Bog9y
-
Posts
571 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bog9y
-
-
Hi guys,
I would like to start this thread to find out what people find are the optimal settings in the Nvidia control panel and why?
I think we all have:
LOW LATENCY MODE set to ULTRA.
PWR Management - Prefer MAX performance
V SYNC - OFF
FRAME RATE MAX - OFF
What about the other settings though?
Do the following settings make a big difference in image quality vs performance?
IMAGE SHARPENING - On or off?
Negative LOD BIAS - I read that it's best to have this set to ALLOW
SHADER CACHE - On or off?
Pre-Rendered frames - I noticed that 4 seems better than 1, less ghosting.
I use a Reverb G1 at 90 Hz with reprojection forced/2080SUPER/Ryzen 5900X/32gb Ram
-
2
-
-
I have been wondering what the most accurate IPD scale value is for the Harrier. I was using 59 before but have now reduced it to 56 and it just feels right. I have no reference other than trying to estimate the width of the UFC in DCS. In real life it's 132 mm wide (not including the master caution/warning light rows), so I try to estimate what that would look like in DCS -VR.
-
Is there anything new with this trick and the 2.7 open beta version? Has ED implemented it with 2.7? I see the Big Newy mentioned that they were working on something but it's not for public use yet.
-
25 minutes ago, Fri13 said:
I disagree with that.
SL to 10,000 ft = 0:48 mins / 0:25 / 0:35
A 48 seconds vs 35 seconds is a 34% difference.
3.5 nm / 2.5 / 3.8
That is only 9% difference.
SL to 25,000 ft = 2:30 mins / 1:13 / 2:04
A 2:30 vs 2:04 is a 25% difference.
16 nm / 7.1 / 13.2
A 13.2 vs 16 nmi is 17% in difference.
That is not a marginal ones IMHO.
I think that 5% would be more acceptable than almost 1/5-1/4th of the documented.
They went leaps better one, to more toward accurate one. But I still think that they could tweak the values more to get it closer of that interpolated data.
What comes to fuel consumption, that looks very good. But I am more looking the distance and the time that are still off.
I don't know dude, I personally think they did a great job changing the flight model and the numbers are close enough for me. The -400 charts are not super easy to read accurately so the time/distance/fuel figures are all just approximations. I am not claiming that the numbers I posted are gospel, they are mere tests and interpolations of the graphs.
The SL to 10K is out by 34% which seems like a lot but it's only 13 seconds. And if I misread the time chart and over-read the graph the result would be much closer than that.
-
2
-
-
Ah ok. Ehm, I haven't really paid attention to that during my take offs.
-
What he talks about at 43:00 is the 2 or 5 finger checks , carried out just before take off. I do it all the time. The Razbam module replicates the systems really nicely and gives the indications you would expect as far as I can tell.
39 minutes ago, Fri13 said:IMHO what the couple pilots has said about the deceleration capability doesn't (talking before May update) feel to be right. As even pulling nozzles back and you still have difficulty's to slow to join another aircraft.
I don't know now. There is something about that maybe, as at higher altitude and higher speed you need to use low RPM to avoid overspending the engine or something. You don't get maximum speed or something with maximum RPM but need to bring it lower like 70% or something as it is after all a airbreathing engine.
Has anyone tried the performance maneuvers as mentioned here
Like the 43:00 position about short takeoff etc?
-
10 hours ago, Fri13 said:
Did the 5th May patch bring that change? I didn't notice it to be in patch notes....
Yes
9 hours ago, Fri13 said:Excellent testing. I think whole community should thank you for it.
Reading the values I think little more tweaking for the power reduction is required to get those low altitude climb times little longer.
They are already close ones, but I think there is enough speculation room to lower the thrust to get it more accurate.
Does these tests include the high altitude lower engine RPM requirement to have higher airflow? Someone who knows better might understand what I try to ask....
The pegasus engine should be powerful at low altitude (time-to-altitude records), but be slow to accelerate for higher speed.
Now it has been so easy to pull nose up and just climb to 20-30k ft in matter of seconds and same time just gain speed at low altitude without even noticing how quickly it does so.
You're welcome. Not sure if the changes are appreciated by all though....think some are getting the pitchforks and lynches ready!
I think the performance factors are close enough now for a commercial sim, reducing it further is unnecessary in my opinion. One tweak that would be good is to somehow have the plane decelerate a bit quicker when going to hover stop because for RVLs and VLs the decel rate is too slow and you end up needing the braking stop to not overshoot or be too fast on an RVL. I am not talking about the decel rate for an overhead break, that is much better now than it was before.
Are you talking about the RPM creep that happens at higher alts? I noticed it creeps up from 109% RPM at full power to something like 112-ish, and yes I did reduce the throttle to 109 when that happened.
-
1
-
-
So far I have heard several people say they fixed it by one of the following methods, none of them worked for me though:
1) Change the cloud setting to LOW....then back to ULTRA
2) Change viewing distance to extreme
3) change PD in DCS to 1.2 or above
4) one guy said the jitters went away after 4 days, without doing anything at all.
Again...none of this made a difference to me. I did a full reinstall of windows (due to a BSOD followed by a failure to boot into WIN), and clean install of DCS with no mods. The clouds are exactly the same as when i had a bunch of mods installed, still jittering, still bland puffs of white fluff with no definition. This is with a Reverb G1.
-
Ehm, the OFF command is already in the list, right above the commands that you posted a screenshot of.
-
Hi guys, I have just done another climb test with the latest flight model update. The results are very interesting!
The original test was this and I have added the latest figures in BLUE:
Reading in the NFM-400 performance manual you get the following data for a climb with these conditions:
Engine = 408
Drag Index : 17.7
GW at start of climb : 22,000 lbs (7200 lbs of fuel)
CLB Speed : 300 KCAS / .75 M
Max thrust climb, this is 109% / 710 degrees C JPT for the -408 engine
Test carried out in ISA conditions, winds calm
EXTRAPOLATED DATA FROM THE CLIMB CHARTS VS DCS :
TIME TO CLIMB - DCS - NEW FM / FUEL REMAINING - DCS - NEW FM / DISTANCE - DCS - NEW FM
SL to 10,000 ft = 0:48 mins / 0:25 / 0:35 / 7040 lbs / 7094 / 7016 / 3.5 nm / 2.5 / 3.8
SL to 20,000 ft = 1:42 mins / 0:54 /1:27 / 6850 lbs / 7010 / 6855 / 10.5 nm / 5.1 / 9.1
SL to 25,000 ft = 2:30 mins / 1:13 / 2:04 / 6770 lbs / 6967 / 6771 / 16 nm / 7.1 / 13.2
SL to 30,000 ft = 3:24 mins / 1:35 /2:57 / 6660 lbs / 6922 / 6671 / 24 nm / 9.6 / 19.8
SL to 35,000 ft = 5:00 mins / 1:56 / 4:25 / 6580 lbs / 6881 / 6545 / 32.5 nm / 12.0 / 30.1
SL to 40,000 ft = 7:34 / 2:24 / 7:46 / 6430 lbs / 6836 / 6363 / 53 nm / 15.3 / 54.4
Comparing the BLACK figures to the BLUE figures Razbam have done a really good job at making the flight model more in line with what NFM-400 says is possible. The fuel burn in particular is very accurate as is the distance.
Unfortunately I know the FM change may annoy some people out there that were enjoying the really powerful engine/low drag FM. On the positive side, the overhead break has become more realistic and doing a VNSL is also much better now.
-
4
-
9
-
-
The fix to get the lights to work was to put the lights in as a GROUND UNIT - FORTIFICATION, not as a static object. I read that fix on your other thread. Many thanks!
-
1
-
-
That looks pretty good! Also the water isn't ridiculously dark like in DCS now.
-
3
-
-
Plus the initial release was 2 weeks later than planned....
-
2
-
-
Hi guys,
I updated my Nvidia drivers on saturday and played DCS. Shut the pc down and then yesterday tried to start the pc up but windows will not boot. The error code is a SrtTrail.txt BSOD error. Automatic repair does not work and it keeps trying to reboot without success. I feel like a fresh reinstall of windows may be the only option.
1) has anybody had this error before? If so , how did you fix it?
2) through command prompt I can get access to my files and copy them onto a usb pen. I'm planning on copying:
- DCS saved games folder
- rs mapper for my home cockpit switch and button settings
Is there anything else I should copy before I reinstall windows and lose all my stuff?
-
I used to get this crash on loading a 2 and mission, every single time since I updated to 2.7 .
Today I updated my Nvidia driver (to the one that came out yesterday) and have had not a single crash in 1 hour continuous mission loading. On top of that it seems that the super carrier mission CQ (instant mission , caucasus f14) seems to work smoother.
Got a Reverb G1, 2080Super, 5900X CPU, 32 gb ram.
-
Chocks still in place?
-
Oh man, that sucks. I guess it's too late to return the card? You could probably sell it and not lose too much money at the moment, the 2nd and GPU market is crazy right now. I was hoping to maybe buy a 6900XT but after reading numerous people's complaints I'm having 2nd thoughts.
-
Any news on the issues you guys had? Are they solved now with the new drivers?
-
35 minutes ago, Marklar said:
This sounds like a side effect of reprojection. Turn it off and ghosting should disappear.
if I set my Reverb to 60 hz it goes away and the gameplay is smooth but 60 hz gives me headaches (caused the screen flickering). 90 Hz I get that ghosting effect but it gets better when I switch reprojection to "forced always on". I have tried everything to improve my frametime but not making any progress.
-
Hi guys, thinking of upgrading my 2080 super. Can't make up my mind whether to try and grab a 3080ti when (if?) they come out or try and get a 6900XT. I have AMD 5900X cpu so SAM should work with a 6900XT. Just wondering whether anybody here knows if SAM actually makes any difference for VR performance in DCS? I have a Reverb G1.
Thanks!
-
1 minute ago, Lurker said:
Was just about to post this. Though that is related to performance and not quality. I think that's not the only update that's broken either, basically you should remove any cumulative "forced" update that you received in that week (they differ in name depending on the Windows version)
I will try this and report back later today.
As for the image quality in VR, I've noticed that it feels slightly blurry when looking at distant objects (not just the jumping clouds) the "dithering" seems especially bad on very thin constructions such as electrical power towers, lines, or basically any object with long thin lines. Much more pronounced than it used to be in 2.5, I wonder if it is related to the "jumping" clouds and have a feeling it might be.
This! I have the exact same problem, it's like a "ghosting" effect on objects. It happens when I look sideways. I'm sure I didn't have this prior to 2.7. Also, the new clouds are a hog on my system. If I use the preset clouds of the top row I'm fine, any of the other ones and I notice significant stutters.
-
On 3/5/2021 at 6:50 PM, redcoat22 said:
Reverb G2, I9-9900KS, 3090.
I spawn sitting on the deck of the carrier and the deck crew are ghosting around the deck as if the FPS is low. The cockpit looks fine but glancing outside their movement is really jittery.
I looked at a few threads (some a little dated) but wondered if anyone had any thoughts on why this might be?
Did you figure out what the problem was?
-
Is anybody else having more crashes since installing the mod? DCS crashes whenever I try load a 2nd mission in mission editor(first mission loads and plays fine). Trying to figure out if it's the mod or something else?
-
On 4/16/2021 at 10:53 AM, Marklar said:
Water is not flat, I don't understand what you are talking about. Clouds are not as good as on 2D monitor but still miles better than in 2.5.6.
Yeh,close up the water looks good. But when you fly above it , even as low as 500 ft, it is too dark and featureless. Especially if it's in the shade of a cloud.
-
2
-
Pegasus a little bit too powerful / Drag miscalculated?
in AV-8B N/A
Posted
I have played around with VTOs because I've seen several people complain about hover capability etc.
So far, my findings have been pretty much exactly what the performance charts say to expect. DRY 19,400 lbs at sea level at 15 degr is no problem (you can probably squeeze it to 19800) and WET 20,400 lbs.
Your FARPS are at 3000 & 6000 ft. For those elevations the graphs say your WET max weight should be:
+/- 18,400 Lbs for the 3,000 ft FARP
+/- 16,400 Lbs for the 6,000 ft FARP
At 50 degr , sealevel your max VTO weight should be +/- 17,500 Lbs.