DCS (Digital Combat Simulator) Catch-All

Moggy wrote:

- thinking of Flaming Cliffs 3 for some modern jet love, though the AV-8B is looking nice.
- Maybe also the Spitfire for WWII action
- tempted by one of the copters, but can't decide which one looks most fun

If you do get Flaming Cliffs, please let me know how it works out. I've been assuming that non-clicky cockpits would be hard to manage in VR, since I rely on clicking and avoid the keyboard. Then again, the FC3 planes are simplified, so maybe it balances out?

I have all the warbirds except the FW-190 and they're all great. Can't go wrong there I think. Fair warning, though, the Spitfire is really hard to land.

When it comes to choppers, the Gazelle is not as highly regarded as the others. The flight model is not quite up to the standard set by the rest of the whirlybirds. I haven't tried it though, so this is hearsay. I can personally recommend the Mi-8. It's a big, beautiful/ugly monster that flies wonderfully and can carry a huge payload of ground-pounding goodness. It should also be good training for the upcoming Mi-24.

Moggy wrote:

The problem is, each craft is going to take stick time to learn and like Perderick, time is less available and the sims have become more complicated. I watched the "how to start the F-18" video and holy sh*t!

Faith and courage, Moggy! When "Wags" makes those videos, he's doing everything completely by-the-book because his goal is to demonstrate the depth and accuracy of the simulation. There's always an abbreviated startup sequence that most people end up using in DCS, especially if they are in multiplayer and dying a lot! A lot of the full procedure is safety checks and confirmations that don't really need to be done in the simulator, but can be done if you want to go full roleplay. Even if you're a freak, like me, who reads the real manuals for the aircraft (where available), abbreviated startups make sense a lot of the time. Heck, sometimes I just press "ALT+Home", which will completely start up any aircraft in the game and have it ready for taxi in no time.

The other side to this is, for me, kinda philosophical. Learning the procedures and details of the aircraft is engaging with the game as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes I read a flight manual in bed while my wife watches TV and that's straight up fun for me. It's just as much a part of my gaming experience as pressing the bomb-release button on the HOTAS.

Moggy wrote:

Is 2.0 worth upgrading to now? I'm not sure about the absence of scenery.

Quite possibly not, unless you really want to fly over Normandy or Nevada. The 2.x engine is much prettier, but for now, you have to buy one of those maps to see it. In a few weeks, Eagle Dynamics will release version 2.5, which will bring a much improved Caucasus map into the new engine, for free. 1.x will be officially dead at that point, and folks like me and El-Producto will get a whole bunch of SSD space back!

Moggy wrote:

Anyhoo - thanks for the rabbit hole, you bastards!

You are so welcome. My not-so-secret plan is to get some of y'all into multiplayer someday, so we can have "Stanley Flight" on Through the Inferno or some other server.

Boudreaux wrote:

I need to figure out a better way to control things using the clickable cockpit, I can't devote throttle buttons to things like landing gear and flaps.

Have you tried the setting that allows the mouse pointer to move within your field of view? I found that to be heaps easier to use than the "head-aiming" mode.

Jarpy wrote:
Boudreaux wrote:

I need to figure out a better way to control things using the clickable cockpit, I can't devote throttle buttons to things like landing gear and flaps.

Have you tried the setting that allows the mouse pointer to move within your field of view? I found that to be heaps easier to use than the "head-aiming" mode.

I settled on a combination of this and Active Pause, which I have mapped to an out-of-the-way but reachable button on my throttle. If I need to do anything in the cockpit, I just hit pause and use the mouse to click whatever I need. It's not realistic, but neither is blindly groping for a mouse or keyboard button.

I spent the week going over the F-86 training missions, and then started up the Museum Relic campaign which I've heard is pretty good. The first mission is just a quick flight from one airbase to another. It requires cold starting up the engine, taxiing and taking off, navigating to a different airbase about 100nm away, and landing. Here's a brief synopsis of my first attempt:

"Let's see, ground power..check. Engine master switch..check. Starter engaged, throttle up...good RPM. Remember to disconnect ground power! Hey, we're rolling. Alright, onto the taxiway. Pretty cool radio chatter, although I'm not sure why they're excited about me joining the war effort. Look at all these F-15s and F-16s sitting around. Ok...cleared onto runway. Brakes on...power up...good RPM...here we go! Wheels up...flaps up...and we're off! Wait, what was that noise?"

(Look around, realize my canopy is missing.)

"Whoops."

Woohoo, DCS F/A-18C is available for pre-purchase $20 off!

I'm so in.

El-Producto wrote:

Woohoo, DCS F/A-18C is available for pre-purchase $20 off!

I'm so in.

I'm definitely going to get this. I don't know how many thousands of hours I spent in the Jane's sims and Falcon 4 but it's time to get back into the cockpit.

I'm very inclined for this, too.

I'm not usually a pre-purchaser of things, but this is different. I fully accept that I will need to have the Hornet as soon as possible, so the pre-purchase is just saving me $USD20.

Here's the U.S. Navy flight manual if anyone wants to get a head start on their familiarisation.
https://info.publicintelligence.net/...

Jarpy wrote:

I'm not usually a pre-purchaser of things, but this is different. I fully accept that I will need to have the Hornet as soon as possible, so the pre-purchase is just saving me $USD20.

Here's the U.S. Navy flight manual if anyone wants to get a head start on their familiarisation.
https://info.publicintelligence.net/...

It kind of blows my mind that this documentation is just hanging out online, with limitations and flight envelopes available for public consumption. Granted, it's for an older bird, but the Marines are still flying these things. It also blows my mind that people read the NATOPS manual for fun, since it's a source of angst for the real-world flight-suits who have to deep dive this info for evals and the like.

I never flew in a C/D bird, but have a reasonable amount of time in the F/A-18F and the EA-18G. I hereby declare that the simulation will not be complete unless you have to call a plane handler for an issue, at least one sub-system needs to be rebooted while burning small sacrifices to the aviation gods, and a helicopter has a technical issue that causes it to block Cat 3 and Cat 4 while Air Boss explodes up in the tower.

But gentlemen, let me tell you there is no experience on earth like a full military-power combat shot off the front of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. If I had to quit the Navy tomorrow, I would do so as a man well-satisfied that I got those shots.

Now trapping back aboard, on the other hand...

and I thought that the manual to my suv was dry

Coldstream wrote:

It kind of blows my mind that this documentation is just hanging out online, with limitations and flight envelopes available for public consumption. Granted, it's for an older bird, but the Marines are still flying these things. It also blows my mind that people read the NATOPS manual for fun, since it's a source of angst for the real-world flight-suits who have to deep dive this info for evals and the like.

I never flew in a C/D bird, but have a reasonable amount of time in the F/A-18F and the EA-18G. I hereby declare that the simulation will not be complete unless you have to call a plane handler for an issue, at least one sub-system needs to be rebooted while burning small sacrifices to the aviation gods, and a helicopter has a technical issue that causes it to block Cat 3 and Cat 4 while Air Boss explodes up in the tower.

Pilot, or WSO/EWO?

The operating limits in the NATOPS manual are aero-performance limits, and those are rarely classified or controlled. The stuff you won't find in there that we don't want anyone to know about are things like radar cross-section, radar performance, EW, etc.

Thanks for sharing, Coldstream!

Between you and Boudreaux we have some serious real-world Hornet knowledge in here. I look forward to bugging (haha) y'all with annoying questions when the module comes out.

Coldstream wrote:
Jarpy wrote:

I'm not usually a pre-purchaser of things, but this is different. I fully accept that I will need to have the Hornet as soon as possible, so the pre-purchase is just saving me $USD20.

Here's the U.S. Navy flight manual if anyone wants to get a head start on their familiarisation.
https://info.publicintelligence.net/...

It kind of blows my mind that this documentation is just hanging out online, with limitations and flight envelopes available for public consumption. Granted, it's for an older bird, but the Marines are still flying these things. It also blows my mind that people read the NATOPS manual for fun, since it's a source of angst for the real-world flight-suits who have to deep dive this info for evals and the like.

I never flew in a C/D bird, but have a reasonable amount of time in the F/A-18F and the EA-18G. I hereby declare that the simulation will not be complete unless you have to call a plane handler for an issue, at least one sub-system needs to be rebooted while burning small sacrifices to the aviation gods, and a helicopter has a technical issue that causes it to block Cat 3 and Cat 4 while Air Boss explodes up in the tower.

But gentlemen, let me tell you there is no experience on earth like a full military-power combat shot off the front of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. If I had to quit the Navy tomorrow, I would do so as a man well-satisfied that I got those shots.

Now trapping back aboard, on the other hand...

Pretty amazing how much of the Air Defense technology specs are hanging around, too. Considering that in-depth knowledge aids an enemy in jamming and spoofing... Sometimes I think our enemies are truly idiots, or they would have killed us all long ago.

El-Producto wrote:

Heads up - 2.5 is out!

Not sure how their versioning system works, but mine updated to 2.6.something. Weird. Maybe there's another branch.

edit: NM, that's the updater itself. My bad.

FWIW, I followed these directions. Don't think there is a standalone install yet.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comm...

El-Producto wrote:

FWIW, I followed these directions. Don't think there is a standalone install yet.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comm...

That does seem to be working. My thanks.

I have tomorrow off work...

What a time to be alive!

If I updated to the openbeta Tuesday night, I wonder if I need to update again to the "official" release version? Their install process for these is pretty obtuse.

I've played a couple hours of the 2.5 openbeta, and so far my impressions are mixed. It definitely looks better, I like the new textures and the scenery from up high looks a lot more realistic. I need to play around with some of the graphics settings though, I'm getting trees drawn in all around me as I fly which looks weird. When I first started, the gamma was turned up way too high. Everything was washed out, and I haven't quite dialed that in yet.

My biggest problem is the performance in VR seems to be a lot worse. I was getting a pretty consistent 45 fps in 1.5.8, but now it regularly drops down into the 30s. What's worse is that sometimes it will get yanked down around 22fps and get stuck there. It's basically unplayable at that point. During a flight yesterday it was doing great, then I happened to pull up the map (F10) and performance just tanked. Even going back to the cockpit view didn't fix it, I had to just quit and restart.

This is on my list of games to purchase. I loved the F-18 when I was a kid but I knew I would never make it as a fighter pilot. One of my buddies growing up knew in like middle school he was going to be a fighter pilot.

He’s like a major or light colonel down at Eglin now and flies F-16s.

I settled for tanks.

Ok, looks like you really need 16gb of ram. I'm trying to limp along with my current i5/480x system and can't find another 8gb of my current ram.

Stupid bitminers.

I'm getting pretty good performance with 12GB of RAM. i5 and GTX1060. I've spent a LOT of time with 2.5 playing with the various graphics settings. I'm flying exclusively in VR, and I had been using a pixel density of 1.5. Decided to take that back down to 1.0, and since I honestly can't tell if there's a difference I'm using the extra leeway to increase other aspects. Maxing out the tree density and view distance seems to help with the weird growing popup trees. Otherwise, I'm back and forth on deferred shading. I definitely get better performance with it off, and I like the sun details. Everything else is kind of washed out though. With it on everything is much more vibrant and the landscape looks a lot better, so I'm leaving it on for now.

Mostly I'm wishing that DCS had a "rewind" function like Forza uses. I'm in the middle of the F-86 "Museum Relic" campaign, and there's a mission that involves a good 20 minutes of flying to get to the area of operations, and I keep getting shot down almost immediately. Nothing like 20 minutes of boring followed by 15 seconds of action. Then get to start over. It wouldn't be realistic to rewind time 30 seconds and try again, but technically neither is replaying the mission. It would just be nice to skip the boring parts if I wish. I miss the days of skipping ahead in missions to the good parts.

Yeah, it's running pretty well on my i5, with a Rx480x 8gb, and 8gb of ram. Getting between 50 and 60fps at 1080p.

I just realized I didn't have it installed on my ssd, so I'm moving it now to see if it helps.

Huh. Went to advance to the next mission of my F-86 campaign, and suddenly I got an error message:

"Need modules for load mission: F-4E by Belsimtek"

As far as I know, there is no F-4E module by Belsimtek. I appear to be stuck.

Figured out how to get unstuck, by manually editing my logbook file.

This Museum Relic DLC campaign is really well done, I'm impressed. What does not impress me is the damage output of the F-86's .50 caliber guns. I'm on a mission now that requires shooting down A-10s, which are literally flying tanks. I almost feel like I need to get above them and drop bombs on them, because the .50 cals are worthless.

Sweet, it's finally here!

Not sure when I'll have time to sink my teeth in but I can't wait.

IMAGE(https://i.gyazo.com/5f3d82725cb5de81cbd33fe759d0b814.jpg)

Looks really nice! I pre-ordered this ages ago. I really should start digging in (and convert my A-10 and P-51D keys from Steam).

Just not enough time...

Being an army guy and not knowing much about the navy or aviation, the bad-weather night landings in PBS's Carrier are probably the most stressed out I've ever been watching a documentary:

Episode 7: "Rites of Passage"
Chapter 4: "Swells" (11:32) and
Chapter 5: "Bolter Bolter Bolter" (10:07)

I remember playing Jane's F/A 18 back in the day, and those night landings on a pitching deck were the most palm sweat inducing thing ever, P.T. aint got nothing on that.

Cool videos, I'll check those out.

The water effects in this, might be the best I've ever seen in a game.

This is already a stunning module, even though it's early access. My word, does it fly different to the P-51, though! (Surprise). The computer keeps it behaving really well right down to very low airspeed, then it finally says "I can't help you anymore, you idiot" and just starts falling straight down (but still with the nose up). There's no "mushy controls" like I'm used to, because I think the computer is amplifying everything to compensate for the dwindling "smash" on the control surfaces.

10-out-of-10, would crash horribly again!

Keithustus wrote:

Being an army guy and not knowing much about the navy or aviation, the bad-weather night landings in PBS's Carrier are probably the most stressed out I've ever been watching a documentary:

As a Navy guy who has trapped aboard the carrier in Hornets a fair number of times, I can tell you that the reality of that landing is probably worse than you imagine. As one pilot confessed to me once "dude, when I'm in the stack waiting for my approach to start, my legs start shaking so hard that I'm working the rudder pedals"

Yeah, it's an amazing experience, but scary as hell.

There's a reason why not everyone in the Navy has the callsign "Ice Man."