Jump to content

Viper Flight Model Changes


Burt

Recommended Posts

Is it still overspeeding with stores?

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Versor said:

Very important thing in the f-18 is the ability to use the paddle at higher speeds. Thanks to this, the F-18 can achieve overloads much higher than the permissible ones. This makes F-18 an unbeatable dogfighter.

I don't know how it is in reality and what would happen if the pilot used a paddle and reached, say, 9 g in the F-18

 

He would most likely have to justify this usage as it wears out the jet quite a bit. Better than getting shot down and bringing no jet home though.

 

I guess in reality you would work more with your wingman to switch in dire situations to generate the best outcome at least wear to the machinery and pilot. 

7 hours ago, Spurts said:

you need to quantify that.  ~1.05 in Mil is possible with a clean F-16 blk 50

DCS doesn't model the transonic wall of draghell. Flying just above or below M1 isn't economic. 

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, deadpool said:

He would most likely have to justify this usage as it wears out the jet quite a bit. Better than getting shot down and bringing no jet home though.

 

I guess in reality you would work more with your wingman to switch in dire situations to generate the best outcome at least wear to the machinery and pilot. 

DCS doesn't model the transonic wall of draghell. Flying just above or below M1 isn't economic. 

 

The perennial problem in DCS is that whatever you do to the jet doesn't matter. No consequences. So stuff like that is abused. Most F14's doctrinally didn't pull more than 6-7G, In DCS they pull 10G+ all day long. Because... No one is gonna get their ass chewed for it, or end their career over doing stupid shit. So stupid, unrealistic shit is the bread and butter of DCS. Thats the sad truth of it. Unless DCS introduces some "Broken Jet stuff" when you do dumb things, but ED has -1000 incentive to do so.

 

  • Like 3

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, deadpool said:

DCS doesn't model the transonic wall of draghell. Flying just above or below M1 isn't economic. 

It's visible in the missile drag charts, I'm pretty sure it's there for planes as well. Remember it's the CD that peaks, not necessarily the total drag (which goes up with V^2).

  • Like 1

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

The perennial problem in DCS is that whatever you do to the jet doesn't matter. No consequences. So stuff like that is abused. Most F14's doctrinally didn't pull more than 6-7G, In DCS they pull 10G+ all day long. Because... No one is gonna get their ass chewed for it, or end their career over doing stupid shit. So stupid, unrealistic shit is the bread and butter of DCS. Thats the sad truth of it. Unless DCS introduces some "Broken Jet stuff" when you do dumb things, but ED has -1000 incentive to do so.

 

 

Well said.  Would be nice if they had more "over g" modeling in terms of things like pilot fatigue and maybe even flight envelope changes from the chassis strain, or control surface malfunctions.  I hear the F-14 can get damage to flaps when used in those situations to reduce turn radius, and more famously, the wings will just snap off if the over g is rapid enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Syndrome said:

 

Well said.  Would be nice if they had more "over g" modeling in terms of things like pilot fatigue and maybe even flight envelope changes from the chassis strain, or control surface malfunctions.  I hear the F-14 can get damage to flaps when used in those situations to reduce turn radius, and more famously, the wings will just snap off if the over g is rapid enough. 

 

Yeah, HB did some good work modeling some of that on the 14. The jeff has some of this as well, you can get hung stores if you do stupid stuff. But sadly not the viper at this point, I can happily pull 9G with 2 bags and 0 consequences. I can go supersonic with bags, no problem, I can go way faster than I should with a DI of 50 etc etc.

 

So half the problem with the viper is that it overperforms in some areas.

 

And then the other half of the problem is that it underperforms in other (G onset, rates, etc). 

 

From my experience ED seems to always be more willing fix the "underperformance"  rather than try to model any actual limits to systems. Be that FM's or Radars or whatnot. 

  • Like 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah, HB did some good work modeling some of that on the 14. The jeff has some of this as well, you can get hung stores if you do stupid stuff. But sadly not the viper at this point, I can happily pull 9G with 2 bags and 0 consequences. I can go supersonic with bags, no problem, I can go way faster than I should with a DI of 50 etc etc.

 

So half the problem with the viper is that it overperforms in some areas.

 

And then the other half of the problem is that it underperforms in other (G onset, rates, etc). 

 

From my experience ED seems to always be more willing fix the "underperformance"  rather than try to model any actual limits to systems. Be that FM's or Radars or whatnot. 

 

And from my experience you seem to be a very hard defender of the "nerf the viper" team, damn what is it that makes you so obsessed with it ? The viper is no where near its final stages, we get it that you absolutely want it nerfed as fast as possible, get over it, it's probably gonna happen when they actually wanna start dealing with such things, they probably have other things in mind to work on first.

When ever i see you talking about the viper, it's about how much it overperforms and should be nerfed, go and take a break from it and fly the 18, the great Hornet that for some reason you don't have the same will to bash in terms of overperformance, cos like people say, abusing the paddle on it and flying that thing all the way to 9G constantly regardless of what should happen in reality because well, this is DCS, who cares, strangely you don't seem so obsessed on that side of the problem... The 18 that also doesn't model overstress with stores or airframe, the 18 that's almost unbeatable as a dogfighter when it doesn't even hold that title IRL, the 18 that has reached its final stage of development but all those things get brushed under the carpet... Damn, if only you were so hard on that plane i could understand, as it's reached its final stage of dev and should have these issues sorted !

But no, here you are, repeating it day after day how much the viper who's still very hard in its dev process should not be allowed to overperform compared to others !


Edited by SparxOne
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SparxOne said:

 

And from my experience you seem to be a very hard defender of the "nerf the viper" team, damn what is it that makes you so obsessed with it ? The viper is no where near its final stages, we get it that you absolutely want it nerfed as fast as possible, get over it, it's probably gonna happen when they actually wanna start dealing with such things, they probably have other things in mind to work on first.

When ever i see you talking about the viper, it's about how much it overperforms and should be nerfed, go and take a break from it and fly the 18, the great Hornet that for some reason you don't have the same will to bash in terms of overperformance, cos like people say, abusing the paddle on it and flying that thing all the way to 9G constantly regardless of what should happen in reality because well, this is DCS, who cares, strangely you don't seem so obsessed on that side of the problem... The 18 that also doesn't model overstress with stores or airframe, the 18 that's almost unbeatable as a dogfighter when it doesn't even hold that title IRL, the 18 that has reached its final stage of development but all those things get brushed under the carpet... Damn, if only you were so hard on that plane i could understand, as it's reached its final stage of dev and should have these issues sorted !

But no, here you are, repeating it day after day how much the viper who's still very hard in its dev process should not be allowed to overperform compared to others !

 

 

I'm actually a hard defender of nerf everything in DCS that needs it. Mostly sensors and radar, at the same time I'm all for providing the actual assets and procedures that are used to make up for crappy sensors IRL.

 

With regard to the Viper, its largely because its the jet I know best and I want it to be done well, certainly better than the hornet currently is modeled. Its pretty cringe worthy to see F16's mostly flown like F15's in PVP environments because there are no consequences for overspeeding/over-Ging/wrong DI's and with a radar that currently outranges the DCS F15C... 

 

In fact I think ED needs to have some standard for things like Over-G stores etc at the start of modules. I mean I assume they will get to it at some point, but it tends to break MP when one plane is modeled well and others aren't. 

 

I mean for the 18, they need to redo the controls/interfaces from scratch there is a bunch of broken stuff there, they need to add MSI at a minimum, and fix various things about the radar, IIRC its still missing various radar modes. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, karasawa said:

It seems someone thinks the viper should self-destruct immediately once surpassing 800knots at sea level, right?

 

Not immediately. But eventually, and the faster you past that the faster bad things happen. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 7 Minuten schrieb karasawa:

It seems someone thinks the viper should self-destruct immediately once surpassing 800knots at sea level, right?

 

Hung stores if you pull 9G with bombs should be common. And there have been known cases of engine failures when exceeding Vne by a large amount.

Realistically, I would not even bother if they did it because I am used to it from "that other sim" and I'm flying fine without abusing the unrealistic things in DCS.

 

But yes, there are people saying that there should be the canopy blowing off when going Mach 1.3 on sea level.

 

However I mean who is doing that? You are out of fuel within 8 minutes or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

 

Hung stores if you pull 9G with bombs should be common. And there have been known cases of engine failures when exceeding Vne by a large amount.

Realistically, I would not even bother if they did it because I am used to it from "that other sim" and I'm flying fine without abusing the unrealistic things in DCS.

 

But yes, there are people saying that there should be the canopy blowing off when going Mach 1.3 on sea level.

 

However I mean who is doing that? You are out of fuel within 8 minutes or so.

 

I mean there are a bunch of issues where its overperforming and underperforming too.

 

The canopy thing is probably a point of failure at low alt due to major friction heating and then structural failure (there is a pilot that said the canopy is too hot to touch at 50k and 1.6, air is waaay denser down low=more heating/way more dynamic pressure), as is the engine, again, by decent margins. 

 

The use cases I'm thinking of in terms of overspeed, having done it many times is something like starting fast up high m1.4 or something and then diving to sea level in full AB and getting even faster with a DI50 load for example to catch a low flying viggen or something like that. I'm not spending 8 min in AB, but I'm really not sure how realistic that use case is, going m1.4-1.6 at sea level is probably gonna do bad things to the jet, and its not clear to me that with a DI50 load that I should be able to even get that fast down low. But its routinely done currently on PVP servers either to run people down or to evade them. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 1 Minute schrieb Harlikwin:

 

I mean there are a bunch of issues where its overperforming and underperforming too.

 

The canopy thing is probably a point of failure at low alt due to major friction heating and then structural failure (there is a pilot that said the canopy is too hot to touch at 50k and 1.6, air is waaay denser down low=more heating/way more dynamic pressure), as is the engine, again, by decent margins. 

 

The use cases I'm thinking of in terms of overspeed, having done it many times is something like starting fast up high m1.4 or something and then diving to sea level in full AB and getting even faster with a DI50 load for example to catch a low flying viggen or something like that. I'm not spending 8 min in AB, but I'm really not sure how realistic that use case is, going m1.4-1.6 at sea level is probably gonna do bad things to the jet, and its not clear to me that with a DI50 load that I should be able to even get that fast down low. But its routinely done currently on PVP servers either to run people down or to evade them. 

 

vor 1 Minute schrieb karasawa:

There are at least two sources showing the viper used to fly at 900 knots at sea level.

 

You can only do this in a dive.
Afaik the newer engines have an overpressure / overspeed limitation in the control so they should not die but simply stop generating thrust.
Things we should see:
- Wing flutter
- Hung stores due to over-G.

- Sudden flameouts once the reservoir starts to pull air at 800lbs fuel state and negative G or sharp rolls occur
But: Overspeeding in a dive doesn't really matter, because that guy will not come home. That "other sim" doesn't model that aspect fully, yet people don't do it there. Why? First because you might eventually damage the engine, but the main thing is: Because they want to get home, and getting home usually means a solid 100-150nm trip at least. With the only option to refuel being a tanker at least 50nm behind the FLOT since refueling from airfields is not allowed by server rules.
On Buddyspike persian gulf, the Vipers were placed in Bandar Abbas, and it was a nice airquake, nobody carried 2 tanks. Now they are placed in Jiroft, have a 100nm trip towards the action and everybody carries droptanks. The distance is still so short that I often pop the tanks when in need though, because it's only a 100nm trip and Joker is about 3.5 or so. You get plenty of playtime without. And until someone creates a penalty system for losing planes, you will see people going to the edge because who cares if you lose the plane due to a flameout? Right, nobody. You push "select role" and go for it. Even with the "three lives"- I can't spend these in an afternoon. However, that airquake feeling is gone, and I returned to the server once in a while because I actually feel like flying missions instead of being an AMRAAM truck.
Place the fast movers further out at the server. Do a realistic scenario.
And speaking of realistic scenarios: Wait until the F-16 gets the jammer. You will struggle to push through Mach 1.3 at altitude with two bags and a jammer, even with the current flight model.
However, you need to take into account that not everyone wants to fly in a realistic way, airquake is quite popular in DCS and we even have a big "guns only" community. A big part of it is not modelling the environment right, and the missing punishment of not bringing a jet home.
We don't have a reward for bringing a jet home, and a lot of public servers are fully around air-to-air since the ground combat in DCS would kill nowadays CPU's if you would integrate it on a full scale level. But: Why haven't I seen strategic assets like factories that if they get bombed, reduce the other sides supply of specific weapons? Or why aren't there more servers where sinking tankers actually gives benefits in terms of fuel supply? Why doesn't bombing a harbor reduce supply for a team? Aerial warfare is all about things on the ground. I have a Viggen, but about most of my sorties are anti-ship because it ain't great in CAS (me neither, lol) and there are no fixed targets to strike. I have the Mirage, same thing.
It is the whole thing as such, and I think that actually simulating a full scale war behind the scenes would lead to a much more realistic experience.
We need more assets on the ground, and people will start flying CAP's. As of now, the public servers I have found are mostly like "I takeoff, burn to the FLOT, pop my AMRAAMs into the masses and either die or land at the nearest airfield, refuel, rearm and start at step 1".
The 4YA training server lets me at least refine my skills for mud moving while having to defend myself against a bot from time to time. I basically learned the Viggen there, the Su-25T as well as the MiG-29 and I am now going strong with F-14 and Mirage. It is even great for helicopters. I love it because I got multiple roles instead of only air-to-air. Don't get me wrong, I love BVR, I love Tacturns and stuff but sometimes I want to drop LGB's and watch the big boom (most satisfying weapon ever), or want to blast over treetops and drop snakeeyes or hunt SAM's in the F-16.
People adopt to the scenarios they find, and if exploiting edge conditions gives a bonus, they will do, especially if dying later with a kill is better than not dying and returning without a kill.
That's why you see airquakes on most PVP servers instead of people grouping up for strike packages. The potential of DCS compared to other sims is the awesomeness of having joint packages of tons of different planes for example including CAS in A-10s, CAP's in F-18's, SEAD packages in the F-16 (soon) and strikers in Viggens with human players in every single seat and even multicrew and I can't believe this awesomness disappears in such a sad way and can only be accessed by joining a dedicated community.

It ain't as easy as blowing the canopy up at 830kts on sea level.
However, we have to see a fm fix for having realistic landing speeds yet- after that has happened, we can talk about finer details.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

And until someone creates a penalty system for losing planes, you will see people going to the edge because who cares if you lose the plane due to a flameout? Right, nobody. You push "select role" and go for it. Even with the "three lives"- I can't spend these in an afternoon. However, that airquake feeling is gone, and I returned to the server once in a while because I actually feel like flying missions instead of being an AMRAAM truck.

 

That is what I would like to see, it would change a lot about the multiplayer how people fly, but only on servers that would activate a such "Hard Core" system mode (so all those who want to lose a plane due flameout, can keep doing so on servers that doesn't have such mode enabled).

 

 

Of course many is always against the whole idea because their fun would be taken away, if they would need to fly to action from 200 M distance each time they die, they would just start to feel bad about the mission, and not because their habits to fly. 

 

The sad thing in "Air Quake" servers is that they are heavily DM oriented, instead at least TDM or more preferable CTF where teamwork matters far more than individual performance. 

 

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, karasawa said:

There are at least two sources showing the viper used to fly at 900 knots at sea level.

 

Sure, but for how long. The Limit is M1.2 under 30k for good reasons I imagine. Which is ~800 at sea level. I know CLEAN it can go faster, but with a DI50 it can't. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2021 at 3:30 PM, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah, HB did some good work modeling some of that on the 14. The jeff has some of this as well, you can get hung stores if you do stupid stuff. But sadly not the viper at this point, I can happily pull 9G with 2 bags and 0 consequences. I can go supersonic with bags, no problem, I can go way faster than I should with a DI of 50 etc etc.

 

So half the problem with the viper is that it overperforms in some areas.

 

And then the other half of the problem is that it underperforms in other (G onset, rates, etc). 

 

From my experience ED seems to always be more willing fix the "underperformance"  rather than try to model any actual limits to systems. Be that FM's or Radars or whatnot. 

 

The two big ED birds have none of that modelled.

Hornet, Viper, ... you can fly inverted for as long as you like .. push negative Gs until you can see your bloodtype as clear as day .. whatever .. 

 

I was really surprised when I flew the JF17 with a centerline tank in a dogfight (and it HAS a g limiter) and saw the centerline tank keep flying straight when I was pulling .. I was smiling 🙂

8 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

That is what I would like to see, it would change a lot about the multiplayer how people fly, but only on servers that would activate a such "Hard Core" system mode (so all those who want to lose a plane due flameout, can keep doing so on servers that doesn't have such mode enabled).

 

 

Of course many is always against the whole idea because their fun would be taken away, if they would need to fly to action from 200 M distance each time they die, they would just start to feel bad about the mission, and not because their habits to fly. 

 

The sad thing in "Air Quake" servers is that they are heavily DM oriented, instead at least TDM or more preferable CTF where teamwork matters far more than individual performance. 

 

 

This is the problem:

what's the target audience? WWII people? Airquakers? Realism-oriented folks?

 

When you advertise something with: "the most realistic ... yada yada" then it hints at the last group. And then you shouldn't need a Hardcore mode...

If you want to do Airquake, fly one of the other games that have that as target audience.

  • Like 1

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, deadpool said:

When you advertise something with: "the most realistic ... yada yada" then it hints at the last group. And then you shouldn't need a Hardcore mode...

If you want to do Airquake, fly one of the other games that have that as target audience.

 

Well, ED is as well targeting to average gamers. Now they just do MAC for them and still want to provide DCS for them.

 

It is good thing, but that should be opt-out and feature that those who want easier needs to enable those modes. So by default go for realism, hard, punishing mode. 

 

Did you crash and burn in any mission? Now your career pilot is dead!

Did you forget to tick "Training" mode on before dying? Bad luck that your time invested pilot died.

 

It is difficult to say what ED really wants, as in one hand they offer highest quality for accuracy in simulation, and then they allow some stupid simplified things for no reason!

 

Like a IFF system. Well known how it works, what is it purpose. Yet the multiplayer is full of scenarios where players don't IFF and those who do get magical real information.

 

Like how about implementing a proper IFF system that requires players to input proper codes to system and then simulate the IFF querying with proper accuracy and process. Just like M2000C seems to be now doing (or upcoming) where IFF is untrustworthy for resolution, but you do know that there is a friendly in the area, just don't know who or where exactly.

 

Or another, how about realistic G force effects? Now the hypoxia is modeled more accurately and nicer effects even, but G forces is just same old. But if ED would limit example TrackIR camera movement based G forces, people would cry kerosine from not being able swing head around freely while pulling 9 G and having a perfect vision to keep tracking that enemy around them.

 

The F-16 must be a challenge for the demand as it has such a dedicated user group. So you have so many claiming "it should be able do this and that!" and then need to explain why this specific model can't perform the X degree turn or carry Y weapon or fly at Z speed.

 

It is interesting what the gaming setup really does.

When I started with LOMAC it was desktop and TrackIR and all. Totally different mentality than today to fly with VR.

Back then the realistic part not same, as now it is more about praising real world limitations than capabilities. So if something is not technically possible, so be it. The square doesn't fit through a circle when same surface area.  

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Sure, but for how long. The Limit is M1.2 under 30k for good reasons I imagine. Which is ~800 at sea level. I know CLEAN it can go faster, but with a DI50 it can't. 

With DI=50 the viper is M1.9 capable at higher altitude. I don't think that shrinks to M1.2 under 30K. Refer to HAF charts please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, karasawa said:

With DI=50 the viper is M1.9 capable at higher altitude. I don't think that shrinks to M1.2 under 30K. Refer to HAF charts please.

 

There is an overall "paper" prohibition for flying faster than m1.2  under 30k, also somewhere in that manual IIRC, or maybe an AF reg, it can go faster per the charts, its just not advised. Again likely stuff having to do with "real world" problems, probably long term damage that no "fighter bro" in DCS cares about. 

 

On the deck at DI50 it can do like M1.1, it can barely do 1.9 with a DI50 at like 35k. I'm looking CJ charts. 

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...