Pikey

As TonyG said. The ball is not supposed to be visible outside of parameters. It's called at 3/4 mile within the constraints of the Case1 pattern or the Case3 pattern, neither of which your screenshots are in. This is not a criticism of your flying, it's simply saying that the meatball has a specific design and you are not in the design parameters. This is because the lenses are shielded (like traffic lights) to be only visible in the correct angle. If you can get on glideslope and path at 3/4 of a mile TACAN and then take a reference picture it would be much easier to discuss, although saving your flight as a track would make this even more simple as we can tell you what we see on a different system.

+1 German AI target bombers please. The current Ju is great but its for torpedos.

Don't take the wish list personally. its the difference between bug and by design. It's not news that the sim can fall short of reality, so pointing out enhancements isn't something to get offended by.

I've had this since the begining of Channel map where I first noticed it. It was reported at the time, i caught it in a video whilst in VR and could do a full pan around. This was interesting because it was related to angled viewed from, move a little and it changes. It's so common on the Channel map I can't offer anything useful to rule out. The reason trk files are useful is because its not neccessarily what you are doing but the entire picture of what is going on. This is not an easy one apparently.

I've noticed there are some duplcates weapon release noises that dont feel right, we had a long discussion about sounds and I know its an ongoing process so I'm not overly worried its going to stay the same. But yes, worth pointing out the rockets tend to have a high pitched noise, int he videos I've seen it can sound like lasers going pew-pew

This is the same for anything that isn't specifically modelled. You can do a scenery removal and stick some of the uglier 3D models in there shuffle things around and hey presto its more than convincing. All the construction materials there for when they were building the LOX site.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-08-mn-937-story.html Im sure I saw an NTTR video of an A-10C doing a split S down into an F-16 too, but I cant find it.

Are you talking about the free Su-25? This is one of the "lighter" complexity planes. You can turn on all the assists to help you start, but it's important to focus on the difficulty being part of the game. The success you have in learning is your goal. Try a bit each day, it does come. And "pause" is your friend.

I just checked to find I've added 15 curve to pitch and roll and 19 to rudder and enforced a small 3 point deadzone which isnt my normal approach to other modules. I don't believe people have trouble flying it. Not with enough practice. I do believe people can say that its twitchy, that I can believe readily. And I can believe have various "funtimes" taxiing (who hasnt) and landing and taking off require a bit of ballet. And that we aren't all superhuman makign up for the lost sensations in simulators vs real machine. That's it, I think the rest is perception, wording, comparisons to "other games", expectation and hyperbole from a small number of people who ended up short on time and rolled it and take that personally and voice their feelings. Nothing wrong with that, but its not wrong or broken, is all I believe, fwiw.

Yes indeed, Yoyo is touching upon something that simmers and pilots both forget, to put this in other words: The torque is absolutely hitting that tail in the sim, but what we all forget is that the stick/rudder we hold, is sitting neutral. In a sim with a non force feedback stick or rudder, holding the stick/rudder centered, takes no effort, it is supposed to stay centered, we are commanding it to stay centered! But we don't realise that centered is the only command we make that requires no effort!! Without force feedback, holding them centered is actually a FORCE that we don't even realise we are exerting because we arent't touching the controls, its just staying centered because there is no force feedback. Watch the rudders move on the P-47 when you add power! And that is an entire force that you can't feel, dont often see and your controllers are counteracting without you ever knowing about it, just by virtue of the way a controller works without force feedback. It's so sad, all that effort to sim it and we dont get to feel it! You have to imagine the feeling of power that would come through the controls if they were a real plane, instead of this dull plastic crap we get We need decent FF hardware to get into simming, the sim works, its just it can't tell you whats going on properly.

One F-16 pilot told The War Zone “We actually fly DACT with A-10s quite a bit. We call it “Hog Popping” and it’s quite popular! They start their circle of Hogs to cover each others’ six o’clocks in a defensive posture. Then we poke our noses in and try to pick them off. The key is to come in with lots of speed, shoot, and climb back up where the “Hogs” don’t have the energy to point their nose up.” Yes, this reminds me of plenty of Blue Flag engagements, stay high, the A-10C you just annoyed will love you on his scoresheet. Public playing Warthog simmers tend to be quite good at claiming the odd fighter that was too nonchalant, because in the schoolyard, being picked on for being slow, you gotta find other ways to stay even. What you read in that article, is how it works out in the sim. All A-10C pilots need to keep fresh on their BFM.

It might help to know the backstory of the origins of WW2 were not as 'deliberate' as folks think. The whole story explains why it was not in scope of the original free core game design. It wasn't part of the financial model which is why it had a cost. P-51 originated as an experiment developed internally at the request of Nick Grey, it wasnt intended to have a world built around it, much like the BlackShark was a standalone game and so was even the A-10C until the A-10 and Blackshark made a baby and out came "DCS World". 3rd parties were invited to develop modules and one such was Luthier from the IL2 team with a kickstarter for DCS: WWII Europe. It got to a certain point and folded. The kickstarter wasnt fulfilled and many angry people shook their pitchforks but the only people left were ED out of this. Eagle relented and decided to continue the WW2 theme to pick up what was left, probably because it seemed a good idea as well as placating those that had nothing from the failed kickstarter. One aspect of the DCS WWII: Europe abandoned project that ED felt they could impact fairly quickly for some recovery was the Asset Pack, which they sold as a WIP and could give immediatley to some backers as added value whilst recouping some of the cost from assigning developers to the WW2-franchise-that-never-was. So it's special. The short answer is it costs lots of money to create those beautiful models and business aim to make money, not give it away or waste it. The long answer is above.

There is a lot here I can agree with but in completely different ways. For example, with all due respect fellow simmer, you cannot say that you expected the module to fly more like a Spitfire whilst not having a frame of reference on flying a Spitfire, and have the logic remain unchallenged! I'm sympathetic as far as flying the DCS sim doesnt feel like I imagined it to be either, considering every film you watch on it the Spit is extolled for its ability to charm pilots. But that's not going to wash because we are stuck with peripherals that dont give the forces back. There is no real stick simulation going on, Im using a super heavy Warthog stick, the stick doesn't create a feeling of "light handling" it creates a sensation of twitchy, just like you say. I humbly suggest that at step one of these observations, we are left with the unfortunate difference on simulation vs real world. Snap rolls. No problem getting 1 roll but recovering is an issue.here. Too dangerous for me, I keep getting into a spin when the plane requires the roll to stop. The nose is too high over the horizon on the recovery and opposite rudder seems to accelerate the spin. The yaw swing is horrific and takes a long time to settle down. Quite interesting though, It's harder than the Tomcat to recover, it's downright dangerous. Are there references for the behaviour by people that flew it? Buffet, It's very easy to see but its only a very small aoa you get it for in the sim. Easiest way to see it is in level flight. Any roll or yaw at the time will make this a wing stall and you dont see the buffet. Ease of landing. Not had an issue other than the landing rollout where I always get a yaw that ends up in a nice loop and scratched wing. But not sure this is really a problem as you said you didnt have problems, kind of mixed messages.

The B-25 is probably the best bet for the biggest ED could reasonably go. PIlotable by one person, the 4 other stations are not required to make it airborne or functional and the bombadier requirement can be AI assisted fairly convincingly as a step in for unavailable humans. "Meet Boris the Bombadier". It's still a massively complex project and would put Heatblur's F-14 into the shade in terms of size and effort, but, it could be done and still fit the game. I'd love to see one on the Axis side. As for current stuff, they already said no.

I'm debating nothing, I reported the answers. Have a good evening and try to relax more.

I'm sorry that you appear upset about this, I'm sure you could still do good work in helping others tune the textures in their offline installations to work better. It would be nice if we had a "lite" choice in DCS. There's not a rapid rate of change with Eagle Dynamics, they do need help from the community in knowing where to put their energies, but its an absolute shame that you aren't willing to help them understand what is for the best. At least you got some good results though!

Hey guys and @Taz1004, i spoke to a Texture artist about this, who spoke to someone at Heatblur who had spoken to one of the artists at ED. Since they didnt speak directly to me I will withold names and minor details. It turns out this is a deliberate decision and one made with findings that differ from the data asserted in this post. The reason given was compession artifacts and banding the lower the normal maps go, especially on clean and glossy or metallic surfaces. I have no idea if that is true or not, or why, I don't understand this enough to comment, but I can state that there are multiple points of view on this topic and at least as far as the layman is concerns, the very forceful assertaion that: "This is not something I have to convince someone. This is that obvious." is unfortunately not true in this case, apparently you do have to convince Eagle Dynamics. It's not for me to decide, I do have a personal point of view that prefers the lower bit textures and accepts artefacts, but im not the PM and I dont know if there is a reasonable solution. I don't know how so many textures could coexist in the installation, but for the cockpit textures, the choice of both would be fantastic as there is most likely a large performance benefit.

Hi @Taz1004 You will have to forgive me as I dont understand a lot of the background or technology about what you are saying. I'd like to take this up with ED. Whats the feature that we are losing? I'm not sure I understand still. Can you elaborate on not hearing of <someone> using 32bit normal maps? is this in all gaming or some other sector that uses textures? Any examples? I don't really study this type of thing so it's good to share your experience. What are the pros and cons of ED doing this? There must be a con, right? Is this for free? I heard you said something about adjusting these and costing 1hr. Is this the true cost? are we missing something? So if I said, it would cost a maximum of 3 (?) days to optimise all the games textures then this is something that could be true? You said you dont get stutter with your setup. But you didnt explicitly say with only your textures or what your baseline config is. Is that only Cockpit textures, can you be clear about what it takes you to be without stutter and what other changes do you make on your system? I assume its the same but im not confident making an assumption as you dont provide your baseline configurations. Releasing or loading textures is a definite thing, can we measure that process on graphics cards? Would I see a jump in texture memory use in MP if a Tomcat joined? And... what really happens when you run out of memory, texture load is one source of stutter, right? Disk>GPU. How does it unload? I have always lived in 100% full territory and I use Medium Cockpit and Low terrain texture. If the root cause of stutter is texture load/swap, then the hypothesis of High texture usage is good if it causes stutter, but I dont see it all well end to end.

Hi Taz! @Taz1004 I'd like to get behind getting this to the right people in Eagle Dynamics but there are some barriers! One of them is the technical part, once we go through google translate, technical detail tends to get messed up. What we need is to draw the link between: Lower bit textures == more DLC sales == reason to invest money to change something The link involves showing the direct link between good performance and textures being too large and consuming too much memory. There's a lot of folks that can happily jump on the bandwagon and point their fingers at ED, but I'll bet not many of them truly understand what this thread is about. My own understanding is super super low. Even if this is the cause of stutter in VR, how much? How do you tell texture artists that they must spend another 5 (number pulled out of arse) man days per year per person creating optimised textures, if we cannot articulate the benefits of these changes, we stand much less chance on the English language forum. What I am mostly afraid of is asking for this and having a texture artist answer back, "We provide Low quality cockpit textures already" and I dont know what to say because I dont understand how to talk this language. People love to leap to conclusions. I think there is a lot of interesting data here but I can't say quantitively myself, what performance anyone would expect to see. In 2D I get more FPS than I need. In VR is this more important? I think so but I couldnt explain it. How many people can explain it convincingly? None, apparently, that I've met I need help. Whats the bottom line? What data could we show ED? Why does the F-14 Tomcat seem to kill my VR? Quantitatively and empirically. This is a wishlist item because its not a defect, its an optimisation. A defect is the texture is missing, it's working fine, this is wishlist because its performance based. I can increase my VRAM in the mission by introducing new units, is that a bug too? It's not of course. I doubt the Russian texture artists pour over these forums, why does everyone seem to think they do? How many people read to the end of this post? Not many. It's easy to moan. It's hard to convey what is really needed and its even harder to persuade people to part with money for no apparent gain, so don't be too surprised if your hard work isn't put in shining lights Be reaslistic, lets take the good work, make a simple message to ED, provide the data for the conclusion and present it? I am up for that, but I'm screwed if I had a conversation on it because I do not understand the true value of what you suggest. What could we do?

trks are automatically created and saved, running them is possible for anyone. Wether it shows correctly what happens is a completely different question though, often not, but no reason to rule it out before you tried. Elsewise a list of 1,2,3 steps to reproduce would be helpful. Im not even what the steps are from the story in the OP. Any asymetry or weather?

There's bound to be a few ways like this, there are other options, maybe without collision models? I see that ED did the Super Carrier and there were a couple of ways they incentivised the purchase, I think the deck crew weren't visible - the static objects also weren't available to use, not sure how they managed the arrestor cables not working. You just have to have a guiding star that answers a few questions; Imagine you are new to DCS, you are clueless to how things work, you want to join a server and it tells you that you need XYZ DLC. It's the biggest passion killer I can imagine, the existing hurdles are large enough for players as technically the barriers are tough enough... 1) Can Joe Bloggs stumble on the server without having to jump through extra hoops? 2) Once on the server, does the absence of owning the DLC affect his ability to fly online, break his existing DLC? Does it break a mission functionally? 3) Is it confusing at all (for the most oblivious of customers) for example when looking at the same object with someone that owns the DLC and someone that does not. The rest is up to you guys and how you handle the security and the impact. Obviously protecting your IP has an impact on delivery, luckily I dont have to worry about that myself If you can overcome the hurdle so that people have nothing to moan about, then there's a lot of people who would buy DLC (and a lot that steadfastly wouldn't because <insert reason here>). We miss so many units that you could fill a lifetimes of model making. Entire flavours of decades. Its the one thing people moan about often that DCS had no real central theme that worked, everything is misplaced. This would so help out.

Well that is contrary to the F-16 IP's statement in this post, he specifically says its more effective than the brakes. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/255097-how-do-you-land-the-viper-without-running-out-of-runway/?do=findComment&comment=4530256

Nah didnt work for me. I can watch the track but if I want to take over another aircraft I have to request take control. When I tried to take control over the second and jump out of the first the first disappeared. I thought I was smart by editing the trk file and swapping "Player" and "Excellent" for AI to see if the trk file would swap my view point, but it didnt, it assumed control of the original controlled plane and made the second one disappear. When I looked into the trk data I found the instructions were binarised so there was no editing that. But fwiw I think even if you didnt mean it as such, its a good wishlist item as it would enable you to do a lot of interesting things.

This is interesting. So you need to watch your track, then switch to another aircraft that is controllable, take control and hope the original player aircraft doesnt despawn. I've got very low expectations, but just enough to run off and try it

Interestingly I was in the aerobrake camp until it was shown that what happens in the sim is that the sim prefers to get on three wheels as soon as possible to make the overall stopping distance as short as possible. I think the quoted distance all told was about .65 NM for 3 wheels and .75NM for aerobraking until nose down. The tests weren't amazingly detailed, but its still some data. Hearing that aerobraking is more effective in stopping distance IRL means that the sim has some work in this regard. I think the same is true of the Mirage 2000C module, this is probably an "edge of envelope" example where FM's tend to deviate from published data. The great thing is, you can know this and still (attempt to) do it the right way without any major logic flaws or feeling of shame, but be prepared to defend your choice of doing it the less effective way in the sim.