Gaming Digital Combat Simulator Thread
- Thread starter Urwumpe
- Start date
Something along these lines or better perhaps?
E
ex-orbinaut
Guest
Aw! Finally bought it today! Never mind, he had a pretty good run at it. Anyone know a site that might explain the history behind those Georgian medals, if that is what they are?
Fortunately I took this advice, so I have not lost the campaign.
It is not too bad. I have an EVGA GTX 650 (only very slightly tweaked, and I am not pushing it any more than I have). It gets a tiny bit "glitchy" when there are evening/morning light effects with clouds, snow, rain, so on, but is quite playable still. It handles water reflections and reasonably high anti-aliasing for direct, midday, daylight conditions. Personally, I would go for the next one up, though. This GPU just happened to be the one I had when I downloaded DCS. Hope this helps your decision!
Fortunately I took this advice, so I have not lost the campaign.
It is not too bad. I have an EVGA GTX 650 (only very slightly tweaked, and I am not pushing it any more than I have). It gets a tiny bit "glitchy" when there are evening/morning light effects with clouds, snow, rain, so on, but is quite playable still. It handles water reflections and reasonably high anti-aliasing for direct, midday, daylight conditions. Personally, I would go for the next one up, though. This GPU just happened to be the one I had when I downloaded DCS. Hope this helps your decision!
Campaign mission 10 completed. Very straightforward, mission objective was to "attrite" (new vocab word!) units in the vicinity of a waypoint. There was a primary group of MBTs and a group of artillery further away. Air defenses around the target were light, just two SAMs, a MANPAD, and 3 or so AAA. The remaining enemy forces were all ~30km, which made this one of the easiest missions so far, since I had a fairly clear engagement area without having to worry about overflying other groups.
I took over SEAD for the long-range SAMs this time around (given how thoroughly my wingman had botched it last time), and climbed to ~4500m en route to the target to launch the Kh-58U. Wasn't even close to other enemy forces at this point.
Arriving in the primary engagement area, I took out the SAMs myself, then cautiously approached the remaining units, designating individual targets for my wingman. Once I was sure there was no more AAA, I gave the wingman freedom to kill stuff and we quickly mopped everything up.
At one point, an enemy CH-53E Super Stallion strayed into our engagement area, I set his engines on fire with a Vikhr, but he didn't take the hint so I gave him another one and sent him sideways into the ground.
My wingman and I still had quite a lot of munitions left between us, so we took a detour over the larger part of the enemy forces and took out a few choice targets before heading home.
I was trying to be fancy on the landing and busted the nosegear tire, but it's all good because I doubt the ground crew can hate me more than they already do.
Exit the mission and...I get a result of 75 (%?). WTF. I took out everything within sight of the target area. I was so annoyed that I forgot to note my score...
So, I load up the mission editor to figure out what I did wrong. As far as I can tell, the group of tanks at the main waypoint was worth 55 and the group of artillery was worth 20 as far as score goes, but I didn't see anything about what determines "result." (turns out that this IS result, not score, see below)
After much research online and some more digging:
- "Score" on the debriefing screen is your personal score. Everything you kill contributes to this score, apparently a certain amount depending on the type of kill. Not sure exactly how much everything counts for.
- "Result" on the debriefing screen is your accomplishment of mission objectives defined in the mission. In the case of this mission, each group of units had a point value associated with it (55 for the main tank group, 20 for the artillery group, etc).
- In this mission (and probably others), friendly losses have a negative effect on the result.
- Technically the result can be more than 100 or less than 0, but it appears to get clamped to 0-100.
- In the campaign, any result from 0-50 is effectively the same, and any result from 51-100 is effectively the same. The former is a "fail" and the latter is a "pass."
- So, there's no real reason to need a 100 on each mission other than bragging rights. In the case of this mission, in order to get a 100, I would've needed to take out at least two more groups of vehicles, which wasn't in the mission description.
Clear as mud. Would be nice if this were more obvious somewhere.
---------- Post added 11-07-13 at 00:46 ---------- Previous post was 11-06-13 at 01:23 ----------
Mission 11 done. This was of the "support advancing armor" type, where friendly tanks & stuff are advancing blithely into enemy units and my job was to clear the way before they got there. The friendly advance was aiming for an airfield, with two groups of MBTs and a few other things in the way.
Based on the mission planner, the friendly units seemed to be starting off fairly close to the enemy line, so I didn't think I'd have enough time to do the "carefully work through the enemy air defenses, then mob up what's left" thing, so I was planning on taking out the enemy MBTs from max range and just letting the friendly ground forces handle the air defenses on their way through.
Things got off to a bit of rocky start on my first pass, as my first target got taken out right in front of me just as I was holding down the trigger to launch on them. Right decision would've been to either break off and come in again or switch to the SAM in that group to take it out instead. I did neither and continued closing in to take out another MBT, and drew a couple SAM shots while turning away. Fortunately nothing landed, but still, had me a bit flustered.
Frustration continued as I lost several Vikhrs to crosswinds and could see that the friendly forces were taking heavy casualties. I ended up taking one of my passes in way too close and took quite a bit of fire from APC and tank machine guns, and what I think was a MANPAD, but I'm not 100% sure because the explosion just shows up out of nowhere each time I watch the track. Also, I call bullcrap because that MANPAD unit launched at least six missiles within only a few minutes, from watching the track.
Damage ended up as a severe fuel leak and a hydraulic failure. I took one more pass in which I unloaded everything on the last couple MBTs and IFVs on the front, jettisoned the rest, and headed for home.
Hydraulic failure means drop the gear now, because you won't be able to do it later. But a severe fuel leak means you need as much speed and altitude as possible, because you have limited engine life. I dropped the gear, and split the difference on the flaps by leaving them at half. I started a full-throttle climb in this configuration--I couldn't get a ton of straight-line speed, so if I was going to make it home I'd need the altitude.
Made it to ~6000m (above overcast cloud cover) before the engines cut out, and I started gliding it in, using instruments to gauge where I needed to go in order to get there. I came out of the bottom of the clouds with plenty of altitude, but a lot closer to the runway than I was expecting. Given my previous problems losing speed on the approach and the lack of speedbrakes, I tried to do a 360 to line up for the runway, but ended up several km short (having pissed away my altitude advantage in the turn), pointed the plane away from civilization, and ejected. Sigh.
I should've done some calculations based on the distance from the landing waypoint and current altitude to determine what my target descent rate should've been. I also think that a lot more speed needs to be maintained in an engine-out landing to ensure enough energy for roundout and flare--even if I had been able to arrive at the runway, I don't think I would've been going fast enough to land gently.
Engine-out landings are something I'll need to practice. I tried to follow the track to that point so I could take control, but in ~10 viewings of the track not once did it end up that far--pretty much every time, I got an engine fire instead of a fuel leak. Oh well. I also didn't see a way to trigger a hydraulic failure in the mission editor, which would allow me to set up a similar practice scenario.
I waited around until the friendly armor groups made it to their destinations (finishing off the remaining enemy groups in the immediate area) before exiting the mission. That probably paid off, as I ended up with a 100 result.
Between my wingman and I, in this campaign we've destroyed more SU-25Ts than ever existed in real life. Don't tell my commander, he won't let me fly anymore...
Edit: Fun, next mission shows low clouds, high winds, and taking off from an airfield that's almost within range of the enemy mid-range SAMs.
I took over SEAD for the long-range SAMs this time around (given how thoroughly my wingman had botched it last time), and climbed to ~4500m en route to the target to launch the Kh-58U. Wasn't even close to other enemy forces at this point.
Arriving in the primary engagement area, I took out the SAMs myself, then cautiously approached the remaining units, designating individual targets for my wingman. Once I was sure there was no more AAA, I gave the wingman freedom to kill stuff and we quickly mopped everything up.
At one point, an enemy CH-53E Super Stallion strayed into our engagement area, I set his engines on fire with a Vikhr, but he didn't take the hint so I gave him another one and sent him sideways into the ground.
My wingman and I still had quite a lot of munitions left between us, so we took a detour over the larger part of the enemy forces and took out a few choice targets before heading home.
I was trying to be fancy on the landing and busted the nosegear tire, but it's all good because I doubt the ground crew can hate me more than they already do.
Exit the mission and...I get a result of 75 (%?). WTF. I took out everything within sight of the target area. I was so annoyed that I forgot to note my score...
So, I load up the mission editor to figure out what I did wrong. As far as I can tell, the group of tanks at the main waypoint was worth 55 and the group of artillery was worth 20 as far as score goes, but I didn't see anything about what determines "result." (turns out that this IS result, not score, see below)
After much research online and some more digging:
- "Score" on the debriefing screen is your personal score. Everything you kill contributes to this score, apparently a certain amount depending on the type of kill. Not sure exactly how much everything counts for.
- "Result" on the debriefing screen is your accomplishment of mission objectives defined in the mission. In the case of this mission, each group of units had a point value associated with it (55 for the main tank group, 20 for the artillery group, etc).
- In this mission (and probably others), friendly losses have a negative effect on the result.
- Technically the result can be more than 100 or less than 0, but it appears to get clamped to 0-100.
- In the campaign, any result from 0-50 is effectively the same, and any result from 51-100 is effectively the same. The former is a "fail" and the latter is a "pass."
- So, there's no real reason to need a 100 on each mission other than bragging rights. In the case of this mission, in order to get a 100, I would've needed to take out at least two more groups of vehicles, which wasn't in the mission description.
Clear as mud. Would be nice if this were more obvious somewhere.
---------- Post added 11-07-13 at 00:46 ---------- Previous post was 11-06-13 at 01:23 ----------
Mission 11 done. This was of the "support advancing armor" type, where friendly tanks & stuff are advancing blithely into enemy units and my job was to clear the way before they got there. The friendly advance was aiming for an airfield, with two groups of MBTs and a few other things in the way.
Based on the mission planner, the friendly units seemed to be starting off fairly close to the enemy line, so I didn't think I'd have enough time to do the "carefully work through the enemy air defenses, then mob up what's left" thing, so I was planning on taking out the enemy MBTs from max range and just letting the friendly ground forces handle the air defenses on their way through.
Things got off to a bit of rocky start on my first pass, as my first target got taken out right in front of me just as I was holding down the trigger to launch on them. Right decision would've been to either break off and come in again or switch to the SAM in that group to take it out instead. I did neither and continued closing in to take out another MBT, and drew a couple SAM shots while turning away. Fortunately nothing landed, but still, had me a bit flustered.
Frustration continued as I lost several Vikhrs to crosswinds and could see that the friendly forces were taking heavy casualties. I ended up taking one of my passes in way too close and took quite a bit of fire from APC and tank machine guns, and what I think was a MANPAD, but I'm not 100% sure because the explosion just shows up out of nowhere each time I watch the track. Also, I call bullcrap because that MANPAD unit launched at least six missiles within only a few minutes, from watching the track.
Damage ended up as a severe fuel leak and a hydraulic failure. I took one more pass in which I unloaded everything on the last couple MBTs and IFVs on the front, jettisoned the rest, and headed for home.
Hydraulic failure means drop the gear now, because you won't be able to do it later. But a severe fuel leak means you need as much speed and altitude as possible, because you have limited engine life. I dropped the gear, and split the difference on the flaps by leaving them at half. I started a full-throttle climb in this configuration--I couldn't get a ton of straight-line speed, so if I was going to make it home I'd need the altitude.
Made it to ~6000m (above overcast cloud cover) before the engines cut out, and I started gliding it in, using instruments to gauge where I needed to go in order to get there. I came out of the bottom of the clouds with plenty of altitude, but a lot closer to the runway than I was expecting. Given my previous problems losing speed on the approach and the lack of speedbrakes, I tried to do a 360 to line up for the runway, but ended up several km short (having pissed away my altitude advantage in the turn), pointed the plane away from civilization, and ejected. Sigh.
I should've done some calculations based on the distance from the landing waypoint and current altitude to determine what my target descent rate should've been. I also think that a lot more speed needs to be maintained in an engine-out landing to ensure enough energy for roundout and flare--even if I had been able to arrive at the runway, I don't think I would've been going fast enough to land gently.
Engine-out landings are something I'll need to practice. I tried to follow the track to that point so I could take control, but in ~10 viewings of the track not once did it end up that far--pretty much every time, I got an engine fire instead of a fuel leak. Oh well. I also didn't see a way to trigger a hydraulic failure in the mission editor, which would allow me to set up a similar practice scenario.
I waited around until the friendly armor groups made it to their destinations (finishing off the remaining enemy groups in the immediate area) before exiting the mission. That probably paid off, as I ended up with a 100 result.
Between my wingman and I, in this campaign we've destroyed more SU-25Ts than ever existed in real life. Don't tell my commander, he won't let me fly anymore...
Edit: Fun, next mission shows low clouds, high winds, and taking off from an airfield that's almost within range of the enemy mid-range SAMs.
Last edited:
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 37,627
- Reaction score
- 2,345
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
I had done some small training flights with my new HOTAS Warthog yesterday - I can't imagine flying without it now. It feels much better and reacts much more precise than the X45 and after a few moments of practice, you really get fast in operating HUD, TAD and TGP together for locating, tracking and occupying targets with it. The analog slew control on the throttle is feeling more like a small track ball and is as accurate. And with the two-stage trigger, hitting targets with the gun is really easy thanks to the PAC assistance.
Only bad thing so far: Starting and landing in a heavy crosswind is much harder now, because I lack rudder pedals and controlling this with keyboard and stick is a bit unknown now... well, christmas is coming soon.
Only bad thing so far: Starting and landing in a heavy crosswind is much harder now, because I lack rudder pedals and controlling this with keyboard and stick is a bit unknown now... well, christmas is coming soon.
Last edited:
Ripley
Tutorial translator
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,133
- Reaction score
- 407
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Rome
- Website
- www.tuttovola.org
If you're the die-hard kind of simmer who buys a Warthog HOTAS, you can't live without a good set of rudder pedals!
I love my Simpeds!
I've been googling around, and sadly it looks like they are no longer produced:
https://shop.strato.de/epages/219707.sf/sec2c1f6e113a/?ObjectPath=/Shops/219707/Categories
I love my Simpeds!
I've been googling around, and sadly it looks like they are no longer produced:
https://shop.strato.de/epages/219707.sf/sec2c1f6e113a/?ObjectPath=/Shops/219707/Categories
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 37,627
- Reaction score
- 2,345
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
I know - but fiscal realities had been different in the past. :lol:
I wouldn't call myself die-hard kind of simmer, but you sure don't take part in SSU development without being a bit fanatic.
EDIT: BTW, the shop homepage is closed by its provider for me.
Last edited:
There are another hi-end pedals: VKB
http://www.vkb-pro.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1203
Unfortunately, the description is only in Russian, but there are the photos there.
I own the previous version, VKB MK 18-3, they are very reliable and precise.
I also ordered this joystick, it has extremely precise mechanics with ball bearings:
http://www.vkb-pro.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1204
because my old Thrustmaster Cougar has awful mechanics.
There is also a possibility to attach Cougar/Warthog throttle and stick to this joystick, I'll do this ASAP.
Ripley
Tutorial translator
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,133
- Reaction score
- 407
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Rome
- Website
- www.tuttovola.org
Thanks Vlad.
Just to get an idea, how much do they cost?
Edit:
Ok, found it!
Just to get an idea, how much do they cost?
Edit:
Ok, found it!
E
ex-orbinaut
Guest
Yeah, I burst a nose gear on landings in a crosswind a couple of times. Seems to be something about the cross-wind technique; because of the NWS being active all the time the gear is down (no NWS disengage at all, as far as I can see), the slip into wind, wing down landing method did not seem correct, as you would tend to touch the nose wheel down with some steering applied to it. The side-load on the tire seems to run it off the rim. The straightforward crab method produces much better results. Might not have been your case, but it is just a comment, in any case.
I saved a track on the 24 October of my only dual engine out landing in DCS. I had done some rather stupid, high G maneuvering and they both flamed out, then refused to relight (in fact, they both wet-start torched at one point, even though I was applying the FM's relight procedure!). I was very lucky that I was practicing right over Kobuleti and got it in quite successfully. Approximately 260 Kmh IAS over the threshold, with full flaps, did the trick on that occasion. Might make a video of the track, sometime, I don't know. Not proud of what I was doing to cause the failure!
Doesn't this do what you want?
I have not had a chance to fly DCS again since my "demise", but one thing intrigues me here. How are you managing to re-fly the same missions you "piled in" on in the campaign? My campaign career has moved on to the next mission, and I cannot figure out how to re-fly the mission I blew up on. I have spent a great deal of my DCS time in the Mission Editor (I love it!) and had the briefest look at the Campaign Builder. The way it works is quite straight forward; up to so many points, go to such mission, otherwise, so many points, activate another mission, and so on. However, in the game, I cannot see the way to replay the same mission without starting the Campaign again!
Unfortunately cannot play tonight, either. Maybe tomorrow...
Last edited by a moderator:
I've had luck with the slip-into-wind, wing down method in the past, but this time I was trying to keep the nosegear off longer than I should've and slammed it into the runway when I started braking. Oops.
Looks like it, thanks. I didn't see that option and just saw the overall "condition" option.
I've only ended up replaying missions in a few circumstances:
- I re-flew the first mission quite a few times, since I was still learning how to use the plane effectively and restarting the campaign at that point wasn't a big deal. I was treating the first mission as more of a training mission.
- When I was ~4 missions in and the game crashed at the beginning of a mission and I lost all campaign progress, I restarted the campaign instead of investigating how to fix it directly.
- 7 missions in when the game crashed at the end of a mission and in learning to recover the campaign progress I re-flew a mission I'd already gotten a 100 on, but the new score didn't actually stick and it just gave me the previous 1-kill, 1-death, 100 result score.
By editing the logbook.lua, you could theoretically re-do missions as much as you wanted, but I've avoided doing that just for the sake of improving my score--and even in the missions where I've died, I've still "passed" the mission as far as the campaign is concerned.
E
ex-orbinaut
Guest
And I on the other hand have had luck with the aerodynamic braking technique, though I have not applied brakes (or deployed the chute) until I have "flown" the nose wheel down onto the runway. Perhaps a pair of rudder pedals would help with the other, to make it more natural (I think that might be the problem I have had); I have not got any.
:facepalm:Save for a few incidents in which I have been "daring", and usually got peppered with holes as a result, I spent all of October flying DCS with kid gloves so I would not mar my logbook, and the logbook turns out to be "editable"! I sort of thought it would have been stored in some anti-edit random access file to avoid that. I feel appropriately deflated, now. It reminds me of the legend of the Gordian Knot (history's Doh! lesson, in other words). Thanks! I will look into that next time, to see if I can recover that incomplete mission.
---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------
Just did a Fast Mission. I want to re-address a previous post about graphics. It seems that what causes the occasional, slight graphics update stutter is not the graphics card, but the number of other aircraft I include in the scenario, as I had maxed them all out on this mission. I think this is therefore more a case of the limited RAM on my system (4 GB) than the GPU, which on another mission, with all the graphics options cranked right up, dusk with storm, but not many other aircraft, was perfectly good.
It is still not bad, though. You have to look for it to actually notice. Strangely enough, I find that pushing up the MSAA setting seems to actually improve the stutter. As the system requirements for all the add-ons seems exceed my present RAM, I think this would be the area of my investment, rather than rudder pedals, at this stage, as I am after the A-10C or the standard Frogfoot, when I am done with the SU-25T. The conclusion; I believe the GTX-650 is not at fault and is perfectly capable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fabri91
Donator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,179
- Reaction score
- 233
- Points
- 78
- Location
- Valmorea
- Website
- www.fabri91.eu
I found that installing an SSD all but eliminated the loading stutters I experienced when I approached / switched my camera to new units.
Increasing your RAM amount is also a good idea, the minimum requirement was lifted to 6GB, so 4 might be fine for a sparsely populated mission, but not so much for a heavy one.
Increasing your RAM amount is also a good idea, the minimum requirement was lifted to 6GB, so 4 might be fine for a sparsely populated mission, but not so much for a heavy one.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 37,627
- Reaction score
- 2,345
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
I have 16 GB here, which wasn't that expensive at all relative to the rest of the notebook. Never really accurately measured the memory load, but I never saw more than 8 GB during in A-10C scenarios.
I have 16GB as well.
Still looking into upgrading my card. Christmas is just around the corner, so I'll have to wait until I have everyone else taken care of (daughter, GF) then, Merry Christmas to me.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 37,627
- Reaction score
- 2,345
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Just had a very boring flight... too many AI aircraft on my own side, all 48 hostile tanks destroyed when I arrived. :dry:
At least I managed to play a bit with the TAD and the TGP by looking at friendly units.
Tomorrow, I will buy some small cards for learning the different control modes depending on SOI, it is really a lot of stuff that you can control that way.
At least I managed to play a bit with the TAD and the TGP by looking at friendly units.
Tomorrow, I will buy some small cards for learning the different control modes depending on SOI, it is really a lot of stuff that you can control that way.
Last edited:
I've got a GTX 680 and 16gb of RAM, and the framerate drops quite a bit when low over urban areas with lots of vehicles. Keep meaning to test various graphics options to figure out how to fix it, but usually just want to play the game instead!
Similar threads
