Leaderboard

Almost there

A list of several Tomcat specific callsigns is planned already and in the works with ED. IIRC Ghostrider is one of them.

На самом деле это гигантская проблема в ДКС, что деревья из железобетона, не только ствол, но и крона. Не раз озвучивал. Понятно, что уничтожаемые деревья в таком количестве могут и суперкомпьютер подвесить, но всё же, если форму столкновений у деревьев уменьшить до размера только лишь ствола, это сильно улучшит реализм, так как крона не должна мешать проникновению боеприпасов сквозь неё. Сейчас же железобетонным является практически всё дерево, и ствол и крона. Из-за этого любая цель, заехавшая в деревья кричит "Чур я в домике!" и практически неуязвима для ракет.

Thank you guys, comments like that keep the whole thing spinning!

DCS Screenshots (on Develop) Persian Gulf

Good morning Barthek! So far I ever used my own Caucasus textures because the original ones were pretty ... comic style to me. But on Facebook I saw your textures and so I decided to give them a try. So ... wow! You made an really impressive job. The textures looking brilliant to me and should be standard. I really like the "no snow" variant. I combined them with Taz trees and yes - DCS looks very nice now. Thank you so much for all your hard work. All the effort you put in was totally worth it. Hope you could do the same for Syria one far day. (looks too painted to me and I would like to see it more photo realistic - but just an idea) Very well done!!! Cheers TOM

ok

So, now that 2.8 is here, and we have had our issues with a few bugs and performance hits... I think it's high time I say something... There are some people who really need to stop whining. Now, I know we all paid good money for a product many probably feel isn't up to snuff... I get it. And I'm not going to join that crowd. Why? because unlike many of those that post comments like "Before long you'll need an $8,000 computer to play DCS!" or "This patch broke everything! Roar!" (obvious paraphrasing here), I do actually have an idea of what's going on at ED, without even having to step foot in their and ask the devs. For starters, and this is the artist side of me talking... game, software, and artistic development is not "File -> Make Pretty Thing" and wait for a few weeks for it to compile. I wish it was that easy. But it's not. There's a lot of moving parts in software development, and when a game reaches a certain point, there's only so much that can have resources dedicated to it. As such, I'll try to address as many issues as possible, and hopefully give some valuable insight. A quick bit of background... I am an artist, mostly focusing on fantasy and science fiction. I'm also an amateur writer, and back in 2006-2008, I was in the Command and Conquer modding scene. Sure, it's not game development, but it does give me a bit more knowledge on the subject than the average gamer. Broken Module Release From the F-5 to the AH-64, I'm pretty sure every module here has had its fair share of bugs at the start. Features that were promised, but never delivered, and all sorts of issues. However, there is a reason for this: At some point, that module is going to start costing more money sitting in development than can be justified, and it has to be released. Ever wonder why your favorite AAA titles release with bugs or missing features? This is why. The dev team really wants to squeeze in that one new feature, or polish that other feature, and they keep doing it, laboring for weeks or months trying to get it done to their satisfaction. All the while, holding up the progress of something else or worse, pushing the release date back. This is where the upper management typically steps in and goes "No guys, you don't understand. We have a deadline, we have to get this product out the door, so you either finish this feature by (insert deadline) or it gets scrapped" And given how much those studios pour into their games, scrapping any part of it is not a bullet they want to bite, but they have to bite at some point. The same holds true for DCS. As much as EDs in-house module guys want to include something with a module, or as much they want to ship the EA with X Feature... sooner or later, it must ship, and if it ships without it, then so be it. BUUUUUGS! BUUUUUUGS! (The only good bug is a dead bug!) As anyone who's ever dealt with software engineering will tell you... you can fix one bug, and several more will take their place. How often does this pop up in your social circles? "They broke (insert missile) again!" I hear it so freaking often I'm glad it's not a drinking game... I'd be legally dead by now if it were. I'd argue that the more appropriate term should be "They changed (insert missile) again", rather than broke it. Take the Phoenix for example. An often "broken" missile according to one of my squadron mates, and yet, I'm still achieving expected hit rates (I expect at least 1 in four to fail completely, 2 at the worst), Now, this might just be my own experience, but I wouldn't consider the missile "Broken". Real world missiles don't exactly have perfect stats either, which is why real pilots tend to ripple them off even today. I think most of these complaints come from those who just got used to the new missile meta, and are frowning at the fact that the missiles have been altered for reasons they just don't like. This is human nature sadly, we are very averse to changes in our environment... even our virtual one (think this is bad? brows some 40K social media... bring your volcanologist garb). The other issue I see here, is that you guys aren't reporting the bugs you see properly. Seriously, browse the Facebook page some time. Just count the number of times people screech out in all caps (or use expletives like drunken sailors) when complaining about a bug they experienced. This. Helps. No one. If you have spotted a bug (and I'm not believing that I'm the one saying this) go to the appropriate section in the forums, and report the bug. Trust me. Screaming "MY F-20 BLEW UP WHEN I DROPPED THE TANK! WHY YOU RELEASE THIS BROKEN GARBAGE!" on Facebook or HOGGIT isn't going to get the bug fixed. Coming here and going: "While I was flying level in my F-20, I noticed that the center-line tank was empty. I prepared it for drop according to the manual, and when I dropped the tank, the aircraft exploded. I was on the Stoneburner server, and I did the same thing multiple times and the same thing happened at least four times out of the ten that I tried it. I've attached the tacview files, as well as the track files from both my machine, and the server, as well as my PC build. I hope this all helps" That, followed by a few people all calmly going "Yeah, it happened to me as well!" will put that bug higher on the priority list for fixes, and then a few weeks later, tada, a fix. Now, obviously, this doesn't happen all the time. However, I'm sure we can all agree that it's more likely to happen when proper bug reports come in, vs the scream fests that I've seen on hoggit or Facebook. Now, speaking of priorities: Priority List Like many game devs, ED has a limited amount of staff available, and given that they're smaller than most devs, I have a gut feeling that at least some of the staff there have multiple hats they have to wear. If I'm wrong, then I hope to be corrected, but if I'm right, this just means we have to be that much more patient with these guys. If person A has both 3D art and coding to deal with, remember that he can't do both at the same time. An 8hr day spent modeling a replacement Tu-160 model for example is not 8hrs spent digging for a bug in the code and removing it. And even then, if you're fixing one bug, there's a bunch of others that aren't being fixed simply because the resources can't be split that much. If the time budget allows for 10 bugs to be fixed, and 30 are on the docket... someone has to pick which 10 get fixed, and which 20 have to wait. And the ones they consider more pressing, are not the ones we might consider. How can this be fixed? Well, ED has its people all over the world, so the method by which most dev teams handle it won't work. It's hard to stand over someone tapping your feet at someone when there's a literal ocean separating you two. But I do think that if these guys were having to show progress to us every so often (say, every Monday for the artists, every Thursday for the programmers, or something like that), that might ease some of the tension. Vulcan Now, we all know this is coming. Anyone who's following the Roadmap thread knows this. And it sucks that it's not here yet, and I'm sure many are concerned by this point if it's ever coming. I hold out a bit of faith that it is, and that we're going to see it, if not by the end of this year, than maybe sometime next year. Now, why is it taking so long? That's hard to say. Odds are that due to how old DCS's engine is, it may be possible that the conversion is something that has to be handled slowly. And if the original coders left the company (or worse...) the ones responsible for it now might be stuck reverse-eningeering the original code so they can work Vulcan into it. Either way, I doubt this is a particularly easy task. After all, you can't just flick a switch and release Vulcan. Especially with the 3rd parties being involved as much as they are. Imagine how well that conversation would go... "Hey, next patch we'll be releasing Vulcan next patch, and it'll require you all to modify your modules to fit the new framework" Yeah, I imagine that will go swimmingly. So I imagine that Vulcans approach is akin to walking a tightrope. ED has to make sure that it'll work with all of the existing modules with little or no difficulty on day-one. And that is most certainly not going to be an easy feat. It's also entirely possible, stepping back to the bugs for a second, this might be why some of the bugs that exist haven't been squashed yet: Vulcan is needed to forever kill them. In closing, I just hope you guys are all having a decent time in your virtual fighter planes. ED's come a long way, and they still have a ways to go. So let's show'em our support. Remember... Fly Safe

Now in a download section near you! MB-339A AMI 4 Skin pack (digitalcombatsimulator.com)

Have you completed the Finish steps within the Editor part of the Configuration window? Click Finish and it should give you a pop up about updating the keyword database, Edit profile > double click on single line Keyword Collection. Select all and delete, then paste the new keyword collection in, click Apply then done and test

Sorry, I have been using this mod series for too long, I forgot what it was like before… Keep up the good work.

If it wasn't for the unlit runways and the out of date cities, with those mods caucasus looks absolutely like a brand new map to me. And the environment is still a very interesting one.

No, never. We have other sim with VR luckily too.

I really like this plane.

For future reference:

As I flew a few missions during the weekend in VR, my feeling is that not only performance dropped in 2.8, but the image quality also gets worse than 2.7. When I look around (in VR), the contrast/brightness will adjust automatically but not in a natural way, which gives a poor experience. In the last 2.7 version, the scene looks much more natural than 2.8 (in VR, maybe it looks better in 2D with 2.8). I assume it's an issue from contrast/shadow but not sure. I hope ED could take this issue more seriously and fix both quality and performance issues in 2.8, otherwise the upgrade looks like a step backward for me (not intend to be negative but just wanna give this feedback to the developement team) Thank you ED as always!

No. You have to actively fly an Apache. The FMC makes it so there is an even response to a control input over the flight envelope. It dampens out winds and other upsets. It doesn’t just magically fly for you. There isn’t ever a point when flying the real thing that I’m like “yeah, I’ll just let go of the flight controls now” and it’ll fly itself for me. It doesn’t work that way at all.

Devs answered me: the new refresh rate of the ABRIS map display is correct as is. The real thing had the same refresh rate. The speed indication bug fix is being worked on, but this seems to be more complex than it looks.

It is hard to tell from early state "Work In Progress" photos of the Normandy 2 map but it does look like some of the saturation has been reduced if compared to the Normandy 1. @MAESTR0 and the rest of the dev team may have already had a good look at Bartheks GMT: Normandy mod and hopefully can incorporate some of the improvements going forward. I can't use the currently Normandy map without this mod!.

Hey LASooner... just wanted to say great job so far. I really appreciate your attention to detail on those panels. I went a bit of a simpler route, not making an exact replica, but man do I understand the amount of work involved and the rabbit hole which just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Keep up the great work! Here's my work in progress with a Virpil throttle. Absolutely love your ThrottleTek!

Hi, pilots Flora. We have updated the main types of trees. Fields and trees of England: In England, the trees are oak (lat. Quércus), pyramidal poplar (lat. Pópulus nígra), ash (lat. Fraxinus) and this is our habitat Fields and trees of France: For France trees - birch (lat. Bétula), maple (lat. Ácer) , beech (lat. Fágus) Video recorded on PC: i7 7700K, 32Gb RAM, 3060 8Gb

As someone who actually does project management as a job IRL you don't have a public test build, you have a primary public release that you are releasing as WIP, and a backup stable build that your community barely touches. There are a wide variety of methods used by software firms to keep their open betas and test builds from becoming the primary version their customer's are using, in order to avoid this very issue. ED does pretty much exactly the opposite of that and spends all of it's marketing promoting the open beta releases while barely mentioning the stable version. As an extremely predictable result the primary product your customer base is consuming is the open beta, and that customer base is going to have some expectations of a base level of functionality. And honestly, it really doesn't matter what you think about it, what you label things, or how much you argue about it. Your customers have developed expectations as the very predictable result of decisions you've made in how you position the product, and they're going to be upset if you don't meet them. Telling them they're not allowed to be upset is just going to make them more upset; this is marketing 101 stuff. Positioning it as a WIP/Open Beta buys you a lot of leeway to have glitches or temporary downtime in functionality, but tapping the open beta sign at your power users when they're upset it's just straight not working for them anymore is not going to get you anywhere productive.

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.

Hello Lads, Here to give a quick heads up on the official manual. As it was said above, @baltic_dragon has paused his work on the manual while we rework the designation system of the AV8B. As a workaround, I direct you towards this forum or our Discord for help, towards the Chuck's guide that is regularly updated by the stellar @Charly_Owl who I would like to thank on behalf of Razbam Simulations for his relentless work for the community despite the constant flow of changes this module is getting through, and towards the most recent Youtube tutorials made by the community. As features are changed or added, I'll make clarification/explanation posts in this forum. I know I've not been active a lot on ED's forums since this summer, I will commit more around here to make sure that informations are properly broadcasted to you guys, and bugs reported and investigated. We are aware that having a full fidelity module released without a proper official and exhaustive manual is not acceptable, and we're working with the resources we have to deliver it to you guys as soon as we can. Cheers, A.J.

For the chaff and flare program settings, this should be an exclusion. There is absolute no exploit or cheating when users create their own chaff and flare programs with different quantities or burst settings

According to LunaticFringe, a member of the closed beta testing team, ECM burn through ranges are defined by three simple categories: Strategic Bombers - Burn through at 12nm Fighters - Burn through at 23nm Attack - Burn through 29nm null However in recent community testing on the current open beta, we've discovered inconsistent burn through ranges for fighters. For example you can burn through the ECM of the F-14, F-16, and F-18 at 29nm, while other fighters such as the Jeff, the F-15, and the Su-27 are protected from burn through all the way to 23nm. Just wondering why the F-16, F-18, and F-14 are in the attacker category and not the fighter category? Is this a bug, or by design? PS. There could be even more inconsistencies, I don't believe an extensive test of all airframes has been performed.

@NineLine Alt-Enter issue is a good example. Yes, there was a fix, which worked, in 2.7. No, it doesn't work anymore in 2.8, simple as that. If we start a new thread on the same subject, it will be against forum guidlines and you or BN will merge it with the old thread (mind you, I'm not against merging as it's useful and required to keep the forum clean). But If we post in the old thread, we're back to square one where "solved" is not solved really. What are we supposed to do?

The profile is not generated like that per say. When you click "Finish", all the keywords are copied to the clipboard, and you need to manually paste them in the VAICOM profile. I'm not at my computer, so ain't got no screenshots here, but you can find it in the manual. VAICOM does some trickery with the keywords so they can be used as voice commands, and this is especially true if one uses the VSPX option though. Currently this cannot be fully automated as VoiceAttack does not support editing its database outside of VoiceAttack. Hopefully in the future Gary might implement this, and the "Finish" step might not be needed. Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

thxs all - sorted with the "auto browse" check box. I had tried this but I think you need to restart for it to work. (which I hadnt done before). All good now

ED will probably have these ready for release by 2032.

MSAA Mask Size: When you set MSAA Mask Size to 0.1 then MSAA is only working in the center of your Headset. If you set it to 1.0 then MSAA is also beeing used at point you do not look directly. Much better in my point of view. I hate it when iam looking arround and can see the "stairs" poping up when i move my head. DCS Use system resolution: Here you force DCS VR to use the game Resolution set in "system" for example fullhd and not the resolution of your headset (much higher) and in my case its smoother to use the system setting Bloom Effect: I never noticed a difference between on/off in VR - maybe a little bit sharper without bloom on Use Built in audio: Forces the audio to your headset (output, also the microphone for chat)

Totally agree. Indeed you did very well: you've said nothing to be mentioned as useful in this topic.

You simply rock, man! To make it clear, your mod actually has a higher impact to gameplay than many new map releases. Everyone flies Caucasus, as it's a well balanced map where you can play a variety of scenarios, in different weathers and seasons, and obviously it's the most popular one in multiplayer as everyone has it. So, IMO keeping Caucasus alive and beautiful is one of the most important things in the sim and you are doing that job for us instead of ED. Your mod is basically essential, I don't actually remember when it was the last time I was flying without it. I hope you can get your hands on a lower resolution version as many asked you here, because DCS keeps consuming more and more VRAM with each release (+1 GB in Caucasus 2.8 vs 2.7 on 4090) leaving optimization for you, modders, and us, simple users. Modders keep VR in DCS alive no matter how hard ED tries to kill it for us with each new update

I wont discuss exploits in a public forum sorry. I also understand that setting them to your individual preference is preferred, as mentioned the server can untick use pure client. In the future we will have the DTC for setting this also. thanks

Thanks for the reply @NineLine. My experience is somewhat different that what you state. Ive made threads on a number of things, provided evidence and more. For nothing. Not even a "working as intended". I did once get a vague "its on my list" from Flappie but that was a year ago and nothing more although I havnet checked recently as I lost faith.. Perhaps this falls into your "we believe its right and nothing is shown that it is not, what are we to do?" category. What do you do? Say so. Say "thanks but, at this time, there is nothing we can do". Id accept that. What Im left feeling is "go away and stop bothing us". Recently myself and many others have repeatedly told ED that their solution for Alt-Enter only partially worked in 2.7 and no longer works at all in 2.8 yet the thread is still marked "solved". There is little point opening a new thread when the problem is the same for everyone. The problem being ED took away Alt-Enter staing issue resolved and in doing so removed a feature many players relied upon for various reasons without giving any resaon why so we might understand. WE've asked for a resonspe, were copied in ED. Nothing. The "so what" is that it took me a leap of faith to buy another module. Something that should have been a no brainer. The other "so what" is that if you want feedback, if you want people to go to the effort of providing the information you ask for, leaving them dangling, isnt a great way of encouraging future participation. I appreciate you are a small team. I know noone gets it right all the time. I just wanted to expand one my reasons for saying what I did so you ay better understand. Again - I reiterate, I totally agree with the OP for the most part.

One thing I miss is the vivid series now ported to Persian Gulf, with the new lighting would be amazing!

КОроче для особо одоренных...простой вопрос... почему не уничтожаются деревья от взрыва боеприпаса? так понятно надеюсь

Convair RB-58 Recce Hustler? I didn't even know such a thing existed! Less awesome than we'd expect from a Hustler due to the subsonic mission profile, but still a fascinating history! https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-convair-rb-58-recce-hustlers-short-but-fascinating-career

This is a wish list, and the wish of the OP is a single-press Eject command to be provided by ED. 3rd party programs are just work-arounds for missing functionality; and whether they are "very useful solutions ... respecting everyone's needs" is debatable.

We will need a proper bug report please, separate thread in the bug section, if you can please supply server and client tracks and logs, especially those seeing the specific issue. Our Closed Beta Team recently tested this, as in last week with no issues, so please check for the common things like mods, scripting etc that might be messing things up. Thanks PS I am closing this thread because it has served its purpose, for bugs, please post in the appropriate section, for questions in the appropriate section for those.

+1 For full fidelity F-15C. I would definetly buy this unit if ED made it. Any 3rd party I would think twice. EDIT: I will buy the F-15E as well but that is not the fighter I like, the F-15C is the one!

Well, it appears they have actually amended this! I just got it an hour ago and the little thumbstick thing has been replaced by a concave, full motion stick. I am so impressed with this product. Leaps and bounds above the X56, for essentially double the price, its bloody worth it! The T.A.R.G.E.T software is also in depth, and user friendly if you use the manual along side it when programing. An amazing product! Very happy with it.

I put the Oculus Quest on the table for a few minutes, and they got de-centered. Putting them on I got to behold the incredible details on the side of the seat. Wow!

For the numbering, I'm guessing because the AWG-9 entered development before the AWG-10; the AWG-9 conceptually started with the F6D Missileer program and actually began development for the F-111B. Something else, the AN/AWG-9 designator applies to the F-14A/B's radar while the AN/AWG-10 designator is the F-4J's fire control (or missile control) system working with its AN/APG-59 pulse doppler radar (the F-14's fire control system is the AN/AWG-15). I'm not nearly as well read on the F-4 as I am the F-14, but even the HAVE DOUGHNUT Tactical manual separates AWG-10 performance from APG-59 performance specifically WRT fire control (e.g., "The capability of the AWG-10 missile control system was partially degraded by the inherent weakness associated with the tactical employment of the pulse doppler mode of the APG-59 radar" [1]). I'm aware that some folks use the AWG-10 designator to refer to the F-4J's radar, but that doesn't seem correct - rather the AWG-10 is the fire control system used in conjunction with the APG-59 radar. Either way, I'll let a Phantom Phanatic explain because they could do a lot better than me. Sources: 1. Defense Intelligence Agency, HAVE DOUGHNUT-Tactical (Vol II), 1 August 1969 (Declassified 23 Mar 2000), 2-37.

hi, there will be updates of the Bronco. We know that 2.8 causes loading problems and not only with the Bronco, the whole game has problems with that. We are working on a mix between png and DDS to optimize the loading without reducing the quality and visibility of textures. On our discord you can find channels dedicated to the Bronco. https://discord.gg/xrNhbETp5q At the moment we are working on our new mod and we have kidnapped Dikennek to get some help xD but the update is still in WIP! bests

Final Adustments on the Bolts. null Adobe_Substance_3D_Painter_btEe6uT98P.mp4

we went from 2 secs texture loading to around 30 secs or more. This can´t be sign of the time changes.

I want to join Alpha in thanking Chuck/Charly_Owl for his guides that are a invaluable help for the community.

even if you turn off the Radar you will realize they already know where you are with out the help of RWR! I did simple test by putting F-5 (Ive chosen F-5 because it doesnt have a suitable view on six olcock), I turned off the radar and get closed from 6 oclock 2000ft to 3000 ft below, it started a break turn! The mission was totally empty map with only 2 AC, F-5 as AI and myself in Viper!