Leaderboard

Update to the ship pack getting closer so is the civilian vehicle pack And the updated AIrport Service vehicles too..

Hi all Thank you for your patience here, we do have some changes coming in a future update for this. Things did get confusing as we had different people with different sources which were conflicting and reporting parts as broken when they were correct. On the other hand, there were also some valid errors. It’s a good example of why one issue per report is always better. The change will be as follows: You will still need to hold TMS forward to slave the FCR to the HMD LOS (ellipse visible) and release to start acquisition. What was incorrect is that the FCR should have been following the HMD when TMS was held forward, and once released, the FCR should have stayed in acquisition, even if no target was locked. thank you

Yall catch a lot of flack (very passionate player base) so I figured I would share my mind. There is nothing like this game out there. The visuals with 2.8 are a decent improvement, the BFM AI is extremely fun... I know 2.8 hurt some performance (myself a VR player), but I do know that rewriting an engine is no joke. So keep it up, I get to spend countless hours getting smoked by my old man (former adversary pilot) and many other things. 20 years ago I could never imagined I would be strapping into a F18. Keep working the core of the game and the future will be bright! Keep the glass side up

Current OB, the MIDS filter for the FCR removes raw hits when set to NONE or TGTS. FCR Filter.trk

I too, question their priorities sometimes. I suppose they have their reasons. Personally, I would take clear skies all day long everyday, if it meant the AI had half a brain in general flight, in game HUD’s weren’t blinding at night( using exported mfd’s), better graphical support for widescreen monitors( looking at you fat, fuzzy HUD’s), ground targets in TGP weren’t totally camouflaged up close, but clearly visible 20NM out, stupid ground clutter popping in 200’ in front of the aircraft( either do away with it or make it fade in at longer distance).. etc etc.. Their priorities are theirs nonetheless Hoping that Vulkan support will alleviate some of the complexities for the devs once implemented, and allow some of these things to handled in a more efficient way.

Hey everyone we just received word that the 10-minute delay issue on the dedicated servers should be resolved with the next open beta update of DCS!

This is the DCS forum, it is not a legal document or a patent document, there is no need to use caps like this. The rule is there and you are aware so please bare it in mind for the future. thanks

Another thing, Maxsin, you need to realize that BFM performance will not noticeably change. I am getting the impression that some folks want it to be back to what it was immediately after release, where it overperformed, and that has been fixed since 3 years or longer even. Being within 3% is insanely accurate for an FM, and if we bring it down to maybe 1-2%, that is almost unheard of. But the margin will be so small, that it will not change anything, really. It simply is what it is. That is something that needs to be accepted. Whether the F18 overperforms or not in DCS, I do not know, some think it does, but none of them ever flew one, and those who did won't tell you. It could be, but it also could not be. The F18 is simply good in BFM, and that, too, needs to be taken into account. That said, it is always the pilot who wins over another pilot in BFM, never the aircraft, unless both pilots are of the same skill, which is rare, and even then, one will make a mistake sooner than the other. Hence skills are always best tested in the exact same aircraft. The higher your skill, the "lesser" aircraft you can "wield" against a higher performing aircraft. But imho all these BFM tournaments are a little bit nonsensical, because they are not in categories. And the categories should be always several of the same aircraft type, so F18 vs F18, F16 vs F16, F14 Vs F14... you get the idea + a mixed category, where it is a free for all. In that category, there should be no restrictions, and everyone should be allowed to set up as he wants, fuel, pylons, no pylons, flaps, no flaps, whatever, that is the idea of a free for all. Think you can win within 30 seconds (as you should)? Bring 20% fuel. Miscalculate and you are done. And so on and so forth. But that is how I would do it, and as mentioned, we don't mix in how others do their events. Or, you know, you can always bring an A-10 and murder everyone hahaha.

Мне кажется уже в пору реализовать в ДКС внутренний инструмент или опцию по выбору папок для переноса файлов с диска на диск. А то ведь реально проблема становится все более актуальной.

Unfortunately, @MAESTR0has said that they are too busy with Normandy 2 to deal with testing Syria’s kneeboard fix. After all this time? Really unacceptable.

Well that's stupid, and it's probably where attention should be focused.

I would have to disagree on this news letter based on my group opinions and talks we have had whilst flying on Discord and in game this week, I was and we all were all really excited for 2.8 and its moving clouds, but I would say 80% thought the patch was pretty lack luster after it broke so much and frame rates dropped for 70% of the VR users, it wasn't overwhelmingly positive at all once you got a few days into it and discovered all the introduced bugs, it certainly took the shine of it which is a shame for such a pumped up update. What we liked PG lighting which is awesome but our group thought it was a strange map to use for this and thought it should have been the Caucus, we know it will be introduced across other maps but the time line on that, well its ED it could take years. F10 map updates What we didn't like FPS hit, as I said 70% of our pilots have said in VR and none VR they have taken a big FPS hit online and some offline, I'm talking up to 25% reduction in FPS compared to 2.7. Module bugs- so many, its too many to list but lots reported here when I have looked CTDs (some are fixed with the patch) Then we get a small patch that fixed quite a few nasty CTDs which was great and few module items but also ignored some pretty major ones like the KA-50 cockpit language issues with mixed Russian/English cockpits and autopilot issue (all reported) this is on a module that never had any major issues. If your beta testers didn't pick this stuff up and report it, id dare say you need some new ones in your testing groups, we picked the KA-50 issue within 5 mins of flying it. I cant recall a time when our servers have been empty on weekends but so far Friday night (our servers big night) we have seen literally zero participation in our online missions, is this due to 2.8 bugs or a slow loss of interest in DCS as its performance declines slowly, I have no idea, but its the first time for a while I have looked at playing some different games for a long time as none of my Discord mate are around flying since 2.8 come out This is also the first time I have set up a duel install of DCS so I can go back and play the last 2.7 build offline for my SP missions with out the 2.8 bugs. Sorry this isn't a positive post, DCS is such a great game and I love playing it as you know, but for me its slowly dying due to a lack of focus on things need and not needed. AI updates - across the board mainly ground units that are boring to fight against. Lack of focus on what your programmers are implementing for future updates i.e. internal 3D modeling of systems on the KA-50 V3 sitting behind panels I wont see from inside the cockpit and don't really care too much for because I cant see them and wont use them, or animated Apache pilots getting in and out of the bird, there is much more these guys could focus on that is way more important than this stuff. Performance promises in updates that don't eventuate when the updates are rolled out. This stuff is killing DCS for long term players like my self, who are actively engaged in DCS and have been for a long time and try to be the best DCS ambassadors we can for the brand on our servers. Cheers

as the title says... The ratio between them is insane and not based in reality. Plus without a 'sea state' slider, the only way to get rough seas is to increase the 33ft winds but then the 1600ft winds turn even an F14 into a virtual helo! EDIT: Despite this being asked for, for years now, all it took was 15 minutes to find, understand and then comment out 15 lines of lua in one file (and added 7). It's not possible to add in the wind direction tool for the 1600ft winds because the back end doesn't allow the handle to the function. But it's usable as it is. Plus you get a nice windshear now too! The winds are now decoupled. See example (for openBeta) UPDATE: There is a missing ‘hook’ to force the weather DLL to stick to the set 1600ft wind speed, as it just wants to scale up or down in its own way. I spent 4 hrs today trying to get around that and enable the wind direction arrow wheel for the 1600ft winds but without that hook in the weather DLL I couldn’t do it. The lines I removed force the 1600ft wind to be scaled from the ground and vice versa. I doubt there is anything in the weather DLL that’s duplicating that. It must be a side effect of how weather DLL deals with wind gradients with altitude, plus the lack of forcing a non-scaled gradient via 1600ft wind setting being below the gradient means, this isn’t a complete solution. Sorry, it’s the best I can do. I just wanted to show ED that it’s trivial to decouple these. And with access to weather DLL to add the missing hook and fix the scaling it’s probably 30-60 mins in total to fix this. me_weather.lua

Hey all Quest 2 users, I am sure this has been talked about, but I missed it, so someone else may have. I was messing about with the Oculus Debug Tool "FOV-Tangent Multiplier", which is used to independently adjust the horizontal and vertical rendered area of the headset. I was surprised to find that I was able to set this to 0.8;0.7 and not cut off any viewable area in my FOV. This reduced the rendered area by 80% in the horizontal x 70% in the vertical, for a total reduction of 58% (I think) without any apparent tradeoff. With this one setting I was able to increase my framerate about 20FPS, from 38 to 58, on a i7@4.4gHz running a 1080ti. I am now able to turn on MSAA again without having to turn down any other graphic settings. I can also stay above the critical 36 FPS for a headset refresh rate setting of 72MHZ to have smooth ASW. MilesD

For Nov OB update: Fixed: integrated configuration panel GUI not open if there’s wind Fixed: Cockpit capture keyboard input when integrated config panel GUI is opened Fixed: LS6-100/250 accuracy issue Fixed: unguided rocket engine not ignition bug Fixed: SPI switched to WPT when WMD7 point track downgraded to area track Added: campaign mission 11 and 12. Now campaign is completed

F-4J PLEASE, PLEASE ,PLEASE. My favourite ever aircraft of all time. F-4J can be made into a British F4. I will piss myself if DCS ever got this aircraft as a high fidelity module. Mizzy

Since ED Going with Vulkan, You'll Likely see FSR3.0, as AMD Provides it license free and like FSR2.0, it'll be a module easily added to a Vulkan Rendering Pipeline, as well as work on AMD, nVidia and Intel GPUs. There's already other videos for DLSS3.0, inserting fake frames doesnt do anything but increase the FPS counter, cause input lag, and artifacts. and with regards to DCS, the FPS Drops aren't caused by resolution limits, they are caused by CPU Overhead on DX11, and Serial Threaded Core, lowing resolution and upsampling isnt going to fix those problems and when you drop 20 fr/ps, inserting AI Adjusted frames to fill the spot of 20 Frames isnt going to fix the problem either. Coming from someone that does programming, and graphics, DLSS is not the answer to DCS's Frame Rate situation. The Answer is MT + Vulkan, Removing both CPU Bottlenecks that have a large effect on GPU Utilization and FPS. Jay plays DCS.

ffs, calm down. Has it never dawned on you that feedback in forums is primarily given by people that are unhappy/ have problems. People without issues don't tend to spam the forum with "well done" messages. So I'd be careful with projecting my own perception and backing it up by "a glance at the forum".

Sorry ED but I agree with OP 100% 2.8 is a "S***S***" and a glance at the forum posts is far from being well received (positive). Most have had massive performance hits, CTDs, breaking of DCS Published ADD ONS (VAICOM) and for what ? - moving clouds and rainbows. For me the dev focus just seems way off ......as the Hotdognz states there are so many other fundamentals that need URGENT attention! Multicore, Vulkan, AI , ATC etc etc. Fully understand this is Beta but this patch was one of the worse and shouldn't have passed ALPHA. I am hopeful that we have a Hotfix Patch incoming ASAP but please please please can we start getting some focus on the basics?

please bare this in mind in the future, rules can be found at the top of the forum 1.14 It's forbidden to create threads/topics containing in their title/body: - hyperbolic, rude or strong language, also partially or completely masked by other symbols like @#$%^, etc; - no relation to forum section (flame); - no relation to the topic (off-topic); - please avoid low-effort posts like "+1", "me too", and similar (flood); - same information covered in other sections/threads/posts (cross-posting); - over 70% of capital letters for except for abbreviations; - non-informative content/titles like: "Help me!", "I have a question...", "rant", "I don't know what to do", "+=Super Pack=+" or meaningless set of symbols and letters. thank you

Frankly: As far as I see it there is 'Open Beta', the current version with a few bugs, and then there is 'Stable', a slightly older version with a chance of having slightly fewer bugs. I generally choose to use the 'More Beta' version because it at least has all the content.

The work I've done is added on top of the main F-22 mod. About a year ago this time a bunch of drama was started around what I've done stating that I had claimed credit for the entire thing. I did not and have taken all sorts of steps to counter any such perceptions. I've talked directly with Grinelli and as far as I know it's all good. I don't know much about this mod. Personally, I don't care if anything I've done is used by someone else. Have at it. I can't speak for anyone else. Most of all, I don't want any more drama.

You're measuring the Tomcat against a Hornet in a Blue Angels configuration. That's not apples to apples. This is Digital Combat Simulator, put some pylons on the F-18 and see what happens.

Reflected Simulations DCS Campaigns - Bomber formation updates

For next update null

Evening everyone, I'm using the Reverb G2 with Open XR in the always latest DCS beta. In 2.7 clouds were okay, obviously not as great as in 2D mode but absolutely fine for what VR can do atm. But since 2.8 the clouds have been absolutely terrible. Have a look yourself, I hope someone has some good advice I may add that Anti Aliasing is extremely bad as well, very noticable on the screens of the A10. I do have the Barthek Caucasus mod installed here but removing it doesn'*t make any difference.

We have requested this feature but it is currently low priority. thank you

Normal Software does not Kill Hardware, Users Kill Hardware, or Malicious Software Kill Hardware, DCS is Neither. Software is processed by the Hardware, GPUs melt because of Abuse, Misuse, or Disabling of Fail safes User Error and User not Understanding what Power / Fan Curves are Leads to Melting GPUs, not GPUs Processing the Commands it was given. DCS 2.7 Graphically did less than DCS 2.8. DCS2.8 now renders more environmental items (Lights on PG Map, as well as weather Elements.) You getting the same performance (Fr/PS) while doing more work, so yes, the GPU / CPU will be hotter and draw more power.. However, The System itself that governs temps is the Driver and Fan Control, not DCS. DCS2.7 is doing less render work, and less environmental work, so it will use less GPU to the same Fr/PS. If you don't want the GPU to Get hot, change the fan curve and power limit.

Я видел как харм запускают с миг-29, но это не штатное использование. На а-10 может и вешали пару раз эксперимента ради. В номенклатуре вооружения ее нет.

trk uploaded to ED, ED is working on this issue

MSAA and SSAA are both different things. While SSAA is a simple Super Sample Technique (Rendering at 1.5 or 2.0x, so 2.0x 1080P/2K is essentially rendering at 4K.) MSAA is an entirely different rendering technique, and has ALWAYS been a FPS Killer due to the nature of the morphological filtering, Add in the fact that DCS uses Deferred shading, it makes MSAA Effects even worse. Neither of those issues will be fixed by DLSS.

not directly related to A2A but I would suggest to let player being able to manually putting numbers for Nav and radio. I fly with other players in a virtual squad which we often needs to dial in grid or radio freq, and with so many number, it's just painful to use head movement to dial all those number. I think numpad should be working with the jester menu in this case!

I agree with you.I would rather ED make Me 262 or Me 410 or Bf 110.

Not quite If you leave the resolution override on default in the openxr tools desktop app, the resolution will be set at a recomended value based upon the amount of VRAM you have. For my 12gb 3080ti it's a little over 3100 wide, for my 8gb 3070 it was about 2450 wide. From memory the calculation is based on three back buffers with 4xMSAA applied to them shouldn't be more than 10% of available VRAM. If you override the resolution on the desktop app and set it to 100% then it will be 3160 (or there abouts). You can see the current set resolution on the second tab of the openxr tools desktop app.

Removing all pylons for the sake of BFM tournaments is something for you can do in the videogame for max performance funsies, but not a configuration these jets were intended to fly in. You will never have that configuration in a combat scenario. If you look at footage from real world BFM sets, you'll see not only pylons, but fuel tanks as well. As someone answered in another thread on this forum: the glove pylons were never designed to be removable (and as a result, never were) and are part of the aerodynamic profile, so they induce effectively zero drag (Similar to AIM-9s on F-16/F-18 wingtips having a drag index of 0) You would not see any positive performance changes even if they were removable. And this is exactly why nobody takes airshow performance as a remotely valid basis for judging combat performance.

Question: you know you can take the hornet, add empty pylons, and level the playfield, right? If you want to go even deeper, you can also aim for the same DI for external stations, so you have "balance". It's quicker, you can do it right now, and it's future-proof. More importantly, it's not a waste of devs' time since removing the pylons it's pointless in any other setting (which are probably 99.9% of the cases). Another question, out of curiosity, how come that the F-14 manages to lose in your "BFM tournament"? It has more endurance and power than anyone else (I take for granted that you don't use FC3-level planes). It can build separation and simply force the opponent to RTB due to low fuel, and at that point, it can strike.

очень похвально, что разработчики за реализм! если вести речь про ВР - у Вас в глазу 2100Х2100 точек (которые размазаны на 90Х90 градусов обзора)? или на пару порядков больше? Лично Я в своем Нр G2 более менее вижу надписи в кабине (если нагуться к панели) все что за кабиной пиксельная мазня. В любой игре есть игровая условность без этого никуда, в следствии недоразвитости технологий, вот когда геймеру воткнут электроды в мозг, тогда и можно вести речи о РЕАЛИЗЬМЕ. В данном ключе речи о реализме выглядят как насмешка.

Did you use the beta before? Beta and stable do not share the same database. You should be able to import the stable database into the beta.

Binding will come, they confirmed that, as per NVG I dont think we will ever see them because 339A never used NVG. You might be able to adapt one of the script they use in some server but...... thats about it.

Key take away point, If NAVAIR thinks it is enough of a change that it required requalification, then that's enough. I too long for a Super Hornet but it's not as simple as you'd wish it to be.

Thank you so much for this, I had just bought the JF-17 and was stuck unable to fly it in MP, now I can. Gonna pay forward some more knowledge for working around this bug while it's still a thing: 1. As long as you rearm first, your first flight the DTC will work just fine. 2. For subsequent flights, the DTC won't work, but you can manually load weapons and tanks on pylons via the LOAD subpage on the SMS page. Hope this helps somebody that wants to play their module.

We suspect so, plus a combination of excess power and power settings to achieve other important flight model components, such as pitch with power, etc. It is a balancing act to say the least. But I am confident Fat Creason will sort the remaining issues in this regard. That is up to event organizers, all pylons can be removed, except for the fuel tanks, which are completely negligable in this regard.

there's literally aftermarket options coming to fix this problem, one is an adapter, w/ no wires, a straight block adapter, clips into the 12VHPWR connector, has 4 8 Pin Connectors on the opposite side.

не-не, всё верно)) так и должно быть. В САУ двигателей вводится АВТОперенастройка оборотов от РОШ_мин до РОШ_макс, значение которой 6% (не путать с перенастройкой, которая выполняется летчиком на РОШ с пом.переключателя, о которой мы "говорили" выше в этих постах!))). Эта АВТОперенастройка сделана от необходимости компенсации "статизма" САУ: при повышении отбираемой мощности от двигателя регулятор частоты вращения СТ (РЧВ_СТ), который был настроен на РОШ_мин поддерживать 95% (к примеру), сохраняя все характеристики своих регулировок, не сможет "держать" эти 95. Т.е. , если ничего не предпринимать, то с повышением отбираемой мощности (увеличил РОШ к примеру от мин до значения 5гр, момент сопротивления на валу вырос) обороты НВ хотя и продложат автоподдерживаться, но стали бы меньше. При еще большем увеличении - еще больше умЕньшаться от первоначального. Чтобы это падение , обусловленное работой системы регулирования, "сгладить" введена АВТОперенастройка: на весь ход РОШ пружина РЧВ_СТ "поджимается" (кулачковым механизмом, связанным с движением РОШ) таким образом, чтобы поддерживать "как бы" большие обороты СТ (не 95). Поэтому в реальном вертолете на РОШ_мин обороты примерно 93% (примерно), если их на РОШ=3 установили в значении 95%. И, если бы не было нагрузки на НВ от движения РОШ вверх (гипотетически, т.е. не "упирался" бы вал СТ в сопротивление от НВ, но при этом работал бы этот кулачковый механизм)) так вот в самом верху положения РОШ обороты НВ стали бы "автоматом "=99% (или немного выше). Однако в сумме двух влияний (статизма САУ при росте сопротивления на валу) и автоперенастройки получается более-менее 95%)) А перенастройка на РОШ, о которой был начат разговор выше, "загоняет" исходное (референсное) значение (95) в ту или иную сторону. При этом обороты СТ (НВ) не есть строго 95% на всем диапазоне движения РОШ. Т.е. даже если их установить 98% перенастройкой на РОШ, то ровно 98% на всем диапазоне РОШ тоже не получится держать, даже если двигатели и не вышли на предельный режим и нет никаких "обрезок". ПС. и да, в создании сопротивления на валу участвует не только НВ, а и РВ!)) поэтому обороты НВ, указанные тов.On-Air, на разных режимах и отличаются: значение РОШ одинаковое на висении и на скорости 200 (к примеру), а положение педалей при этом сильно разное. Следовательно и отбираемая мощность из трансмиссии - тоже. И сумма - [уменьшение оборотов поддерживаемых РЧВ_СТ с ростом сопротивления на валу] + [АВТОперенастройка в 6%, "размазанная" на весь ход РОШ] - тоже будет различной.

Don't use the pointing cross to set AOA - where your nose is pointing has nothing to do with your AOA, as this is determined by the angle between your wing chord line and the relative airflow - you could be pointing straight up with your cross on 90 and still have 0 AOA if your speed is fast enough! Just set the FPM indicator using the 'AOA indicator' staple on your HUD, and by all means use the AOA indexer lights to the left if you like, you have another AOA indicator on your ctr panel also. Just after some reference to RL Viper pilots and publications - ideally you approach with the FPM at top of staple, and as you go to idle and flare with FPM at far end of runway, FPM moves to middle of staple for touchdown. But you can approach at mid-staple if you really want to - you don't need to, but hey - see if you can scrape that exhaust can as you flare Also prob a bit dramatic to say "Aerobraking is ineffective below 10-11 degrees" - as you can see I held a lazy 9 degrees, barely wheelbraked, and stopped EASILY Glad it helped . Viper really is easy-mode to land once you get the hang of it. Much more finesse than those Navy goons!

The first post has been edited. Have fun with CAUCASUS REDONE REV. 2, guys!

Just realized, I haven't posted anything in a while. Now that the days are getting shorter and rainy, a lot more work tends do get done in the hobbyshop! If you guys remember the OTTO hatswitches I posted about a few months ago, here are some printed ones. The CMS hat is now also exactly modeled after an original F-16 one. The prints are not perfect as I forgot to remove all the bubbles in the resin, but they still look pretty good imo. Case dimensions and travel (10 deg) are exactly to OTTO spec, but they are modeled after the tactile ones (OTTO T4T). So they are clicky and not springy. The big trim can be springy or clicky, but I haven't printed one yet. I'll start to show off a lot more stuff and also get back to the force sensing base. I supplied a bunch of modified force sensors to commercial customers but I need to make it finally available to retail...

+1 I think you have to draw the line somewhere and, at some point, enough is enough. More eye-candy quickly becomes overkill, and a detriment to the whole experience (too high requirements and investment for DCS needed performance, it becomes hard to justify). I'm also perfectly fine with BS2 levels of detail, it's the whole rest of content that needs more attention and development, especially performance optimizations.