All Activity

D3W_Foothold_SiriaExtendido_v47.162-20250727-181918.trk

That's all this is: just an error in the briefing / kneeboard diagram.

BTW, Your whole hoopla about the two access panels being required is exactly why FW-190A8 production was delayed. They installed those access panels before pushing the type to the Luftwaffe. That is why deliveries took so long from production in the first FW-190A8's.

100% correct.

Hi, We've been having these crashes recently on Kola, random, reported by multiple clients in multiplayer. We're still uncertain if it's caused by the Kola map or DCS core itself. Can you please investigate? Thank you. 2025-07-27 18:19:17.284 INFO EDCORE (16768): # -------------- 20250727-181917 -------------- 2025-07-27 18:19:17.284 INFO EDCORE (16768): DCS/2.9.18.12722 (x86_64; MT; Windows NT 10.0.26100) 2025-07-27 18:19:17.285 INFO EDCORE (16768): D:\DCS World\bin-mt\edCore.dll 2025-07-27 18:19:17.285 INFO EDCORE (16768): # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at 00007ffc8fb44cdb 00:00000000 2025-07-27 18:19:17.286 INFO EDCORE (16768): SymInit: Symbol-SearchPath: 'D:\DCS World\bin-mt;', symOptions: 532, UserName: 'kevin' 2025-07-27 18:19:17.286 INFO EDCORE (16768): OS-Version: 10.0.26100 () 0x300-0x1 2025-07-27 18:19:17.286 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x0000000000024cdb (edCore): b2DynamicTree::RemoveLeaf + 0xBB 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x0000000000024656 (edCore): b2DynamicTree::MoveProxy + 0xB6 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000003e6b4 (Effects): Effects::loadShipWakeConfig + 0x2304 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000003efae (Effects): Effects::loadShipWakeConfig + 0x2BFE 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000016a281 (Visualizer): smSceneManager::DestroySceneManager + 0x11261 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x0000000000170f4b (Visualizer): smSceneManager::regLua + 0x61BB 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000015595c (Visualizer): smCamera_Implement::getClipRegion + 0x1C3BC 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000013f74c (Visualizer): smCamera_Implement::getClipRegion + 0x61AC 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000015a242 (Visualizer): smSceneManager::DestroySceneManager + 0x1222 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x0000000000033171 (edCore): ed::thread::_get_current_thread_id + 0x71 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x00000000000037b0 (ucrtbase): wcsrchr + 0x150 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000002e8d7 (KERNEL32): BaseThreadInitThunk + 0x17 dcs.log-20250727-181917.zip dcs.log

Them having "cojones" or not is not the topic here. Reality is that there is no balance in real world. So F-35 or EF2000 or any modern jet can fit in any scenario.

At first, thank you @Dangerzone for this thread! Many good points one can start with to discuss. To cut a long story short, there are seven points that have personally helped me reduce stuttering: 1. Enable hardware acceleration in W11 and in the BIOS REBAR. 2. Disable all unnecessary programs running in the background. 3. Have at least 64 GB of system RAM installed. 4. Install DCS and the disk cache on the fastest SSD drive. 5. Set the latency to Ultra and vertical synchronization to off in nVidia CPL. 6. Use a CPU with the lowest possible latency (definitely not INTEL). 7. The most important point is to adjust DCS to the minimum FPS the graphics card can deliver so it always achieved and ensures smooth gameplay. Regarding the RAM optimization shown in the video presented in the thread: I believe that it may be helpful for people who have less than 64 GB of RAM and only slow hard drives. What you see in the video is not a bug in DCS World or Win11, it's the opposite. You can see how Win11 makes optimal use of RAM, because RAM is always faster than a hard drive. Why wouldn't you want to use your RAM as much and high as you can? My own tests show that Win11 does everything right, and when files are no longer needed and others need to move up, the area that is no longer needed is immediately cleared. As I write this, I am on the Germany map. I pushed up to 55 GB RAM (the highest reading I could get) by pressing F11 and after that I stayed at one place. And now only 32 GB are occupied. This is how it should be. You don't have to use any extra tools, if your settings are optimized for your Hardware ( VR differs here a bit ;))! Many “problems” are simply based on believing what is specified as the minimum requirements for DCS World is enough to play the game with all the great graphics. This makes DCS World playable, but far from optimal. For me, the biggest FPS hogs are, in order of importance, the following, if FPS fluctuates: 1. Terrain shadows = Flat (biggest impact) 2. Clutter = 0 (big impact) 2. Trees = 0.5 (big impact) 3. Water = Low (medium impact) This is what I was able to test for myself. First optimize the hardware, then optimize DCS World for the hardware! There are no magic settings that can turn poor/unoptimized hardware and software into a miracle cure!

Maybe a typo in the briefing coordinates? Will give it a spin during the week and see what is going on

: ( yeah... The Harrier was the next in line for me, just before this stuff started. I'd guess there would be a hit on trust once again if older modules started being sunset instead of leaving anything towards the 'replacement' purchase. I'm not too pessimistic about this possibility... but again, "anything is subject to change".

Has nothing to do with TU engines or the fact a hybrid motor was built. It simply states if an FW-190A8 gets a BMW801S engine, it becomes an FW-190A9. The production line making engines is completely seperate and not linked to any airframe. It just says once they start making engines, if one goes on an FW190A8 then that airplane is going to be called an FW-190A9. It does not say a damn thing about who installs the engine. That eliminates the R4 designation. http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/variants.htm

Who is it to say they would be interested in taking it on anyway?

Not the AI, but rather the full module of the A-6. Dumping a totally new module onto a third party is asking for trouble since those teams have their resources and workload allocated for their own projects. Plus, what if they got the MiG-19? Something that lacked the hype that the Mudhen got? You're basically being asked to become the custodian of it, but without the benefit of potential returns.

I really hope no one makes that happen, and no one outside HB should have any authority to make that happen. This is fairy tale, imo. Messing with Heatblur's project schedule/flow to introduce a foreign body into their workflow should be forbidden. HB are currently the biggest beam of hope on 3rd party around and things get reaaally slow when projects are too much for teams to handle. The SE is nice, but I'd rather leave the people in charge of maintaining the F-4E and the Tomcat alone.

Problem of RL conflicts is that those nations that you have mentioned don't have "cojones" to attack anyone that can match them in air combat, so yeah F-35 vs "flying trash cans" is historically correct. This does not mean, however, that it's ok to have the same situation in a sim. Also stealth aircraft are not so stealthy to long wave radio emissions, and I am not sure that DCS takes this into account.

That sounds like a reasonable long-term option on paper ... but let’s be honest: with ED and other devs already stretched thin on current projects, creating entirely new versions of all four modules would likely take years. Especially if they aim for high quality and feature parity. So while it might be a solution eventually, it doesn’t help those left in limbo right now. People paid for working products. And will some people be able to trust ED to provide them with substitutes... which I cannot believe.

Strawman. We're here 'cause you're claiming an A-8 with a TS motor was initially designated R4, which so far you've failed to prove.

hi guys , With the precious help of HAGEN and holydays starting , the pit is on good tracks ! here are some pics !

I'm sort of in the same boat as an owner of the Strike Eagle and the Harrier. I'm kind of OK regarding the Harrier as I've had it since launch so have had about 7 years use out of it. I'd kind of like to see credit or similar for the Strike Eagle though as it hit the buffers so early in its lifespan.

Ah, maybe not. I will check. Thank you for the reply

And how is an FW-190A8 going to get a TS engine and become an FW-190A9???

Apologies, must have missed this one.. I understand your frustration @Vasco Ferreira but please keep in mind that I am working in an environment where rules are being changed during the game. When I was building the campaign many things worked as intended, but then changes / updates to the F-18 as well as bugs introduced with different updates caused a vicious circle of bug hunting in missions that used to work well that now takes well over 50% of my DCS time. Having said that, RO:DF was a super ambitious project I am afraid DCS was - and still is not - ready for. And after that I promised to myself to keep future campaigns much more simple. In any case, apologies for all the frustration and disappointment caused. @Jakes what is your take on this? We tested it so many times, is there a different coordinates system that could be used or did we just miss this bug?

Right - but this is pin point accurate after turning them off immediately after launch from more than 30nm without much time to evaluate and refine the target and reduce the CEP I just downgraded to the previous patch (DCS 2.9.17.12034) and they all missed, both in HAS, POS/EOM etc. which is very different to the current patch

I meant it more about the Mirage, Harrier and MiG-19 than the F-15E. Yeah, I'm still able to refund the 15E at any time but the Mirage 2000 is something I've always wanted in a sim. Specifically this very variant and it bothers me that I'll have to purchase it again at some time. It bothers me as well that I made a friend get the 15E and he got it from Steam and there is currently zero chance he can get a refund. Not that he's asking one or bothered, but personally I feel gutted.

Sure! Also, I've just updated the mission and completely removed the second option to attack alone. So there is only one course of action now (as of next patch), which should make things much more clear (and realistic, because: why would you not use a wingman against two AAAs?). So thanks for that feedback!

This is not a bug. I have to set up player and wingman as different groups because then I have much more control over the AI. And since the stock wingman in DCS is stupid as a brick plus cannot follow any advanced orders, I stopped using him a long long time ago. So unfortunately you'll have to live with a wingman being a blue icon instead of green in the campaign...at least he doesn't crash into every second mountain and doesn't repeat "two, unable" and "two, RTB" after every order you give him