maxTRX

Until v2.7 I used 2xMSAA with SteamVR res. at 100% on my Reverb G2 with barely acceptable (for SP) performance. After 2.7, for me at least the performance was just slightly lower but the MSAA at 100% masking in DCS setup, just doesn't look the same. It's blurry. Any other combination of AA, whether in Nvidia CP or otherwise produced shimmer. Well, I haven't tried Sparse grid SS but I doubt it would make a difference. So, I said the heck with them all and disabled them, then I doubled the res. multiplier in SteamVR to 4472 x 4364 per eye and it didn't turn out too bad. The performance is roughly the same: FPS between 60 and 18, but it's all quite smooth. (No reprojection). For SP, I can live with it. Yes, there's shimmer but it's only annoying when looking at rooftops when the sun hits them at certain angles and taxiing around the airfields. In my opinion, it's a good trade off for a very sharp contrast at any altitude or distance. Unfortunately, I'm still on RTX3070... waiting for the scalpers to go to hell Short clip recorded directly from VR:

Mine took few more, can't complain. At one point it was showing 108% of dl completed... not bad No extra goodies showing up yet :/

I tested GBU12s, lofting from low alt., against a moving target (around 40 miles/h). First release was at high speed - the bomb hit dead on. The second release at around 340kts - the bomb still hit causing major damage (target: MBT). So... I think there's some improvement there. GBU24's seem to be leading too much (at least visually) but they were 100% effective.

It's not just the light source directly but the lit up area completely jams the IR. Recorded in VR so occasionally my head shakes when I'm cussing

A cool vid by well known RIO 'Mooch' interviewing a Mudhen WSO. Just a few words on capabilities of GBU 24s:

Nah, single player launch cycle was boring. Chaotic but uneventful. I scheduled 16 bots + myself. 12 launched fine, followed by me. The last 4 Hornets popped up on deck but never launched. After launch, I came back around to se if the cats were still working. At least cat2 was. Anyways, your bug report vid was pretty cool. In MP nothing would really surprise me

Dang, it looked like a good start... I'm running to the 'roof' NOW and see what kind of circus I can come up with. I've never spotted more then 2 or 3 bots on the deck so I had no idea... Seems like plenty of entertainment coming up.

Speaking of pitching decks. I was just testing the limits of ACLS (well, I knew it wouldn't couple ) Ended up flying all manual approach with half flaps:

Agreed. I don't mind seeing AI fail or act like absolute rookies, varying levels of randomness, etc. as long as it doesn't look like glitches or 'unfinished' code. I'm not even getting into MP part. I would also get a kick out of 'programming' AI myself... if some day, the devs decided to expand the programmability of AI in some sort of mission editor (just for SP initially)... would be lots of fun... and coding for the devs, before something like this could happen. Well, this was just a thought since I fly SP only, for now. When I flew online in the past, long time ago, the AI was never included as part of our air assets, no matter how few people were online at a time. There were enough net glitches to deal with... OK, now I'm drifting off a bit

I'm not really sure if this was fixed in 2.8 or earlier. Currently, when 'Use DCS Sys Resolution' is checked on my rig, so is 'Crop to Rectangle' and "Mirror Eye Source' is set to 'Right', I get my full screen VR repeater and it works great! Previously, the screen was stretched with the same settings.

Absolutely. I just dumb it down a few notches around the center but... being a gunfighting nut, I dumb it down very little. Otherwise pulling the nose on a bandit gets very jumpy. ... and upside down . Well, that's above my 'paygrade'.

Yep, it does smell a bit. Seems like bots got vaxed with something...

You mean the fix for different scenarios described by other folks in this thread. In my vid it's all self-lasing. GBU10s were lased manually (TRIG) and GBU24s are all auto. There's a lot more to GBU24 'AUTO' then I initially thought )

I know, this would probably take another 5 years. Currently... we have this :

Of course, I had to check this for myself. GBU10/12 - even w/o lead, impacted just behind the MBT, close enough for a kill. GBU24 leads, albeit too much, hehe. Impacted in front of the MBT, killing it. Conditions for both cases: MBT's moving at 35 kts. heading south. The wind 20 kts, from the south. Both attacks directly from behind the vehicles (55 kts. combined against my bombs). Release altitude: between 3000 and 4000 AGL. Power at MRT. (around 600 kts) Using GBU24 from a bit higher altitude, both vehicles can be hit individually. Switching laser aim works fairly easy. Obviously, there are limits to everything...

There are enough threads about recent shadows and their effect on performance (especially in VR). What bugs me even more is the way the shadows appear on a/c as the distance from the observer changes. The 'main' shadow scheme pops in fairly close... oh, well, then the rest of the shadows creeps in at a very close distance :(. Either make them pop in at the same time the 'main' shadow shows up or just forget them. The process just looks weird. My shadow setting is HIGH: (as is everything else except 'heat blur' and clouds on MED.

Well, my scores declined, lol but... I still like this wake!!! https://youtu.be/ngHFTD_DBe0

Don't get too creative with ai Vipers. After initial turn, point your nose at him and build your a/s 30 ~ 50 kts above corner (in case you got your nose on him too quick, which in some situations might be a good idea). If the Viper is turning back toward you, try to turn inside of him, never loosing sight of him, then... snapshot!! Be careful not to pull ahead of him too much and if he reverses... go up and barrel roll into him. You can out-scissor him easy Well, that's just one little scenario that worked well for me with ai. They do some 'other' stuff occasionally so, you might have to be patient or even let him run of of gas if they play their energy card too much. That's ai... against live, experienced gunfighters, that might be a bit harder. There is another bag of tricks to use. Might work... takes a lot of practice.

It was time for testing 'ace' bots in a/a. Guns first, of course Yes, I see some changes for the better in 2.8 but I also see the usual trickery. For instance, whenever a bot finds himself in my gunsight, just exactly when I squeeze the trigger, the bot moves out of plane of motion... just by a degree or 2 enough to throw me off, unless they're out of steam. Then they try to make me CFT a lot. There was one fight with a Viper bot that gave me a workout. 3 min. on opposite sides of a circle at corner speed (at least I was) but then... the bot leveled off and turned pacifist. No mercy! lol. These 3 quick fights were typical. Snapshots won the game:

In my tests I was basically just trying to figure out why there was no issue dropping the bomb on targets at sea level, even at max range, from any altitude, but with the targets at higher elevations (8, 10k ft.), the LAR was not accurate, even in SL mode the bomb would run out of steam when dropped from 5k feet or less above target. Well, I think I need to go back to Hornet's bug forum. This issue has been reported already not that long ago, with tracks provided (not by me). It seems like the Viper's stew of problems reported in this thread by OP is a bit different.

Well, I did some follow up tests of the bomb's trajectory with laser out of the picture (in the Hornet). First, I tried to use manual lasing by boxing 'TRIG'. That didn't work. The laser works only on auto cycle as long as it's enabled. So, I disabled the laser. The same, altitude related issue can be observed. At sea level, the bomb flies a 'flat' trajectory, way past the target and impacts the ground nose down, at a moderate angle with sufficient energy. Cool! Tested both, MAN and SL release. With the target at 10k ft. elevation and release alt of 15k ft., the bomb flies an efficient trajectory, goes nose down, never stalls and impacts short (by a mile or so). Either the max range release cue or the bomb's ballistics is wrong... or both, hehe. Another question I would have for the SMEs is: What's up with the lasing timer? I know the the entire 'auto' cycle for GBU24 is long (2min?) but... is it just non-stop lasing throughout the whole cycle? In the Hornet we can see the LTD/R flashing long after the impact, sometimes for a minute or so. I usually shut the damn thing off manually. Why waste the laser and attract every sensor in the neighborhood. I know there is a lot more to GBU24 deployment then we currently have but at least the basics should be implemented correctly.

I'm not sure how this stuff works in real Hornets but if "I" was to make any improvements to this entire program/release logic, I would include QTY# in programming sequence so we could have options to send specific PP#'s on STA's for QTY release #1, then preset PP's on STA's for QTY release #2. I know... it doesn't sound like much of a difference but 10 or 15 seconds shaved off from the 'PP/STA match-up' before the second QTY release could make a big difference in combat area. Well, Boeing knows best :D

To me it looks like a kinematics issue. First, I noticed a different release profile that GBU24 flies when dropped from a Viper compared to a Hornet. I only fly Hornets but watched the first part of the vid posted above by Skip. When dropped from a Viper, the bomb seems to fly a 'normal' separation phase, without any pitch-ups that we see in the Hornet's case. Here's my test result for the Hornet: The first drop - target at 10k ft., the bomb released from 42k ft. The initial bomb's pitch-up was brief, followed by a nose down toward the laser spot. To be honest, I'm not sure whether the bomb's max range was calculated correctly or not, but from this altitude the bomb has a lot of energy to play with to reach the target. The bomb's nose was pointed downward all the way down. After covering 9nm (horizontal), it hit the target. The second drop - same tgt. at 10k, release from 15k. The pitch-up was horrendous and caused the a/s to drop a lot. The bomb had 7nm to cover and I could tell right away it wasn't going to make it. It fell short by a lot. It was doing 200kts just before impacting the ground. The third drop - target at sea level, release from 5k ft. The bomb pitched up but it only had 3.5nm to go, so the nose had to point down toward the laser spot quickly. The target was hit. So... it seems to me like some sort of miscalculation related to altitude... BTW, similar issue related to target elevation and gun accuracy (after using a GPS weapon) has just been fixed by ED. At the sea level there was no issue. At higher elevations, the gun was shooting 4,5 deg. high. Nice to see this fixed.

Yep, it never really changed. Here's what it looked like on my hop today (in shaky VR)