5ephir0th

I expect they deliver the possibility of mount GAU on pylons

Imagine you fly towards the target which on your -5 degree mark, you boresight your TGP, point it to the target and then you low your nose below the target, TGP will still roll and lose the target due to this and you will see "Gimball roll" momentary on the TGP.

Maybe TGP realigning after a gimball limit? If it this to avoid it dont low your nose below your target. If you are fliying to the target to launch a laser rocket or maverick if your velocity vector is above your target and you point it below the TGP rotates and realign to avoid achieve the gimbal limit, losing the target, if you, then, point you vector above the target it will rotate again

So the topic its not "We need more carrier based aircraft" but "I need this carrier based aircraft"

I don´t know how ED has the time to model four or five variations of SuperCarrier class but not to model a new S-3 or SH-60...

It´s already on the game. 1. Set default view (push num5) 2. Set view as you wish, zoom and position 3. Push RALT + Num0 to save it Now it will be your default view

I don’t have problems with low performance but ocasional stutter that broke my inmersión on VR. it doesn’t care if i have high end card (3080ti), fast NVME drive (3600mb/s write and read, more than enough RAM (32GB)… I set my graphics options to have some margin, i lock my fps to 40, without lock I get more than 60, and a flight even on Caucasus gets random GPU spike and stutter, in a free flight mission. I use custom shaders, follow all optimizations guides… Nothing, im exhausted…

We already have DLSS and FSR here and we know how it works. We still dont have here XeSS and we dont know how ti WILL work so i think is a bit early, neither the Intel GPUs have been released...

There was already a poll recently on main forum about this but i don’t know where it go… As i said on that poll my priority is performance, the first thing that takes me out of inmersión is the stutter caused by the bad performance of the engine. The more hardware resources used to enhance others areas like the IA the worst performance of the engine.

Dogfight override puts FCR on ACM mode, Missile override is like A/A button on ICP, puts FCR on RWS mode. I don´t use the A/A button on ICP for BVR, just select Missile override. The drifts on target lock must be a bug.

Theres a DLZ on your screen, it just looks different (completly double lined, not partially) because the calculated range (more than 5 miles and your target comes hot) of the missile surpass the current selected range of your radar (5 miles). I know is a dumb question but are you sure you have binded the correct key? I just tried the ofensive maneuvers on Caucasus map from instant missions and it works as we are telling you. The process you quoted is for a target not already radar locked, if you have your enemy already radar locked AND is on the gimbal limits of the missile, you only has to push uncage, you dont have to put the diamond over it before uncage

That comparison is about DX12, DCS is DX11. The first thing i expect for next is a substantial enhance in performance, due to Vulkan or Multithreading, i don´t mind

Right now JSOW & CBU-105 When HTS pod come out it will be the HARM

I think that what he is speaking is the lack of missile range indicator on DLZ. As said above, you have to push Uncage button to let the IR seeker look at your radar lock

First, on Warthog, after a rearm you have to reload the DSMS cartdrige again.

Hi guys. Some months ago i bough a Mongoost CM2 base with 75mm extension and i use my Warthog stick on it. It works nice but from time to time i must recalibrate the axis using Virpil software due to a misscalibration, the Y axis center, that, obviously, is 50%, change to 53-55% and i dont know what this happen. I use Avia soft center cams and default springs, is not the Warthog stick decentering due to his weight cause i calibrate it without stick and, when center is 53-55% and remove the stick, the center still is 53-55%. Any idea? Firmware is updated.

No, the DLL file that you must to overwrite is the same for OpenComposite and FSR, so our best bet is to someone take the OpenComposite DLL and mod it, adding the code needed for FSR

I think you misunderstood me. I don’t said you have no idea about DCS but DLSS, you can check how it works on any other games that includes it and you will understand why so many of us want it on DCS, results are impressive. And, again, you misunderstood me about VR, I’m not saying DLSS (and other technologies i mention) is the VR savior, but quality/performance race, any modern HMD can triple the pixels rendered on a 2k screen and they keep increasing so GPU can’t keep it, so we need technologies like this to help us if we want to see cristal clear that weapon selector that RIO has on the Tomcat. These technologies are the short way to achieve a decent performance with highest resolutions screens and if it works on any other games why not on DCS?

No offense but i think you are talking not having any idea of what DLSS, YouTube is full of videos explaining what is and some good comparisons you can check. DLSS (and FSR, even VRSS) can be the savior of the quality/performance race on VR.

Find if you have binded Recce Event Mark Switch, one of their functions is turning on and off the HMD when bright rotary is not at his minimum setting

You must be the only one who don´t see the performance problems that DCS has, the ones relative to graphics API (probably due to DX11 overhead problems, which Vulkan can fix it) and CPU related (using one core from 8/16 CPU cores). Game will be more demanding over time but the more efficient use of the hardware, the better, simply as that. I had enough of this.

Pixel count is just a way to compared it, of course a VR image isn’t just that. With better base performance the game can evolve and be more demanding, that’s the idea, DCS optimize the resources usage, we can get better performance, physics, AI, etc. On main forum pool people are asking for dynamic campaign or better AI before enhance the performance, yes, i want to, but make focus on that right now and game performance will get worse, it’s like shooting yourself on your foot

I think you misunderstood me, im not saying 3D must catch 2D performance, im saying just that it´s impossible cause on VR you are rendering double or triple the pixels. And about "15 years ago" you misunderstood me again, i am telling you that DCS engine use hardware technologies like the time stopped 15 years ago, for example, the first multi core CPU for mass market was release 15 years ago and DCS engine still relying on one single core, we need that the engine adapts to actual hardware, that way we can have a better performance, 2D and 3D

Have both. Ka-50 is a smooth tank killer, Mi-24 is a badass machine, love both but Ka-50 is way easier to fly, Mi-24 it´s much more critical on flying and, if you don´t have pedals stay away from it

You cant expect the same performance from 2D to 3D if you double or triple the pixels on screen going VR. DCS doesnt need separate sims, DCS needs to adapt to the current hardware and technologies (multicore/threading, DX12/Vulkan, DLSS/VRSS/FSR, etc), using the current hardware like it was from 15 years ago ballast the general performance