|
I find that the Bing scenery data is just fine in most parts of the world if you crank up the terrain quality to 200 or better. That slider controls ground texture resolution, and the default of 100 is awfully blurry. It goes up to 400, but I found that the difference between 200 and 400 is not that drastic and it does cut your framerates pretty significantly.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Isn't Bing's 3d city stuff pretty limited? (And not getting better? Believe I read something about them basically dropping that project). I know at least I've tried to fly some places I know, and being disappointed how fast it got to just flat textures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
They're still getting new 3D photogrammetry data from somewhere, so I don't know if they've really dropped it, or if they're licensing it from third parties now. Though yeah, Google easily has at least 10x as much coverage—I count 14 separate photogrammetry zones in the state of Michigan alone, and that's including some massive zones that encompass multiple cities.. Almost every populated part of the Metro Detroit area is covered in one big, continuous zone, from Auburn Hills to the outskirts of Monroe (frustratingly they don't cover the bulk of the city), and going as far west as Ann Arbor and Howell. And there are even some zones dedicated to some smaller towns you'd never expect google to care about, like Adrian. Meanwhile Microsoft only has one, Detroit, and it covers half as much area. (edit: maybe more than half. It goes out to at least Willow Run Airport, though I don't think Ann Arbor is included. I haven't flown over that part as much) A huge chunk of the US is covered with this much detail by google, but either due to licensing costs or pride, I feel like a partnership will never happen. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Nov 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback on Reno. I was wondering why I wasn't seeing it be discussed everywhere. Now I reckon it's just because it's not that interesting. I guess I'll wait for when I have a low week or it's on sale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
Yeah, MUCH better off saving that money for good planes. CRJ I hear is solid. The DC-6 is one of my favs. 737 is next quarter. If you want to give people money for planes, there's better ways than the Reno stuff. Hell, I think you can race P-51s in DCS for free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
I'll be the odd one out here and say I think the air race planes are quite fun. I haven't tried the racing yet, but the L-39 is proper fun to gently caress around in, and I'm coming to grips with the P-51 and T-6 too. They're a nice change, and it's not really so expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 05:02
|
|
|
Enhanced Skyscapes for X-Plane is on sale this week for $12 instead of the normal $15.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:
Air Goons have in fact done this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
This might be a stupid question, but is there much of a functional difference between the full-fidelity DCS modules and the Flaming Cliffs ones outside of startup? I bought and refunded the JF-17 when I realized that I having to turn the climate control knob to the right setting so my MFDs don't overheat plus 70 other steps before I can fly the plane isn't really fun or interesting. I'd much rather prefer a plane where I can just hit 4 hotkeys and be ready to go as long as the actual flying and combat side of things is simulated accurately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
sum posted:This might be a stupid question, but is there much of a functional difference between the full-fidelity DCS modules and the Flaming Cliffs ones outside of startup? I bought and refunded the JF-17 when I realized that I having to turn the climate control knob to the right setting so my MFDs don't overheat plus 70 other steps before I can fly the plane isn't really fun or interesting. I'd much rather prefer a plane where I can just hit 4 hotkeys and be ready to go as long as the actual flying and combat side of things is simulated accurately. You can do an auto-start, search for the key binding. It’ll do the whole startup sequence for you. The FC3 airplanes are far more simple when it comes to systems and flight modeling. My approach has been to learn one hi-fi module really well (F-16) and use the FC3 planes for the rest of the things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Yeah, MUCH better off saving that money for good planes. Eh I the planes aren't super important to me, but I'd like an action-packed race mode. I've just watched some videos about the MSFS races and they're, well, not that. Which is a bummer since I recall War Thunder having massively enjoyable event modes, like racing through dense canyons, team challenges, and what not. The three planes you've been mentioning are indeed smiling at me seductively for a while now! What holds me back is that I don't think I'll develop any new gameplay. sum posted:This might be a stupid question, but is there much of a functional difference between the full-fidelity DCS modules and the Flaming Cliffs ones outside of startup? I bought and refunded the JF-17 when I realized that I having to turn the climate control knob to the right setting so my MFDs don't overheat plus 70 other steps before I can fly the plane isn't really fun or interesting. I'd much rather prefer a plane where I can just hit 4 hotkeys and be ready to go as long as the actual flying and combat side of things is simulated accurately. Animal posted:You can do an auto-start, search for the key binding. It’ll do the whole startup sequence for you. The FC3 airplanes are far more simple when it comes to systems and flight modeling. My approach has been to learn one hi-fi module really well (F-16) and use the FC3 planes for the rest of the things. My two cents -- I have the Flaming Cliffs planes, and the fully modeled F18. I vastly prefer the F18. It's a little bit more complex yes, but every function of the plane is accessible through a clearly labeled button in the cockpit (as opposed to key combinations with five modifiers). In the end that made the F18 war less complicated to me than any of the Flaming Cliffs planes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
To add to the FC3 comments… …the FC3 aircraft are really easy to handle if you have a sufficiently large control device to bind all the functions. It could be a Stream Deck or a couple of MFDs or something similar, with maybe 30+ available buttons. In such a situation, the simplified and (more importantly) unified nature of the FC3 aircraft means that you can bind all functions to work the same in all aircraft and just use the same procedures for everything, rather than having to remember those RCTRL-LALT-LSHIFT-PgUp vs LCTRL-RSHIFT-Home keyboard combos. But the were built for, and retain the design sensibilities, of a very different era where you had a keyboard and maybe as many as six(!) joystick buttons, and have only really been brought along in DCS because they were readily available and easy to revamp for this new sim platform. That is where the simplification lies: all AA modes work essentially the same, no matter the aircraft; all AG modes work the same; all weapon release works (mostly) the same; all those functions are tied to the same keyboard combos; and the differences come down to exactly how the radar or targeting display tells you it has found something. At the same time, that's also where the FC3 aircraft ultimately end up lacklustre: there's just not a whole lot of fancy things you can do with them, compared to all the trickery that a full-feature, full-function, switch-festooned buttonfest aircraft can perform. Maybe you can pick a Mig with long-range IR missiles for some added sneakiness as opposed to the radar-reliant F-15, but that's about it. You never get to pick one aircraft over the other because of better sensors or ease of use, and only barely need to consider any difference in flight characteristics and performance. While it also rarely comes up, a critical distinction between full sim and simplified aircraft is that there are no real fault mitigation in the FC3 aircraft. If you get shot, you blow up (or don't) and maybe you only catch a little fire and limp back to base because there's nothing else you can do about it. It's very binary. This can be compared against a full-sim aircraft where you may lose partial hydraulics and have to remember how on earth to switch to (and use) alternate controls, or you get one sensor knocked out and can potentially rely on other ones to keep doing the job. Granted, some of that is also dependent on how deep the full simulation is — some (ostensibly) full-sim aircraft have a long history of also being as binary: they either work, or they blow up completely. The functional difference between FC3 and full-sim aircraft is the entire difference and the whole point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Eh I the planes aren't super important to me, but I'd like an action-packed race mode. I've just watched some videos about the MSFS races and they're, well, not that. Which is a bummer since I recall War Thunder having massively enjoyable event modes, like racing through dense canyons, team challenges, and what not. I suppose a major question for me is: did the upgrade mean the netcode can now support reasonably non-frustrating, arbitrary races even if there's no explicit support for them? Because, yeah, you're right: when I think of "races that would be fun in flightsim" the first thing that comes to mind is poo poo that's so ridiculously unsafe it should never be attempted in real life. I'd want to see Forza-horizon modifiers for flying close to the ground, aerobatics in the middle of races, etc. Get style points for flying inverted 50 ft. off the ground in a canyon, hell yeah! If that's too easy, let's add in some unpredictable turbulence so you have to really gauge what risk you're willing to take. I think a big portion of civilian flightsims has always been: you've got to make your own fun. And I think that's where the air race mode comes into conflict with the sim ethos in general: it's an attempt to create a competitive atmosphere, but it lacks that freedom and creativity that draw most flightsimmers in. Same thing with the landing challenges: yes it's all very good to have this global competition for particular situations, but I'd love to see equally: are you a bad enough dude to fly the erstwhile LOC/NDB/NDB D approach to minimums at CYCG with winds and no autopilot, and maybe who gives a poo poo how soft the landing is if you did it right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 07:54
|
|
|
They really should've added in a custom race mode or something where you can set your own pylons in order to create your own races, and then host custom races with your friends. I mean, you can just describe a track ("follow this river/gorge/whatever") and try to do it that way, but it would be nice to have official support for that sort of thing. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 08:25
|
|
|
Racing 50' off the deck along the Las Vegas Strip, immelmann turn at the Stratosphere tower and back down the other side. poo poo yeah that would have been great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 10:38
|
|
|
Would that be something that 3rd parties could potentially create with the dev mode? Add some race objects to a location I mean. Cause it sounds like that could be a fun subcategory in all the 3rd party mod stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 11:21
|
|
|
I think they've said 3rd parties will be able to create content using the racing stuff, but I don't know if they've released the relevant SDK bits yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
i just want a vr glove for a good price that is good enough that you can do everything without a keyboard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
sum posted:This might be a stupid question, but is there much of a functional difference between the full-fidelity DCS modules and the Flaming Cliffs ones outside of startup? I bought and refunded the JF-17 when I realized that I having to turn the climate control knob to the right setting so my MFDs don't overheat plus 70 other steps before I can fly the plane isn't really fun or interesting. I'd much rather prefer a plane where I can just hit 4 hotkeys and be ready to go as long as the actual flying and combat side of things is simulated accurately. As some other people have noted, you can use the quick startup hotkey (win+home iirc) and it will go through the whole sequence for you. Or you can learn an abbreviated startup sequence; some things are critical and some can totally be ignored (verifying warning lights etc) unless you are an enormous dorkus. Your tastes may evolve over time, too. When I was in high school I only played arcadey flight sims and didn't understand any of the gauges. Later I got more into the simulation aspects, but couldn't believe that anyone would enjoy spending twenty minutes starting up the plane and configuring all the computers -- the Jane's games or FC3 level simulation was perfect for me. These days, having gotten deeper into the details of the simulations and having become a pilot in real life, it bugs me when something is clearly a faked-out shortcut, and I want all the systems to be as accurate as possible*. I am totally fine with having my displays crap out because I forgot to turn on their cooling or whatever. Now I genuinely enjoy flying in the RIO seat of the F-14, where all you do is twist knobs and click at things on a radar screen and there is no piloting whatsoever. Finally, with the right mindset you may find that the study-level planes are not that hard to grasp. The cockpits look complicated at first, but they are designed to be used by a pilot and generally have some sort of organization. Rather than memorizing lists of obscure button presses for startup, you can start thinking about the plane's systems and how they interact with each other: - You need power to run all the systems, so you have to turn on the battery. - When the engine starts, you want the battery to recharge, so you also need to turn on the generators. - How is the engine started? With ground air? Call the ground crew to do that. With an internal APU? Okay, turn that on. - Your engine also needs fuel. Open the fuel tanks and turn on the pumps. - Okay, you have fuel, electricity, and starting power. Press the starter/move the throttles/whatever and the engine will ignite. - Your navigation system has to spin up and align itself before you start to taxi. Turn the INS knob to align mode. - Your radar needs to warm up before you can use it. Turn it to the standby position. - etc. Once you grasp what you're actually doing with each step, you can do things out of order, skip parts you don't need, and so on. You can do fun things like start one engine using the bleed air from the other, even though the checklist says you're supposed to use ground air for both, because the system lets you do that. To me a lot of the fun comes just from operating this complicated machine. *there are a few exceptions. One thing I can't stand is when the plane simulates a realistic INS alignment time and there's no checkbox to do a shorter sequence. Yes, in real life you have to wait 10 or 15 minutes for the platform to stabilize. In the game that's usually just 10 or 15 minutes of sitting on the ground doing nothing at all. I can't see a single benefit to having to wait the whole time except for some extraordinarily spergy PvP scenario and gently caress that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Finally, with the right mindset you may find that the study-level planes are not that hard to grasp. The cockpits look complicated at first, but they are designed to be used by a pilot and generally have some sort of organization. Rather than memorizing lists of obscure button presses for startup, you can start thinking about the plane's systems and how they interact with each other: …and on top of this, most aircraft from the post-Korea era will have very purposefully built in “sweeps” where those necessary steps are aligned (mostly) next to each other: turn on electrics over here, move a panel over and do the fuel, move another panel over and do the engine start, move another panel over and turn on primary systems now that you have engine power to draw on; reset and do another sweep to set up all advanced systems; reset and do a third sweep to finalise. But then you get to the nutcase aircraft that some of us nutcase pilots love, where none of that is true. In DCS, the switch-placement-by-shotgun design of he MiG-21 is probably the most notorious. That makes it the most entertaining plane ever. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:Would that be something that 3rd parties could potentially create with the dev mode? Add some race objects to a location I mean. Cause it sounds like that could be a fun subcategory in all the 3rd party mod stuff. There already is the red bull air race scenery available. It looks a lot more interesting to fly than Reno. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagT2wnQHTE
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
Any thoughts on Xplane modules? There's a BF sale on Xplane.org. Tempted by the Uh-60, but you have to be careful on that site because stuff that's kept up to date is mixed in with lazy Xp10 ports and poo poo that hasn't been touched in 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Any thoughts on Xplane modules? There's a BF sale on Xplane.org. I picked up the SimCoders Laminar B58 Rep Pack and....uh...I'm apparently not a good pilot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Speaking of SimCoders REP I have the SIAI-Marchetti SF-260 (50% off), which has all the REP stuff built-in and is a nice trainer/GA with decent power and aerobatic abilities. I also have the Thranda DHC-2 Beaver with REP and would definitely recommend that for some bush flying fun (impatiently waiting for a Beaver in MSFS...).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
Tippis posted:But then you get to the nutcase aircraft that some of us nutcase pilots love, where none of that is true. In DCS, the switch-placement-by-shotgun design of he MiG-21 is probably the most notorious. That makes it the most entertaining plane ever. But to be fair, the mig 21 can be started in like a minute and most of it is flipping ALL the switches on the right, and then pushing one on the left to light the bitch. I find pylon/weapon management the hardest part of the Mig (and landing can be a bit dicey if you're used to modern planes, but this is rarely a problem since your odds of survival aren't good anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
XenoCrab posted:impatiently waiting for Beaver New thread title.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Any thoughts on Xplane modules? There's a BF sale on Xplane.org. Freeware wise both of these mods make up about 99% of my XPlane time these days. Zibo 737 https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/138974-b737-800x-zibo-mod-info-installation-download-links/ King Air C90 Extension Mod https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/59450-default-beechcraft-kingair-c90b-jongepionier-ultimate-mod/
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Got banned from the discord after 5 minuets spilt a entire can of Orange aid on my keyboard and it went full on buck wild.....
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
PizzaTheHutt posted:Got banned from the discord after 5 minuets spilt a entire can of Orange aid on my keyboard and it went full on buck wild..... Lol, we were wondering what the hell kind of bot you were, since the soda posting was pretty much the first thing you said. Unbanned, try not to spill any more soda.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
How do you IRL pilots hand-fly planes that constantly want to roll by about a degree every second because it sure makes holding a heading a giant pain in the rear end
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 01:00
|
|
|
Not a pilot, but I imagine that it's sorta like driving a car. In the real world, you can feel the external forces on your control surfaces and the way your vehicle is shifting, and you make almost subconscious micro corrections to keep things steady. In a sim, none of that is there. There's no feedback in the controls, and you're sitting in a regular seat (unless you have an extremely expensive setup). You have no ability to make micro corrections as your plane shifts, so the only thing you can do is react to a change after it happens. I've seen racecar drivers talk about how racing simulators are actually more difficult for them than real life racing due to a lack of this feedback, so I expect it to be similar for planes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:How do you IRL pilots hand-fly planes that constantly want to roll by about a degree every second because it sure makes holding a heading a giant pain in the rear end Trim. Or strong hands on the yoke, depending on whether it has aileron trim. It makes you realize why bigger airplanes have trim on all three axis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:How do you IRL pilots hand-fly planes that constantly want to roll by about a degree every second because it sure makes holding a heading a giant pain in the rear end Well first of all check that your joysticks etc are calibrated. Which plane is doing this? I'd only expect to see that behavior in something like a WW2 fighter or maybe an aerobatic plane -- something with huge power and centerline torque relative to its size. In something like a Mustang, there will be aileron trim to dial out the rolling tendency. Most small GA planes are just designed with positive stability characteristics that cause them to naturally return to wings-level flight. For instance, wing dihedral helps in this regard:  Subtle imbalances in the plane, imperfections in the control surfaces and linkages, etc mean that it's not perfect, but it's pretty good. You may find your heading drifting, but you shouldn't require any input to keep the wings level +/- a few degrees. (I don't know how much aileron trim airliners need, since the masses and control forces are very different from small planes and they don't have a torquey engine in the center of the plane, but they also are generally designed to be self-righting) IRL if I am flying hands-off and I notice the plane rolling a tiny bit one way, I will just put in a teeny bit of rudder in the desired direction and the natural yaw-roll coupling will straighten it out. If the plane you're flying has rudder trim, you could try using that in a similar way. Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Not a pilot, but I imagine that it's sorta like driving a car. In the real world, you can feel the external forces on your control surfaces and the way your vehicle is shifting, and you make almost subconscious micro corrections to keep things steady. In a sim, none of that is there. There's no feedback in the controls, and you're sitting in a regular seat (unless you have an extremely expensive setup). You have no ability to make micro corrections as your plane shifts, so the only thing you can do is react to a change after it happens. This too, for sure. In a small plane you can feel the aerodynamic forces pushing back in the controls, and your inputs are sometimes a matter of pressure rather than any perceptible movement. Just hanging out there with your hand on the yoke not doing anything but maintaining a constant subtle force. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Nov 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:How do you IRL pilots hand-fly planes that constantly want to roll by about a degree every second because it sure makes holding a heading a giant pain in the rear end So, for starters, there's a lot of tactile feedback an IRL plane gives you that sims just can't. My flight instructor said that people who try flying for real from sims have a tendency to watch the dashboard and "chase needles" instead of feeling the plane and looking out the window. In both irl and sim, it's a matter of setting the trim and throttle, and once you have both where they need to be, the plane will naturally find the altitude it wants. If you have a fancy plane with fbw, computers can handle much of that, but otherwise, "always be trimming" is the rule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
BurntCornMuffin posted:So, for starters, there's a lot of tactile feedback an IRL plane gives you that sims just can't. My flight instructor said that people who try flying for real from sims have a tendency to watch the dashboard and "chase needles" instead of feeling the plane and looking out the window. Yeah, my instructor said it was hard training people who had done a lot of flight sim stuff because they just wouldn't look out the window enough Ironically that comes in handy in IFR but for beginner VFR stuff it's an extra step to overcome
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:How do you IRL pilots hand-fly planes that constantly want to roll by about a degree every second because it sure makes holding a heading a giant pain in the rear end In real life, after trimming elevator on a Da-40, and settling into the speed, the slight roll is countered by my knee, or a literal one finger on the joystick. When I do that, I can look at my cellphone or use my kneeboard just fine without any conscious effort towards the joystick, and the plane flies nicely. It is very light to the touch at that point, and requires so little focus. I thought it would be a big deal when the autopilot died on the plane (which I found out as it grabbed my controls and rolled hard until I pulled the circuit breaker lmao) but turned out that flying to KSSI from KCHS and back was just fine. I had some minor 0.02 mile cross track from my course. Maybe it’s the Diamond, or I’m just awesome. Probably the first. In a sim with a centering joystick I obviously use more force but the ”trim” my wrist applies to the stick is blocked off by my brain at some point and I don’t really notice until after flying because my wrist hurts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
BurntCornMuffin posted:So, for starters, there's a lot of tactile feedback an IRL plane gives you that sims just can't. My flight instructor said that people who try flying for real from sims have a tendency to watch the dashboard and "chase needles" instead of feeling the plane and looking out the window. Yep. My instructor had to cover the gauges with sticky notes for the first few hours until I stopped looking inside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
BurntCornMuffin posted:Lol, we were wondering what the hell kind of bot you were, since the soda posting was pretty much the first thing you said. Unbanned, try not to spill any more soda. Thanks, well I wont be on that keyboard any time soon its well and truly smoked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 08:56
|
|
|
Bentai posted:Yep. My instructor had to cover the gauges with sticky notes for the first few hours until I stopped looking inside. I had an instructor early on lose his temper and cover the entire panel with a sectional. I look outside now. This is also part of the reason I’m so impressed with the new FS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Well the other problem there is that the eye position in every stock MSFS aircraft is all jacked up and you see maybe an inch of horizon in front of you in level flight even in GA planes. Or you could switch to upper cockpit view and then the viewpoint is too high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 14:54
|
|