DCS A-10C QUESTIONS

[JayPee]

Maybe I didn't express myself properly due to using the wrong words. Let the images do the talking instead.

 

Notice for instance how the entire canopy frame, stick, panels, everything is completely distorted and how the distortion changes when tilting the virtual head up and down.. It somehow looks like it's stretched and the amount of stretching looks to me like a function of the zoom level, the more I zoom in OR out, the more this stretching occurs.

Edited August 3, 2014 by JayPee

[Flagrum]

Maybe I didn't express myself properly due to using the wrong words. Let the images do the talking instead.

 

Notice for instance how the entire canopy frame, stick, panels, everything is completely distorted and how the distortion changes when tilting the virtual head up and down.. It somehow looks like it's stretched and the amount of stretching looks to me like a function of the zoom level, the more I zoom in OR out, the more this stretching occurs.

It is zoom - with negative sign. Ever tried looking through binoculars from the wrong end ...? :o)

[JayPee]

No, why would I? :P

[PFunk1606688187]

In order to see more without getting that FOV distortion you'd need an eye position thats quite a bit higher.

 

The problem with the zoom in DCS isn't that its depicting things incorrectly with respect to FOV, just that what is depicted is of a significantly lower resolution to what your eye would see at an identical FOV and eye position. There are issues with peripheral vision as well but so much happens in our brains to make those messed up images our eyes see turn into what our minds see that what we get in computer games is pretty good if limited.

 

In order to get human level acuity of the interior of the cockpit without altering FOV you'd need a screen resolution well above what we have in game. When you narrow FOV to get a clear view of things in your cockpit you're seeing a narrower space than a human eye would but at a closer approximation to visual resolution. The same goes with using a TrackIR head motion to put your face near say an MFCD. If you could see a real pilot make the same movement you'd see some crazy idiot putting his nose right up against the MFCD and you'd wonder whats wrong with his eyes. The answer would be "I have the eyes of a DCS pilot".

 

This is all my uneducated assumptions of how things work. People who actually understand this might rightly contradict me.

[shagrat]

Actually the problem is that maximum FOV angle is limited by your screen size and resolution. Put your head near to your screen until with looking at the screen center you barely see the edges in your peripheral vision. Now you have a FOV as IRL just the resolution sucks... the more you move away the narrower your FOV angle gets. When it is "normal" to sit in front of the screen it should be around 60-70 degrees with a normal FullHD 24"... if you compress 110 degrees or more onto the screen it looks like in your screenshots.

That is the reason for multi-display/triple head stuff! A larger FOV on screen without distortion.

Most realistic are spherical projection domes, like they use in IMAX cinemas...

Bottomline: it's a natural limitation of the hardware/monitors we use and how our eyes work. Not a problem that can be fixed in the game.

Oculus Rift maybe or similar Virtual Reality devices.

[Luzifer]

Maybe I didn't express myself properly due to using the wrong words. Let the images do the talking instead.

 

Notice for instance how the entire canopy frame, stick, panels, everything is completely distorted and how the distortion changes when tilting the virtual head up and down.. It somehow looks like it's stretched and the amount of stretching looks to me like a function of the zoom level, the more I zoom in OR out, the more this stretching occurs.

 

DCS, like pretty much all games, uses a rectilinear projection since any other would require heavy processing. The distortion you see is the same you would get if you snapped a photo with a real camera from the same position with a rectilinear (i.e. not fish eye) ultra wide angle lens.

[amalahama]

Quick question, does anybody know if improvements in TAD (basically the posibility to introduce killboxes, exclusion zones, FLOT lines etc) can be expected in the future? It seems A-10C has received little love in the last bunch of patches, and some features are still incomplete.

 

Regards!

[Snoopy]

Quick question, does anybody know if improvements in TAD (basically the posibility to introduce killboxes, exclusion zones, FLOT lines etc) can be expected in the future? It seems A-10C has received little love in the last bunch of patches, and some features are still incomplete.

 

Regards!

 

I wouldn't expect it, the A-10C is considered "feature complete." So unless it's a bug it won't be added/fixed.

[JayPee]

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS

 

Your only hope is a modding group like BMS but even then you'll have to start cracking things open which ED probably does not want you to touch because of their agreements to model certain aspects of older suites and/or to a more simplified extent, so it's unlikely that organising such projects is done on ED.com.

Edited August 6, 2014 by JayPee

[amalahama]

I wouldn't expect it, the A-10C is considered "feature complete." So unless it's a bug it won't be added/fixed.

 

Bad news :( I would definitively pay for an "A-10C v2.0" with some features now missing in the current version, including proper JDAMs mechanization and better CBUs damage model.

 

Your only hope is a modding group like BMS but even then you'll have to start cracking things open which ED probably does not want you to touch because of their agreements to model certain aspects of older suites and/or to a more simplified extent, so it's unlikely that organising such projects is done on ED.com.

 

The point is, yesterday I was fiddling around with the A-10C folder and there are lots of lua files depicting avionics items, I'm sure not all functionality is there, but maybe it's possible to "inyect" external code into the aircraft with them, to add new features. For example, in the CDU luas, all the pages, with the labels, position, etc, were defined, maybe to add a new page and link it with new code from a different dll is not that hard after all...

 

Regards!

[JayPee]

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS

 

I agree with you, TAD, radio/comms, countermeasures, JDAMS, and JHMCS could sure use (improved) implementation and would make for a nice Warthog 2 sim. However, firstly it's not as easy as you'd hope it to be and secondly you'll have to take into account what I wrote in my previous post.

Edited August 6, 2014 by JayPee

[Snoopy]

I would gladly pay for a suite 5 or higher A-10C but I don't see it happening anytime soon or at all. A lot of the TAD functionality was removed per USAF direction IIRC and I don't see that changing.

 

If ED simply put HMCS in the current suite 3 modeled in DCS I wouldn't purchase it simply because HMCS is suite 7 and higher and I'm an A-10C "purest/realism snob." ;) :D

[JayPee]

Amalahama, I just noticed you being a 3rd party developer so I'd say: gogogo start developing a "systems expansion pack" for the Hog. ;)

[JayPee]

What is the theoretical difference between a HARB and a HADB delivery? Both are initiated from a medium to high altitude it seems and both can vary from 30 to 60 degrees dive if I recall correctly, so where do they differ?

[MacEwan]

Amalahama, I just noticed you being a 3rd party developer so I'd say: gogogo start developing a "systems expansion pack" for the Hog. ;)

 

+1 !!!

[Eddie]

What is the theoretical difference between a HARB and a HADB delivery? Both are initiated from a medium to high altitude it seems and both can vary from 30 to 60 degrees dive if I recall correctly, so where do they differ?

 

HADB has a minimum recovery altitude of 4500 feet and HARB a minimum of 10000. So put simply, a HARB will have you releasing weapons and recovering much higher up, at the expense of accuracy.

[JayPee]

Crystal clear. So, on what is the decision between either one based, a trade off between accuracy and safe escape altitude (based on ground threats)? Or is there more to it?

[Eddie]

Pretty much just threat environment considerations. You'd only use HARB in the A-10C if there was a reason not to use DB or HADB, and also couldn't go in low with terrain masking using an LAHD.

[JayPee]

DCS A-10C QUESTIONS

 

Pretty much just threat environment considerations. You'd only use HARB in the A-10C if there was a reason not to use DB or HADB, and also couldn't go in low with terrain masking using an LAHD.

 

 

That's exactly the kind of answer I thought I was going to get. I had a gut feeling one was a last alternative compared to the other I just couldn't base that on anything.

Edited August 8, 2014 by JayPee

[Phacochoerus]

Hi all!

Did the sound of the A10-C's engines change with the latest patch or am I going crazy? Anyway, since I like the previous version better, does anyone know how to port the previous sound into the latest 1.2.10.30996 version?

Thanks for your help.

[Olgerd]

Hi all!

Did the sound of the A10-C's engines change with the latest patch or am I going crazy? Anyway, since I like the previous version better, does anyone know how to port the previous sound into the latest 1.2.10.30996 version?

Thanks for your help.

 

What exactly have changed?

[Phacochoerus]

1) The high pitched noise of the turbines and 2) The low frequency harmonics of the engines. It feels more difficult now to guess engine thrust by the noise they make.

 

I may also be going crazy and hear voices though..

Edited August 9, 2014 by Phacochoerus

[drack]

What are the voices saying to you?

 

Is it anything about when the Mig21 is going to be released?

[Snoopy]

What exactly have changed?

 

Olgerd...people think the engines are to quite now, I think it's more realistic.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=128177

[Phacochoerus]

Olgerd...people think the engines are to quite now, I think it's more realistic.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=128177

 

I haven't had the luck to fly an A10-C, so I am not able to say if this sound modification is more or less realistic than before.

On the other hand, just knowing that there has been a change will do wonders for my sanity! Thanks for linking the other thread.

It is true though, that in the absence of actual feelings of acceleration and thrust, that sound was extremely useful. And I just loved it, i mean musically.

 

I guess it all boils down to a matter of taste, since we're in a simulator.

 

Thanks a lot for all these good answers! Godspeed