Leaderboard

https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/544224332709232660/1023511557235294239 RAZBAM_Specter — Today at 11:29 Early morning Flights from the new airfields Santa Cruz and Comandante Luis Piedrabuena Airfields which will be in the next update

F-111 AARDVARK ENGINEERING DATA DUMP: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IeYaBiIWGPMOa-986jdP9WWyNT3SLd7y/view?usp=sharing The F-111 should be in this SIM becuase has had a very long service life and has seen many conflicts that would give us enjoyment for years to come. I have inclkuded flight manuals for the A,B & D models as well as NASA Flight Test Data. @Rick50

Dear ED, Before my summer holidays I have said that I have some ideas to make ED experience better for everyone but I had to evaluate them and will share them when ready. The major focus point of my critics was lack of LOD models in game assets both for some core mods and AI assets.I see that this is moving to the right direction and still expecting LOD models for the rest of the assets and also I’m looking forward to seeing the final LOD levels for Apache and Viper. Current provided LOD1 and LOD2 models reduce CPU load 75% per asset but textures are still inherited from the main model and they still occupy a large portion in video memory. I’m sure that final lod levels will cap it and bring it to the level of Tomcat, KA-50 or Hornet. Last month I was mostly focused on small additions or tweaks which will impact performance and visual fidelity with minimal impact. So any interventions which require remodeling, or recording were out of the question. Also I have waited enough so that I personally and as many of hoggit users can test one of the basic solutions that I’m going to suggest now to implement. Your team can implement any of them pretty easily without tinkering the main code requiring internal testing. Here we go. Easiest first. 1- Separate cockpit textures from object textures and provide same level of quality settings for them: Proposal: New setting in control panel: Object textures: High, Medium, Low Cockpit textures: High, Medium, Low Terrain textures: High, Low. By allowing us to keep cockpit textures separated we can keep it at higher levels together with terrain textures and reduce object textures which mostly covers external models. Those models do not require the same texel density as cockpit and terrain textures since they are rarely seen closer than 30m. This will allow fluent cpu frametimes and relax cpu memory controller tasks and allow especially VR users with 8GB gpu’s to enjoy the best visual quality in game. Cockpit textures are already separated in the game install; they are only under the mods folder. You do not need to manually tag them even. Please make this setting available for us. 2- Precaching function in graphics.lua: (actually this is easier than the other one but probably need internal discussion) Proposal: revise and ,if not necessary, remove. Precaching function given in graphics.lua (see below) apparently remains unchanged since the Lock-on game configuration files. Precaching = { around_camera = 50000; around_objects = 10000; around_types = {"world", "point"}; preload_types = {"map", "world", "mission"}; } Many people in reddit dcs related forums, followed my advice to set both parameters to 0. Which lowered their ram and even Vram usage drastically and provided more resources to be available in their system for multiplayer and VR. I personally removed the full statement from the lua file and it has the same effect as setting the parameters to 0. It has been like that in my system for at least 5 months now. Since this is a sitting sim and max speed in game is almost limited by reality and we have huge game assets but still enough bandwidth for on time delivery to render pipeline: can you reconsider this setting and remove it if it is not necessary. It happens to not break anything in game but looks like it is the problem. Thanks and, Kindest regards, The LOD’s guy PS: I'm going to post a lighter version with some more explanation in hoggit sub on reddit. You are welcome to read that too.

Also, DLSS 3. 0 Inserts fake frames (so that 100% FPS Increase is about 20%, and 80% Filler). Higher FPS, but also Higher Frame Latency. This has already been proven, both by nVidia Spec sheets and Driver breakdowns. Also, DLSS 3.0 does not work in VR. So for the crowd begging ED to include DLSS 3.0 for DCS VR Performance or even 2D Performance, this is 1 Reason why you should not jump on a bandwagon after the first shiny trailer is released.

For me, I absolutely see the appeal of having liveries that fit current and future assets in game, such that we can replicate historically accurate decks (personally, going forward I'm most interested in representing the upcoming Saratoga circa 1984 for some RSR action on the upcoming Kola map, which means VF-74 and VF-103). At the same time though, I absolutely support the idea of shipping aircraft with only a few liveries and then provide the rest in optional packs, allowing me to choose what liveries I install. As it stands there are a lot of liveries I either don't use and don't forsee myself using in the forseeable future, as well as liveries I change the name of to make the naming more consistent and less of a mess. The problem is, whenever I delete these liveries to free up some more space on my rapidly filling SSD, they get redownloaded again whenever the game updates (which is every month). I would much rather have something like an in-game livery manager so I can choose what liveries I want to install, or for modules to only ship with a few liveries and have the rest in optional packs. They could link to the livery packs on the store page, or even include them when you click on the little module icons on the DCS home screen.

I can also confirm I have been flying with the precache distances set to 0 without any issues and less memory usage for months.

Yes, there are many elements to the Flight Model such that generalizing the entire thing as better or worse is not helpful. Sorry. The subtle changes to SAS pedal authority, or collective authority are changes that are adaptable. It takes a little time to adapt to the new "normal", but you get used to it. The sudden change in the "neutral" position of the pedal took me by surprise in my first take off, but now that I know it is different, I have adapted. I do feel that the tail rotor seems to misbehave more often for me when trying to get into a stable manual hover. Once I'm settled, I feel like it rotates one way or the other, and when I apply some pedal to correct it, the response is delayed and then it starts drifting the other direction. Maybe I will get used to that as well in time. My biggest complaints after this patch are the two bugs that were introduced that are quite frustrating to me. 1) the tail failing to respond to input and then suddenly over-correcting like the snap over-steer in an a Porsche 911, and 2) the severe vertical oscillations introduced when enabling ALT Hold. My flying style was to get into a battle position by establishing a hover peeking over the tree-tops while my CPG goes to work. The helo used to be rock solid with ATT and ALT Hold modes enabled. If I needed to change direction or side-slip a bit to get a better position, I would disable ATT Hold, maneuver, then re-enable. Now I am spending an extra 30 seconds getting it back under control so I can reapply ATT Hold again. And since ALT Hold is unusable (at low altitude) at the moment, I'm constantly monitoring the collective as it has a tendency to all of a sudden decide to SAS itself into a steady descent that you may not be able to recover from. I think what makes these two bugs frustrating to me is because either the changes weren't fully tested by the internal team before releasing the patch, or there was no communication as to what to expect with the patch. If the team knew that ALT Hold is not working correctly in this release, maybe say something in the patch notes about how ALT Hold is currently broken because we are currently working on XYZ. But when it is not mentioned, it appears to everyone else as just a QC issue that could have easily been caught. Because of these two current bugs, if given a choice of flying the previous version vs. the version we have today, I would choose the previous version. I do appreciate the other bug fixes that were included in this release, and I have said so in other threads, but when it comes to actually flying (and hovering) the thing, I would consider this a regression for me.

With just what we know from available documentation, it's easily 40 percent. Flight Model issues I'm not going to count as there's no way to quantify that. Here's a document we put together a while back taking some of the missing functionality and explaining it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qOyE7L1CJ0R1x1kvUZQ4SlvxLsRVb-7RbW68ki1jgJc/edit?usp=drivesdk This isn't even close to all of the issues. Expect for the A/A section we didn't cover any of the bugs.

RAZBAM F-15E develop update.

Most mid-range and 3 Generation Old Cards will likely see performance increases. because there's 2 bottlenecks, caused by 1 piece of hardware that will be fixed with the Multi-Core and Vulkan combo. I've posted the same thing in dozens of threads, but there's is likely what you are experiencing, and what will change with those 2 major updates. Vulkan Removes the DX11 API CPU Overhead, the more objects in a scene, the more the DX11 API Gets bogged down waiting for a single CPU Thread to process all the draw calls. Symptoms: As object count grows, GPU Usage and FPS Drop, as a result of the GPU having to Wait for the CPU Thread to process all the draw and GPU commands in the DX11 API Before sending them to the GPU. DirectX technically runs 5 threads w/ DCS, 1 Thread is part of the DCS.exe, the other 4 are DX11 API and Driver Threads, but DX11 doesnt actually use all 5 threads at the same time, as many DX11 API Commands and functions are not able to be processed asynchronously, Sure MS Says DX11_1's command layer is multi-threaded, but the base functions of DirectX11_x are not able to be multi-threaded very well due to the core of DX11 and how it was designed. Result of Move to Vulkan: GPU instructions go directly to the GPU and are processed asynchronously by the GPU, allowing the GPU to stay fully utilized in complex scenes, resulting in higher and more stable utilization and frames per second, Vulkan itself allows for modular integration of Features as well (ie DLSS, FSR, The Long Dev Time: Writing a Graphics Engine from Scratch isnt easy, most developers license a prebuilt engine and integrate their content into it, the larger Developers spend up to 10 years developing engines behind the scenes. and releasing it to be licensed ie. Unreal, Unity etc. Multi-Core Having the DCS Sim Process on a Single thread, forces 1 thread to process everything, this leads to other items waiting for other processes to finish, the larger missions will exhibit the CPU thread having large overhead as AI Functions (Pathing, Solving for every moving object), Physics (Object Trajectories, Interactions), Flight Models, DirectX Command Layer, Weather/Environment, Track Recording, Sensors (Radars, RWRs, IFR, etc etc, of every unit, Aircraft, Ground, weapon). Network (Packets, Connection, Pings), UI Elements, User Input Commands etc. Symptoms: In Large missions with significant units, the DCS.exe Process can get bogged down with all the AI, Sensor, and Physics data alone, Moving to MP, you now have to do all that, and have to sync Player Units, and process incoming and outgoing network packets. Audio and Subtitles can be out of sync with the action, AI movements can be out of sync with the action, Tracks will playback with inputs and movements out of sync or completely fubar'd etc etc. Result of the Multi-Threading, Most of the items will be processed asynchronously, allowing everything to process quicker and more efficiently without having to wait for another to finish. The Long Dev Time: DCS had already started being re-written for Multiple Threads, the Sounds Processing was moved to it's own thread long ago, dividing a large simulation into multiple threads takes time and patience, as they must be divided, written and properly synced. I know everyone is tired of hearing patience, But they are both coming, as stated earlier, elements are in internal testing. There are no distractions/divergent projects, the teams working on the core are working on the core, Modules, Aircraft etc are all being worked on by separate teams.

My opening statement: As it currently stands the pitch control and stick force model employed in the DCS: Mosquito model needs review for FFB users, particularly those with Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2. They currently face an unhappy compromise; a) either they adopt a linear (1:1) control curves which renders their stick so sensitive to pitch input that it's nearly impossible to fly with any realistic precision for formation or gunnery, or, b) with even a moderate curve (say 20 to 25, which works nicely on, for example, the P-51) we are subjected to a "trim trap"; this is where we are obliged to trim artificially (i.e. beyond the aircraft operating manual values) so nose heavy to actually reach trimmed flight that it puts us unrealistically close to a virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force. This causes a sudden nose down tendency - tucking - with slight airspeed increases, which, given the very low level cruising and attack profiles often employed by real-life Mosquito crews, can be the cause of loss of controlled flight into terrain; the operator is either obliged to hastily add some nose up trim or apply large elevator control displacement to correct this tendency. If the virtual pilot has succeeded in avoided collecting the ground, sea, tree or structure that the Mossie had suddenly decided was to be their perfect burial plot, they now find themselves porpoising heavily, their airspeed having now dropped in the climb to below that virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force. So now they're trimmed too tail heavy and are fighting to keep the aircraft's nose down. Having generally ballooned during this process, they descend to their correct cruise altitude, pick up a bit of speed on the way down and... pass that virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force again, recommencing the entire ordeal. Trying to fly formation or engage ground targets under these flight characteristics is again, rendered unrealistically difficult. In either case, flying the Mosquito is not a lot of fun, and it makes me wary of using it, and therefore it seems like a waste of money in some regards. It then colours my keenness of purchasing further modules in the future in case a similar issue arises. Let me be clear; I am not criticizing Yo-yo's work on the flight model; there are characteristics and restrictions that affected the real aeroplane here that must be transmitted to the player; my argument is that FFB users - and in particular Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 users - are being artificially handicapped based on their gaming hardware due to a mismatch between physical and virtual ergonomics and a trim/stick force model that does not seem to account for the displaced datum inherent to FFB joystick operation. I would like to propose discussion with ED on how we could help them figure out a way adjusting the DCS: Mosquitos trim/stick force model that would not render the aircraft so uncharacteristically unpleasant to fly for FFB users, but still reflect authentic flight characteristics for all users. Question to Yo-yo; 1. Why as an FFB user is the inherent ability of an FFB stick to provide sufficient stick force to reflect those felt in the real aircraft not being leveraged? Why are FFB users subjected to the same artifice implemented to provide a spring tensioned joystick user with some controllability penalty when reaching the required threshold, when the FFB motors could be driven to provide the requisite force to restrict speed and amplitude of stick displacement? If you are an FFB user who has these issues please like or thank this post. If you are an FFB user who has NOT had these issues please provide further dialogue so that we might pin-down where and why some of us are having these issues. If you do not use FFB and are about to tell me to go buy a non-FFB product, please save your breath; there is a reason I hang on to a 20 year-old stick; having flown real aircraft I find the varying stick forces and increased AoA buffet that some aircraft give you a necessary part of my simming experience and you are not going to persuade me otherwise. If you are going to suggest I spend $1000+ dollars on a new FFB device, then again, save your breath. That is not an affordable option for me.

Since the latest update (OB 2.7.18.30348) Alt-Enter doesn't work anymore for switching between windowed and full screen mode. Also:

In the first video we can also see the updates of the datalink are updated twice as fast as DCS (at least the PDLT).

I can't wait for this one. I love the viper, and I love your work with Cerberus and Iranian Freedom. Got a ballpark ETA for us? And how's the Harrier one coming along? Looking forward to that one too

We never got told specifically what we needed, to be fair. But, I hope this is what we needed, legitimately. I'd love a Thud. Good work, OP.

1. It doesn't matter what "people" are commenting on, balance doesn't enter into DCS development if the end goal is to create realistic war fighting. Which is DCS's stated aim. That is up to the mission maker to determine if balance is important and, if so, how to make it. It'd be nice to see some updates done to the capabilities FC3 aircraft, but beyond the models and flight models, I doubt we will. These were made to model a specific time period of those aircraft. Further documentation may not be forthcoming on any expanded capabilities. 2. And guess what you still have to do in an FC3 level aircraft? You still need to model the avionics and radar to a high level of fidelity for DCS. That's the standard they have set forward. Just because it's more abstracted doesn't make a difference. The radar and avionics (given that avionics is quite a broad term when in regards to 4th gen fighters) still need to be modeled. Also, this is from ED's own statements. It doesn't matter what anyone else says. 3. So, you're going to put up a non-full fidelity module alongside full fidelity ones? Good luck, have fun. 4. There are, and again, developers have stated FC3 level modules don't require that much less work to do. These are not points I'm making from my own opinion, these are the facts of development that have been posted on these forums for a long time now.

But in all that time you haven’t managed to acquire a joystick? Your request simply points out how a keyboard just doesn’t work well for an axis control like this. Have you ever tried a joystick or gamepad?

All turbojets are like that. I saw some TS-11s at an airshow, and they were likewise ridiculously loud. Afterburners only make it worse. There were no noise regulations back then, certainly not for fighters.

Hello, It seems that the problem was that I was used to selecting PH ACT. I thought it would be better. The countdown works fine now that I don't select this option, and I learned why. Thank you all for your help.

You're underestimating the challenges involved. DCS being DCS, we should not just aim to slap CoD on as a module. The infantry side of things should be realistic. That is a full game in itself (see ARMA). More realistic is having some kind of ground troop control through Combined Arms, but that has some obvious limitations. I think this would still be worth it to have, but it would fall behind real infantry simulations by quite a margin.

AFAIK the NS430 2D popup shouldn't require an additional purchase to work in the EB. To enable the 3D NS430 cockpit instrument in the EB requires an additional purchase/module manager download https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/ns430_c-101eb/

11 F Tiger meet 2018 Skin Available here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3326073/

[Files deleted, improved version reposted below.]

Excellent piece of work. A real enhancement of the original. I hope you don't mind, but I edited your code for a QWERTY version with a couple of layout changes. Another good thing is that we don't need the original clear extension as you have it built in. We still have the weird behaviour with backspace going as mentioned earlier in this thread, but no biggie. QWERTY keypad.zip

great find, my dad was an EWO with the 41st TEWS which was part of the same wing.

Do you own the "2D/Pop up Window" NS430 module and have it installed ("DCS World/Mods/aircraft/NS430") ? https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/ns430/ It's the core NS430 module and contains it's logic, database, Options>Special>NS430 GUI and 3D model. You can check the 2D module is installed and working by calling up the 2D window (default keybind "LShift+LAlt+B"). This is a sample DCS folder structure with the base C-101, NS430 Logic (and 2D Panel) and both 3D NS430 CC/EB cockpit modules installed for the C-101. Check the above against your own install - 1. C-101 2. NS430 3. NS430_C-101CC (or NS430_C-101EB) ... are the minimum required to get the NS430 to appear on the CC (or EB) instrument panel.

Couldn't agree more, a combat simulator should include more than just air elements. But drac is right, you can already do this quite easily if you have Combined Arms. I made a couple videos to show off both modern, and WWII ground units in DCS CA. In case your interested and haven't seen them yet, I linked them below. There was no fancy mission editor stuff needed to make either video. Everything you see is just the Ai reacting. All I did was have a bunch of blue units drive toward a bunch of red units holding a point using simple way points. But the thing is, I could have taken control of any one of the ground/air units in the battle using Combined Arms, or I could have configured CA to allow other players to join me and take control of the various units as well. The intention of the videos was to show how advanced the ground environment already is using CA. I have also made other videos that show off the user interface of player controlled vehicles, and it wouldn't take too much to push the combined arms experience in DCS well beyond something like WT.

Damn, nice work guys.

This should be disabled, as per ED. Means it should not double.

Pointless thread is pointless?

Нажимай не на сам тумблер, а на текстовые обозначения положений.

That means that 40% of the functionality isn't there. Would you care enumerating those 40%? Having never flown a real Hornet, I can't really tell, but I am curious, since it appears you have insight.

Two airsow in two days. I haven't done anything similar since 2015. Lovere, a town on the northern tip of Lake Iseo, between the provinces of Bergamo and Brescia in Italy, hosts every year the Mario Stoppani Memorial Airshow. Mario Stoppani was a fighter Ace with 6 victories obtained in WW1 and seaplane test pilot and recordman who was born in this town in 1895. Several seaplanes were moored in front of the town since morning. Being part of the official photographers team, I could hitch a ride on a zodiac to take some "lake-side" photos. RC model of a CRDA CANT Z.501, patrol and SAR seaplane which performed its first flight in 1934, with Stoppani flying it. During the morning it was possible to fly as a passenger on a seaplane. Seamax amphibian ultralight with shark livery Skyleader 600 fly-by The airshow was opened by a Flight Design CT from a nearby flying school Due to limited room for maneuvering, the Frecce Tricolori were limited to a fly-by after opening the Grand Prix of Italy in Monza Autogyro pair, a closed-cockpit Magni M24 Orion and a Magni M16 CAP 10 from a nearby flying school Bell 206 Ultralight floatplanes fly-bys Aerobatic champion Andrea Pesenato flying a CAP 231 Aviation 46's wingwalking demo Maurizio Costa closed the show with his Pitts Special End of the show, time to go home...

Well, put into perspective the hornet is like 90%-95% complete even in this EA state and that is already more complex that some full games out there. I don't doubt ED will always provide support the hornet and will finish what is left. So nothing to be worried about and no reason to stop supporting them in the future at least IMHO. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Size of the team doesn't matter, why would they keep 150 people (for example) working on 1 system when they can do it with 5 people. The problem lies in the documentation availability, if they are not done with something, usually it means they are having trouble getting valid documents so they can give us the best representation they can. Sometimes those documents cost money, cause they are held by some museum or government agency, declassified but not free for everyone. So I'd rather wait for something then get some fictional or even arcade representation, and I will support the projects they do cause I think they are doing a good job.

G.91R by by IndiaFoxtEcho.

just thought i'd have a look at voice chat thinking 'surely ED have sorted it out by now'. Oh dear, as a long time SRS user, it's just un-workable(as well as being immersion breaking and unrealistic) to suggest separate bindings for PTT for as many radios you want to talk on, what sort of hardware do you think users have got? Well, after that game breaker, i gave up, disabled it and will continue to use the solution that 'just works'.

Same. In general, I find that modules have way too many liveries in the vanilla game, that users are forced to install, even if they don't own the module and are never in missions with it. IMO, livery packs for modules should be optional downloads, like maps.

DCS: Tornado Introduction DCS: Tornado is the epitome of the multirole aircraft jointly developed by Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. This two-seater, twin-engine, swing-wing multirole fighter was built in three variants, one of which is the Interdiction/Strike (IDS) variant. Powered by 2 RB-199 MK103 engines, the IDS was developed to meet the then NATO doctrine of low-level attacks against enemy airfields and fixed-positions, in any weather, and at any time of day. AviaStorm's goal is to develop the best simulation of a 1989 German IDS Tornado for DCS. Their team has decades of experience in the simulation & gaming industry, and it boasts secured access to many resources (engineers, pilots, WSO, technicians and museums) that will provide them the necessary information.

Yeah saw that too. I uploaded everything. All wind tunnel testing too. I do not know if they would employ the Nuke Console because idk in the game engine could handle the math of a Nuke going off.

It’s not only the gpu you have to upgrade it’s the psu with the atx 3.0 thingy. I’ll be ready to upgrade when the Rtx 6000-7000 series and intel 17 gen hopefully DCS 3.0 will running on Vulcan. I’m not jumping on the new hardware train every year.

Не знаю, почему все стали использовать MSFS как некий эталон. Как по мне это кошмар.

OK, after deleting the AH-64D folders for the input configuration, they are working again. Something strange in the config was changed. And now I have to assign all buttons for 3 Virpil Panels, the throttle and the stick again. How lucky it is Sunday... EDIT: I have deleted those folders: C:\Users\[...]\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\Input\AH-64D_BLK_II_AI_Menu C:\Users\[...]\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\Input\AH-64D_BLK_II_CPG C:\Users\[...]\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\Input\AH-64D_BLK_II_PLT

version 16.6.1 published in first post, it should work with OpenXR.

So?

Of course it will! I have decided to make a folded version of it seperated in the Static Objects / Structures Tab to have the ability to put the folded and unfolded Sea King on the Carrier deck or on the Airfield. null I actually plan to make the Sikorsky SH-3G, and a Westland Sea King version, maybe the HC4 as well...

Since we are gettin a German bird, it'd be a MW-1 if we get anything of the sort, but MW-1 seems to fit the date.

Definitely a M5.1 tape thing, M4.2+ not so sure. EPAF had STRF on the MSL STEP rotary starting M1 but I don't think that was ever a USAF thing. Exact info would be welcome as this functionality appears to be changing during these years.

Ciao Fabio, grazie mille, facciamo del nostro meglio! E come ha già detto Snake se hai piacere passa pure a trovarci e magari, chissà, troverai lo slot giusto per te e il tuo Apache.

It works as always. Use it all the time. You have most likely got the installation structure wrong. Keep in mind: This goes (Via OVGME preferably) into the MAIN install, not the SavedGames folder.