All Activity

As I understand it, a multicore CPU has a main core. Heavy programs seek to use it, because it is faster than the rest. On my system, I found that during problematic performance periods, my Core#4 was maxed out: 100% usage. There was a clear correlation between high stress on that core and flying experience. It was easy to see that piserver.exe was going kinda rogue at times, AND using that same core. I mentioned the symptoms in an earlier thread before I knew what caused it with: "Sometimes DCS wakes up on the wrong foot/side of its bed." (or smth. like that) It was not problematic on every "session" but so often, I was hesitant to even start DCS. Now it is stable, and beautiful, and best of all: It stays that way.

Для тех кто "на бронепоезде" повторяю, это в своём гараже можете лепить, что угодно, а ВВСТ делается ИСКЛЮЧИТЕЛЬНО по ОСТам, ГОСТам и прочей нормативной документации...И уж точно не стоит умничать тому, кто пару страниц текста не может осилить и понять написанное...

Я помню в ГС2 ещё с 5км на зенитку кидал. Иначе она меня сбивала. Дооолго я эту миссию проходил.

Смею предположить, что рост рекомендованных скоростей скорее всего связан с ростом типовых посадочных весов относительно тех, что были при испытаниях. Ибо испытатели не идиоты, чтобы опасную жуть рекомендовать на бумаге.

From the original patch notes: 3D models enhancements in progress: Dynamic reflections on the canopy.

yeah it would be cool if they flip flopped the AI sounds to the player aircraft. when those AI birds fly over they sound 10x better than mine.

Nope... I'm kinda slow sometimes.. And I am sure your advice is well appreciated by those who do need it, seriously But, 20% usage by the Pi service is a lot I think. But since my experience in computer programming is from programming The Vic 20 from Commodore in Basic, in the early 80's, I don't know much about how different programs use different CPU cores. For example, will the Piservice app always use the same core unless you use Lasso, or is different from system to system (even if they would have the same CPU I mean), or can it be different on the same system from time to time? I know this is way outside what we are discussing here, but.. For example, NOW I don't have problems - maybe that is because on my system Piserver is not on the same core(s) as DCS? And could I experience booting up my system one day and suddenly Piserver has moved over to the same core as DCS and impact performance? I have tried so many "Voodoo, Karate, Judo and Ninja" tricks on my PCs over the years to get them to run flight simulators better... And many have just been placebo when really looking in to it. Your advice is obviously NOT placebo since it's easy to see that they were on the same core and things improved when spreading them. I think I can remember, after the Falcon 4 launch in 1998, I also became semi-religious for a while, saying prayers hoping Falcon4 wouldn't crash... That was a nasty one...

Thanks, Daca - you were right. I had three beacons set in the DTC but I didn't realise I had to select both the desired airfield and its corresponding beacon on the NAV panel - I figured that selecting an airfield would automatically receive PRMG guidance.

I've got a Marshall! (Sry for the motion blur. It is dark here in my "Cockpit")

dcs.log-20250929-195956.zip

That's fine, while if you read the OP's second sentence it's very much invited. No need to respond, while when you come with false information, you're gonna get called out for it. Enemy Engaged definitely had a dynamic campaign, and was one of the selling points, and even inspired by The Holy Grail. You probably don't know because you never played it. Cheers!

Let me just say this: I understand that some people haven't bothered to even look at the old development reports for the dynamic campaign, where ED clearly stated that it would address real-time military operations, including logistics and other aspects. And in their "old" job postings, they were looking for engineers (not programmers) to create a realistic dynamic campaign system... Let's remember that ED has talked about military formations, tactics, strategy, production, and supply. And at one point (I think it was Wags), they mentioned that they were basing their work on the tactics and strategies of real military organizations (I don't know to what extent they actually implemented this). We should also remember that they had military contracts since the time of the Ka-50, and "perhaps" they could have reached that level of expertise. Now, and this is something I'm very clear about: a Campaign 2.0 has absolutely nothing to do with tactics, just as creating a land or naval environment would have absolutely nothing to do with it. The "scale" some people want is orders of magnitude beyond what BMS achieved... because simulating the scale of a full-scale war would dwarf anything that can be simulated on a PC. You just have to read a little about tactics, strategy, and logistics to realize the sheer "magnitude" of what is being requested... And that's why I'm so critical of the "competition." Back then, the land and naval environment in BMS was a complete joke (I criticized it very harshly). I didn't spend years reading TRADOC publications, old FM manuals for the opposing forces, and modern naval tactics (from both sides) just to laugh at how much of what they tried to simulate were just simple abstractions. And let's not even talk about simulating a naval environment... there are some wargames that simulate many aspects of that, but no simulator has ever managed to achieve it (although some wargames have come close to that level of complexity).

Here: https://www.heatblur.se/Viggen_Paintkit_Revised.rar Regarding the wings, there is an instruction file included (it is in my older download anyway) Instructions - Master Paintkit - AJS37 Viggen.docx

I think for "basic functionality" it's better to have robust systems built directly into the game.

Yes, there’s H, H and H, but also H and I almost forgot about H! Jokes aside, you can probably filter out helo bases for fixed wing modules, and I would really appreciate easier sorting through that list

Not only does this aspect have a long way to go, I'm not really seeing it getting much better, even compared to the old days. Finishing a campaign mission still boots you back to the main menu (as opposed to loading up the next one, as is the industry standard), the briefing UI is clunky at best and neither especially powerful nor immersive, there's no way to include custom post-mission debriefing text, nor a way to make any customizations to the campaign completion screen (or even replace the music). Here's a few suggestions that would help: 1. Better briefings. A "slideshow" with large format graphics and rich text below the graphic. For DC, it could use a few (handmade) slides with spaces for DC engine to insert things like target names and callsigns. 2. Custom debriefing in similar vein, with the ability to hide or show slides according to mission logic. 3. Ability to play a video clip before and/or after a mission. 4. Custom campaign intro and outro, in the same vein. Since this would be a large UI overhaul and probably include significant dev effort, you could start by opening the campaign completion screen up for people to insert something other than the generic congratulations (which sound especially silly when the campaign was purely a training one). Good, immersive UI is a big part of the game aspect. I'm not asking you to hire Mark Hamill to do a Wing Commander 3 level of immersive environment between missions (that said, old space games could be great for inspiration), but it could be a lot better than it is now.

I don't really want a Flanker. I mean, yes, I do, but not right now. I want something that is appropriate to fight my Phantom II or my Mirage F1 in the 1970s or early 80s (obviously they can fight each other). There is the MiG-21, but that is so out of date, I almost don't consider it viable anymore. The MiG-19 is never going to be updated and will probably break. Was looking forward to a MiG-23, but we know what happened with that. Maybe someday we will have a MiG-17.

Same issue here. Both WHOT and BHOT modes are blurry. It occurs since the last DCS update.

We can debate this for hours. With this reply, I’m done posting in this thread because our extended discussion here is not fair to the person who created this thread. There are a lot of titles out there that claim they have a “Dynamic Campaign”. IL 2 is the only one that probably comes close to having a DC. There is only one flight sim title out there today with a true DC. I’m hoping DCS becomes the next one

I think WWII bomber formations need to be improved. Not only do we need agression levels but I also think we need an easier was to build the formations too

При отсутствии в зоне видимости перехода или перекрестка разрешается переходить дорогу под прямым углом к краю проезжей части на участках без разделительной полосы и ограждений там, где она хорошо просматривается в обе стороны.

Yes!! No relation to Jim Marshall though. A few Fenders and a Lazy J20 Amp....absolute perfection

The documentation for net.dostring_in() in %DCS_INSTALL_DIR%/API/Sim_ControlAPI.html was updated with 2.9.18.12722. Now, it calls net.dostring_in() obsolete: This is blatantly wrong. Any advanced scripting is dependent on net.dostring_in(). a_do_script() is no substitute whatsoever. Three examples: Olympus, DCSServerBot, and Lua Consoles require net.dostring_in(). The latter two actually exemplify how both functions are used together. I sincerely hope that this is just a documentation error and not a symptom of a lack of understanding of DCS' scripting engine by the developers. Removing this function would break many applications of Lua scripting that go beyond simple mission scripting. To avoid any misunderstanding, please fix the documentation.

Maybe something to consider for an upcoming development report: From very early info about the DC (I think from Wags in a podcast, back when it was still in its early dev phase) it sounded like the DC and its logic would be a proprietary, monolithic system rather than a modular collection of parts. From more recent info though, it seems you’ve shifted toward a more modular approach. Improvements to logic and AI are being treated as core features, and the framework might even apply to user campaigns or missions of any size. Maybe I’m being optimistic, but I believe that’s the only really reasonable option. I’d appreciate if a future development report could clarify how the DC will play out in this regard.

nullApparently this table is not as comprehensive as I thought. Hopefully of use to some.