Whisper

There's just now way in MP unfortunately to modify the helicopter weight in the way it's feasible in SP, or in any way for that matter

Yo-Yo terms were not that specific, he wrote "same FM parameters", if I remember well.

ED stated how they made this : their AI is "perfect" in terms of aircraft management, they pilot their plane in such a way that they induce the minimal drag possible, they retain the maximum speed possible, etc, etc.... Imho this results in UFO behaviour since NO ONE ever did that, ever. They also have perfect knowledge of opponent energy state and slightly change their pattern accordingly to maximise energy difference gain. Imho this is kind of a lazy "solution" around "IA will never be good anyway" (a poor argument I've read, why bother making IA then if that is your starting principle? Not saying ED has that principle, but that shouldn't be used as an argument, tbh...). As well, I've yet to see team tactics from AI. That would be a good direction to look for improvement instead of making unrealistic perfect beings.

We all know his name :) I didn't do it personally when I wanted a seat long time ago, because of past trouble with dispatches from non EU eastern country, and added tax compared to Realteus, that looked reasonable by that time. History has shown that even potential dispatch issue would have been faster than Realteus :D I was in your case of waiting 1+ year, I dropped an email after reading there was deliveries for recent orders, with my order number, and it got dispatched pretty fast. From where I see it, for EU customers, things are going smoother now. People aiming at Realteus could be EU people with tighter budget. That said, Andre has top products, so, imho a matter of money

I confirm the HUGE impact of shadows flat shadow have a slight impact low and above tank FPS It's like there's myriads of calculations done for shadows on the islands, for each object (like people, racks, etc...) inside it, or smtg. I go from 45-40 on Stennis to 20-25 with big stutters and micro-freezes, the renderer has a very hard time keeping up with fast movements of my HMD.

Thank you, I'm going to check that as soon as I can

Which shadow settings? There are 2

OK, so quite a difficult task to achieve proper for ED (animations, deck handling, covering all cases of player slots spawning, etc...), could be done at later stage of SC lifecycle or never. Though something very simple just to cover players amongst AIs, which are handled in some way, would be good. Like inserting players inside the AI logic, assigning them a cat like it's done for AI, and relaying that info in simple manner, could do the trick? That way, if current logic for AI covers the group cat assignation properly (ie, AIs in group are bundled together in cat assignation and take off within reasonable timeframe), then players would also benefit from that logic and be taking off with their group

How is it done IRL? It's free for all, like we players are? I very much doubt it

Then ATC should be updated to also direct human players....

Same for me, 1070, 32G RAM, i7 6700k , VR with Rift S, FPS tank under 20 with a rather simple Carrier deck and especially with the island in view.... Headache inducing, which NEVER happens anywhere else in DCS before. This is not a "old hardware" issue.

That's not what is said. What is said is that with a new DM around the corner and maybe coming in the coming weeks, fixing the old DM would be utter nonsense and waste of manpower. If new DM is not planned before long, then yes, a rework of current one may be overdue. But from the looks of it, new DM is coming

Yes, it's also shown in the documentation, the replies show the different stack assignations. I assume it's normal there is no assignation in Case I?

Yes, and also (from https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269757) : which does not bode well in terms of date we'll see ATC improvements, if you ask me. I read it as "2+ years"

It's not a question of price. Like I wrote Not buying this product is to make a point, the only way I can make one. ATC in general is like absent from the engine, ED could build up on their SC ATC to enhance the engine, but they chose not to. This plus ... well, I'll not make an essay on other stuff that bother me and are OT. But their production history tells me that SC released in a week isn't going to be in a proper shape, and for a long time. I'm a Combined Arms owner, same kind of module (well, I hope not). Look at the time it takes to integrate things in CA, like WWII units, or VR ..... So add to this the ATC decision.... and it makes me trying to make a point, again, the only way I can do it. It's not a question of price EDIT : that said, I'm still really on the fence over SC, but this is itching me the wrong way so much! :)

This is the biggest let down of the module for me. This could enhance the core of the engine for all, it makes no sense to me to deprive non SC owners of a missing feature of the engine. Exactly the kind of decisions that pushes me to make a point and not buy the product.

I'm in no position to judge the accuracy. If you have a beef, I'd suggest listing them precisely in their specific forum part. This is a big statement you're making, there, and honestly lacking substance. I myself take them as more than acceptable enough

If your goal is to reach a state where "you beat the F5 every time in the Bis", that's certainly not the way to do it. You say it should because it has positive T/W ratio, in which case pulling the stick as hard as I want wouldn't be at all the way I would take advantage of this T/W ratio. Again, we can currently pull the stick as much as we want, the FM magically stops the Mig at the critical AoA and the plane never departs in any way. This ofc leads to completely unnatural behavior of the plane and the pilot. It's like the plane now has an onboard flight computer and is an actual modern aircraft. And no, this is not the correct direction to go. Maybe previous iteration was a bit too brutal when going out of AoA enveloppe, but at least this behavior was simulated. We now lost this.

little to no torque : I agree p-factor : I have a left yaw tendancy when AoA is raising. Strange thing is that the aircraft seems yaw trimmed for max AoA, low AoA result in actual right yawing without rudder input. I don't see the ball keep center EDIT : as for those saying the ED warbirds are the same, no, definitely no. Torque, P factor, slipstream, etc.... many effects are definitely there

If I may make a suggestion, even if not really inline with real, maybe some sound trick to try enhance the speed impression could help a lot with this lack of speed feedback? I agree it's very difficult in DCS to get a feel of the speed.

I just made a quick offline test, very simple, throttle to max, I then pull the stick to the max, I just make simple left and right motions of the stick to avoid going toward ground, I don't even use rudder at any point (my feet were off the rudder, I was actually on a phone call while doing this, you can hear me in the background, just to show you how easy it is :) ). Tacview result : Actual tacview attached. The AoA is almost permanently between 25 and 30, pulling the stick to the max doesn't cross that limit during the test, it's like a hard limit set by some autopilot, which AFAIK is not present in the actual Mig21 There is zero need for rudder to keep the aircraft stable. I go down to 70kph with the same behaviour, at which point is the only time I release the stick a bit to get out of this state and regain a bit of speed. Zero difficulty to keep the plane horizontal in this state and speed, with stick only, no rudder. Also another quick example on another test I made where you see AoA going up to 40°, same without losing stability or any sign of stall: Again, this is offline test. Imho, we lost a problematic behavior at take off I didn't even notice, and gained this. I don't think we actually gained a better FM Tacview-20200513-113534-DCS-testMig21AoA.zip.acmi.zip

800kph is the result of a dive, it's not a sustainable max speed. I don't know the exact situation, but that doesn't seem unrealistic at all that a P51 keeps up in these situtations, provided it didn't last from Ouistreham to Evreux :) AFAIK Mustang handles dives better, and trying to follow one in a high altitude dive is foolish. As well, a dive is not a byebye card against them. It works against Spits, not Mustangs.

Which still makes 615kph using the optimistic values, I'd say, the upper levels of results, only for P51. 15kph difference in DCS looks optimistic to me considering all the various test results and the resulting error margins.

A quick check (with fast sources available to us) tells us that this DCS D9 looks quite OK if not in the lower end of available IRL tests (tests show between 597 & 607 kph @ SL), while the DCS P51 at 615kph SL would be over the most optimistic test result, which show between 592 and 606kph @ SL. (Single source used : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org , see relevants reports for P51D (I found 2 of them) and D9 with MW50 (found 2 of them too). Of course, that's not enough, but that's a start). On my personal tiny experience, I distinctly remember 1+year ago being able to outpace any chasing opponent in D9 by simply pushing max throttle and MW50 in horizontal low alt, no one was able to keep up. Now, why was that happening, I've no clue (change in D9 or P51 I am certainly not able to say, or was the P51 requiring certain very specific settings to go faster than D9 that only a very selected few know about, or just the specific situations I was in explaining the result), but that's for my anecdotal experience :) Which is to be taken as such : anecdotal. In theorie from what I read in the reports, P51 & D9 should be rather equal match at sea level (I've not checked at different alts), if there's a slight edge, it looks like the D9 had it, but it falls within margin of error. If DCS follows this, that would match my tiny personal experience, since if I'm not mistaken a D9 can sustain WEP with MW50 longer than P51 can, which means that a pursuing P51 cannot keep up in the long run provided I was using a proper escape window, which I was ;) EDIT : Or I completely misread reports :) Feel free to correct me, I'm by no mean expert

Just a thought, but why fixating on past states? Why not just check that current state is conform enough to what we know was IRL status?