Eldur

I was just thinking of hacking the stores drag to massive negative values just to see if it comes off at M3+. If it does, I wouldn't be too satisfied with the duct tape being undermodelled however...

And then just a patch of duct tape on top of that, et voila!

I bet the discussions will stop immediately once they'd be added as an option in the ME... Probably the only thing that's being asked for more often on these forums is VR performance. Compared to getting that it would probably be piece of cake to do And as far as I can remember, someone from HB, probably was Cobra, said they could actually consider modeling them at least visually. Changing the FM accordingly would probably involve more work that it's worth it, but actually I can't tell. Adding it visually only should be rather easy though. And as long as we have other airplanes from the main devs whose FMs don't care if I take the racks off or not, this probably would be good enough™. Maybe not for the high standard setting Heatblur though

Heard it in a video now... but there might be an issue with the thing. I turned the bingo down to 2400. Maybe changing the value kills the callout.

IKR? I always do expect things to be worse when it says that - just to be positively surprised when it's gotten better and not to be disappointed when things get worse. At least our SME does have an idea already and it's probably going to be addressed soon™.

I wish it would be affected by gravity. Shouldn't point up straight to the canopy when the whole thing stands still on the ground with no wind. Also, wind should be able to blow it into any direction (like wind coming from the back making it point to the nose), but I haven't checked that yet. Apart from that, it's a great little addition that probably is lots for some people, especially those who fly gliders IRL.

You're not there, but I do think they keep working on it somehow, trying to Gordian knot. Well, for this particular update, I expected the stutter issues which arised 2 updates prior to that to be addressed finally, but they aren't yet. It always feels like a tightrope dance, balancing between overall higher framerate and visual quality on the one side and the stutters on the other. Or rather a triangle on a pole with the weights at its tips that don't stay constant, since it's three factors. Though I think the main workload goes into the new engine that's been mentioned multiple times already. As a side note, I did try options.graphics.stereo_mode_use_shared_parser = true in autoexec.cfg for the first time two updates ago, because I just was curious about the glitches and if there was a performance gain already since it's still WIP. Well, I've yet to see artifacts there, but I have the impression the frame rates top out higher, nevertheless when something makes them drop, like AI units, being on an MP server or just sitting alone at Senaki, it still drops exactly as much as without that thing on. So I still to take it as WIP until it's officially a done thing and will switch it off as soon as I get graphical glitches that might be caused by it. My 2¢ from that try though is: They are working on it. And they are rather hesitant to tell us "performance has been improved" as there's always quite a bunch of people that will get other results at the same time. As for the things actually on the notes, I'm quite pleased with the 14A so far. Just had to rename the folders in my Saved Games\DCS\Config\Input folder to have them without the B in them not to have to rebind everything. The sounds are a big step forward and I noticed how the engines struggled pushing the thing through transsonic, but as soon as that extra drag vanished, the thing went on getting faster. I didn't get the mentioned JOKER and BINGO callouts though. I was kinda relying on them, but a quick glance at the gauge (with virtual tapping ofc) revealed my fuel state was way below the bingo already. And that's always the most interesting thing about patch notes - discovering the things mentioned there actually not being in the thing. Haven't tried anything else yet.

Especially in regards of stutters, but the last three versions have been roughly the same for me in overall performance.

It should at least have a sound so we know it actually switched somehow...

Well mine just was struggling hard as well after dropping a bunch of 83s, otherwise clean airframe. And IIRC it's been reported before at least for the B to get a bit higher speeds after dropping 83s, like being able to go past M 1.0 without burners. First tried from around 28-30k on in a very slight climb, like 1°. Just couldn't push through there, then tried leveling which wasn't much better, followed by a shallow descent somewhere around 3°. That was enough to get her through the "barrier" and once passing around 1.2-1.3ish, the thing actually began to accelerate and kept doing so even in a 5° climb. Just almost ran out of fuel somewhere around 1.6 because I started the whole thing at just 7200 and burned most of that already with before going down to pick up speed. But well, that is the TF-30. Wasn't much different in another sim that has a partial GIUK map. Going into a shallow dive or trying to push past 1.2 at lower altitude already is the key. Overall I had the impression the A is more fuel efficient which already shows on the ground. It begins to taxi at noticably less FF than the B. As a side note, I did NOT get a bingo or even joker callout from Jester. Also liking the new sounds here BTW.

I just noticed the issue myself without then entering the mapping menu (so nothing was overwritten). Now I'll try to just rename those within the saved games folder. In the module folder, it's still with the B in the names though. Edit: That worked like a charm, all my keyboard bindings are back... guess it's the same for the other devices which I have yet to plug. So basically, just do this: Go to C:\Users\[Your user name]\Saved Games\DCS[.openbeta]\Config\Input And rename F-14B to F-14 and F-14B_RIO to F-14_RIO by just removing the B.

It's When'sday and we'll be mashing our MiG28 keys hard today

Well the way I see it is that ED might try getting that code, if it's been written already by a 3rd party and qualifies well enough, into their own codebase, of course with the permission of the 3rd party (you know, that licensing shenanigans, IPs - I mean, not the network addresses - and so on). That way they might probably be able to save up lots of their own resources that they'd need to develop the same thing on their own - from scratch. Kinda like using it as a framework.

I just don't like the "fact" that ED might develop their own implementation of something that's there already which things can be based on - Jester. Reinventing the wheel, literally.

Just funny how there's always the hint to disable HT, but yet people kept on buying CPUs with HT for gaming. When I bought mine, I did check the benchmarks. My 3570k was like 180€ and the 3770k which is identical except for it having HT and more cache (8MB instead of just 6) was like 350€, but had like 0.5% more fps in benchmarks. And I always kept recommending just getting the i5. Well, later on the i7 (now i9) came with higher clocks which then would be an actual reason to get those instead. But back in the day there literally was none, except for shelling out more cash that you could use other-wise-ly for a better graphics card or more mem.

First thought: OK, which of my words have been too OT now? Literally. I was just about to reset my router and get a new IP and see what happens then since I wasn't even able to read this board un-logged. Fun thing, IP bans are so 90s... at last, it was just the board software freakin' out. I mean, who'd have thunk it? Just a li'l late for Nightmare Night

Which is what I'd like to see as an option in the Jester menu. Because the full alignment without ASH certainly is more precise which is most noticable when dropping bombs in CCIP / Cpt/P. It's always a tad off with ASH. Why there is the difference, I don't know. But well, when I do a stored heading alignment in the Viper, it also just goes down to 10 instead of 6.

Wow, is this still an issue? Haven't been using the radar in a while...

I should try this... the AKAN have always been a miss or miss for me unless I just emptied them in a pass in spray'n'pray style for which they spread far too little actually. So I guess they are supposed to hit actually without handling them like watercans. One of my gripes there though is the fact that they do not converge. I do have the impression that they should, especially since you ought to shoot them at a certain range for the reticle to be accurate. But well, guns convergence and/or harmonization is a topic that's even heavily debated by ED as in the community kept asking for it and they keep telling no, so I guess it's simply not possible technically with DCS at the moment. I suspect he's heavily hacking the Tornado... or F-111F...

IIRC it was the other way round, you mustn't be in NAV all the way prior to takeoff. That's why I and others switch to it literally on entering the runway or when beginning the takeoff roll.

The difference seems to be the amount you can have left with the engines still dying because nothing is left actually. Comms should incorporate the indicated amount though and not the actually usable one, because nothing shows you that, but the DCS code simply knows and uses that instead.

Thought that was the one we have already...

While the work for getting the A out finally, I'll just throw in two things that I'd love to see for also the B, which are things that are coming to my mind ever so often as someone who actually does use the Cat for A/G quite often. First item would be pretty simple: When doing the startup, could we have an option in the Jester wheel to make him actually skip the ASH and do a full alignment instead? The INS precision with ASH is massively deteriorated compared to a full align and I always want to have the option to do a full one anyway. Again, an option. Would make CCIPing easier as the thing will be more precise, but it costs time. Second item has been requested already ages ago, but hasn't been done by HB, "because it wasn't used IRL". I want to be able to dump those massively over-draggy (which is ED's building site here, and that being the main reason for the wish) racks, especially those on the stub pylons and the ones used for Zunis or TALDs. As those can drag the thing down to A-10 level speeds, it would be absolutely reasonable if we could jettison them, especially since there's a switch for that in the back pit, that just hadn't been wired IRL since it was not used - as the loadouts haven't been used that it would be useful for, which we - though - do have in DCS as they have been tested and cleared, but just not being taken to service by the Navy. So basically, if we do have something that wasn't used IRL, but would have been possible, I do want all of it, including the wiring of the rack jettison switch, so we can actually use those loadouts and get rid of the massively overdone drag afterwards at least. Just hoping for to get this considered...

Wishful thinking. And where's the B with Sparrowhawk and without PTID, DFCS?

... in their phosphorous white brownout that can be seen from what feels like almost a hundred of miles away like a christmas tree? I mean, there's nothing, literally nothing in DCS that is more visible than a low flying or even just hovering helo...