertinent and clear questions aren't answered by ED about why DCS:BS don't have support for other free-API options for 6DOF HT. It's all a little bit sarcastic to me...

Great job, ED. Thanks for the suport! :thumbup:

Someone using FreeTrack installed 1.01 patch and can do a report?