Leaderboard

It's so easy here to get wrapped up in all the little details that can be improved or preferences we might have, so I just wanted to say how much I love the Apache and how much fun I'm having flying it. I've been flying virtual Apaches since Jane's Longbow almost 30 years ago (!!! - we're getting old) so I had very high expectations and hopes coming in, and they've been met and surpassed in spades. The joy and immersion I get out of flying the Apache and learning its systems is second to none. I find diving through the MFD pages to learn all the depth to which the subsystems have been simulated to be a joy. The feeling of being hunched over the TEDAC, lasing an enemy tank as George hides us behind a tree, hoping I nail the tank before it spots us and hits us with an AT-11 yields an immersion factor I've felt in no other video game - especially in VR. Sometimes I spawn myself on an aircraft carrier in the rain, in VR, and just watch flight operations as I sit in the cockpit ready for takeoff. It's pure bliss! So a lot of us get very "passionate" here about certain aspects of the game, but I just wanted to remind everyone what an amazing module we have here and how very far we've come from the pioneering flight sims of the late 1990s. The Apache has given me video gaming and simming enjoyment at a totally different level than I've ever before experienced. Now if I can just figure out how to consistently get myself lined up with that I-beam...

Greetings. I know that its still WIP and I will equally get the same amount of comments regarding that. However please can we have more variety when receiving damage. It seems 9/10 times its a fuel leak followed by a flame out. I would love to see some hydraulic failures. Electrical or isolated bus failures or some requiring EPU activation. How about an occasional engine fire ? Let us use that annunciator panel some. If the base and core systems coding is there it should be easier to enter a variable or variety based on location of damage or strike etc. Any insight would be nice. Thanks

I started almost 40 years ago.... my love for apache led me to this...

They'll strap gunpods to them, operationally realistic or not. Some people prefer the earlier versions of the F-104 like the A and C versus the newer versions. This also plays a big part in wanting a gun because those versions had them. How many F-104's didn't have the gun? Just the two-seater and S versions from what I'm reading, so why get mad at the people who would like the variant we get (which is already confirmed to have the M61 per the announcement making this argument pointless) to have a gun?

Желательно головой, чтобы научиться говорить без обсессивной лексики своих кумиров из телевизора. Су-27ПУ, он же Су-30 отправлен в серийное производство приказом от 1991 г. Потом просто добавляли электронику и по мелочи, обычная модификация. Хотя на Су-30 до сих пор двигатели из 1980-х . Новый серийный самолет, ага. Странно, что надо такие вещие на форуме авиасимулятора писать.

Ok, this time it's time to show the problem with cities/towns. The testing principle is the same, remember that the maximum I can have on the internal FPS counter is 180 frames. What is important for the SA map, I show a few larger cities (which in my opinion are small cities, it's not Buenos Aires ), and other maps - either the capital of the region or the largest available city. A perfect example is Port Stanley, which doesn't have a lot of houses, works quite ok but ... generates as much FPS as .... London! Current size of area (the same scale), btw. notice that 8.6 million people was in London's 1939, in 2018 was 8,9, so very similar amount: Another example is Rio Gallegos, where I have about 85-90 frames, while over Cairo I have about 150, over Aleppo 160-170, and Dubai has even 180. Combining this with non-optimized trees (info above) causes additional stutters and also another FPS drop, for example the port and city of Ushuaia (around 105 fps), when in Las Vegas I have a stable 180 FPS. An interesting fact is the Hipico Flying Club, where I have 180 frames like Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. So you can get a good result here. So why is it so bad elsewhere? I do not know. A colleague of mine who is an MSFS add-on coder pointed out: - perhaps a mess in the files and their structure, which causes the processor to perform a lot of unnecessary calculations, - too detailed and unoptimized plants and buildings (too many vertices) ( @Flappie could someone from the ED team check this vs a few buildings from other maps?) - something wrong with the ground (of course, at a higher alt level, no problems = no or simplified LOD) Of course, this is speculation, because he didn't go into the files, he doesn't even have the map (because of the bad feedback about its performance). Something is wrong with this map in this regard, and it is very clear. Such small towns as we have on the SA map should generate 170-180 frames in my case according me, not around 110 or even 80. In addition, without improving the vegetation, the appropriate effect will not be achieved in my opinion, so only a mix of these two things will increase the FPS on SA map. Unfortunately, the current level is unacceptable. The map is 30% worse than Syria, which is very detailed, or Normandy 2.0 (where over Paris I have 170-180 frames, and over London 150). I will add that comparable cities to those on SA maps give me 180 fps, constant, on any map. Here Im comparing a small city to a big one. The video again shows clear differences of 30% or more in efficiency (but note that those cities are larger): I think I have sufficiently presented the problem and numbers are not debatable. All this not to criticize its performance but Id like to help and show well that the problem exists and is a big one (who wouldn't want a 30% faster computer but no one wants 1/3 worse? ). No wonder that people flying in VR have even more trouble over forests or towns, because then there is a clear stutter (divide these results into 2 or 3). Request for: - converting all trees and plants to a format that generates the same FPS as on the Caucasus or Syria map (for me it's 180 FPS instead of 125 here as medium range) - checking and improving the efficiency of buildings and other objects that are in that are located in cities (from 85-130 to 170 FPS for me for example). What's important, I'm just asking that the map be of the same performance quality as the others, in areas comparable in terms of size of forests and cities. Please solve this and the map will be great and I'm sure many people will come back to it. Maybe it's actually a good idea to change one city plus all the vegetation around it and put it in a open beta patch for owners of SA map for testing? Thank You!

For sure we will never leave the support to our customer and we will make everything we promised [emoji6] Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

Add me to the list. I've been waiting for his module since 1991 (Kissing a few frogs along the way)

*yawn* For those just getting here... here's where this thread is at... "tracks don't work, tracks don't work!"... Given inarguable proof tracks work from multiple users... "You got lucky, tracks don't work, tracks don't work!" ... Come on dude, move along.

Yes, it is great, for all old simmers. The old Jane's games are great still, but they were very limited to what technology could do for them. DCS (and other sims) is a dream come true in may aspects: a full 3D, fully clickable cockpit, with a "realistic" flight model, study level module is something people only dreamed of in the 90's. Now we are living it. And yes, sometimes I just want to fly around and admire the view, because it can look great.

I personally flew all of these, and recorded them from the same replay tracks multiple times to get all the sequences. Your claim has zero empirical evidence. All you have is a personal anecdote of your replay tracks not working, and in your ignorant arrogance think that one person's personal anecdote is equivalent to empirical fact. In short, it's a "you" problem. Mainly because of your attitude.

Wishlist: PT-91 Twardy and K2 Black Panther

User Files: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332803/ Being a mostly single-player guy I made a sanbox style PvE mission with my limited knowledge of ME triggers for Sinai and thought I would share it. It can be hosted online as well, though not suited for a long-term server type thing. Mostly intended for training/practice and light fun for anything from landing pattern practice, to zero-threat target practice, to shooting fights. Being a sandbox there’s no point system, no winning or losing, no specific assigned targets. BLUFOR focus, no REDFOR client slots or tasks…yet(?). I tried to rely on default liveries as best I can but still needed a lot of custom ones for Egyptian air assets, Tomcats (VF102 OEF and some VF11 and VF31 for Forrestal), and Hornets (CVW-1 for old LOMAC model). You can add any module of your liking and the triggers will work as long as it’s Blue coalition. Radio channels and waypoints in the briefing under “BLUE TASK.” Not everything has a waypoint so brush up on manual waypoint creation or editing. Two AWACS, one boom tanker, two basket tankers (one at lower altitude for Harriers), and Bir Hasanah available as a FOB for refuel and rearm. Added radio PTT sound to prompt players to check the screen when messages appear. I haven’t play tested all of it so let my know if anything doesn’t appear to work. Client Slots A10C-II x2 at Ovda AH64D x2 at Bir Hasanah AH64D x2 at Ramon AV8B x3 at LHA1 F14A x3 at CV59 F14B x3 at CVN71 F15E (USAF) x2 at Hatzerim F15E (IDF) x2 at Hatzerim F16C (USAF) x2 at Nevatim FA18C x3 at CVN71 Static Ranges Same as before. RANGE EAST has static tanks and APCs. RANGE SOUTH has dummy SA2 site, APCs, shipping containers, airfield marked out in the desert floor. OCA RANGE is an airfield with aircraft parked in HAS. Gaza Random Tasks There are three simple tasks spawnable in Gaza. Once you enter the town you can spawn them via the F10 menu and check on-screen instructions. Sometimes it rolls the same random twice and nothing spawns, so you might have to call a task in multiple times before you go through all three. SEAD Support The SAM network of SA2s and the SA3 in Cairo kicked my butt so much I added on-call SEAD via the F10 menu. They launch from Nevatim and take about 20 minutes to start slinging HARMs. CAP NORTH / SOUTH Random Tasks Activate either or both of the CAP zones via F10 menu and follow displayed instructions. Once in the zone you check in via new F10 radio item and a random enemy group will spawn. They may engage you, they may not. ROE (honor system) is return fire if spiked or fired upon. 5 possible scenarios for each CAP zone. One time use per mission run per CAP zone. KILLBOXES Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and Delta are 30x30nm killboxes. If you fly into one, ground forces will randomly spawn for BAI. You don’t know what or where. It’s your job to find them using whatever sensors and Mk1 eyeballs you got. Some are moving, some aren’t. Some are defended with AAA, MANPADS, SHORADS, or a mix. Some are undefended. There’s 3~5 different scenarios for each killbox. Exit the killbox and go back in and it might spawn another random scenario. Or might not depending on how the dice roll. KILLBOX TIPS The killboxes are sectioned into 15x15nm quadrants, named by geographical orientation (NW, NE, SW, SE). When something spawns a message will indicate which quadrant is active. Waypoints are on the killbox centerpoint, so if you fly 15nm due N/S/E/W those are the bounds of the killbox. Check main roads and small villages. Some targets are a bit more unique and will be described in the popup message. TANKERS TEXACO (fast and high boom) for the fast jets SHELL (fast and low) for the Navy birds and Harriers ARCO (slow and low) for the Warthogs Happy hunting! Sinai-Sandbox-v1.01.miz

Rio Gallegos: Vegetation is no problem here. Again, no hedges. Vegetation + Objects = 25 FPS Only objects = 27 FPS (+8% FPS) Only vegetation = 76 FPS (+200% FPS) Nothing = 104 FPS (+300% FPS) Rio Gallegos nothing.trk Rio Gallegos no buildings.trk Rio Gallegos no vegetation.trk

Punta Arenas: This time, the vegetation is not the real problem. And guess what? There's no hedges in this city. Vegetation + Objects = 21 FPS Only objects = 23 FPS Only vegetation = 41 FPS (+100% FPS) Nothing = 51 FPS (+150% FPS) Punta Arenas no buildings.trk Punta Arenas no vegetation.trk Punta Arenas nothing.trk

I'm playing with the "scenery remove objects zone" scripting action. Port Stanley Vegetation + Objects Only objects (+50% FPS, interesting) Only vegetation (+20% FPS) No vegetation, no objects (+130% FPS ) I don't quite grasp the maths, here... Anyway, those hedges seem to be the main suspect. I'll try other cities now. Stanley nothing.trkStanley no buildings.trkStanley no vegetation.trk (please note I removed grass/clutter from the start)

I do not think this is a fair statement, giving away something that has costs associated with a product doesn't always help. I would love to see some sort of option to allow MP server play without it, but giving it away outright is not really an option. The costs associated with making highly detailed models these days is growing all the time, not to mention the time it takes to create them. We do care about the modelling and realism of our WWII modules, but we have chosen a different path of quality vs quantity. Things take time, but when they are done they are done the very best they can be. IMHO. Ideally, more 3rd Parties doing WWII would be the ultimate, but also realize while WWII aircraft do not have complex computer systems to model, they have their own challenges.

@YoYo Thank you for the videos. I know where to look. I'm starting with Port Stanley. I agree there must be some building eating all FPS, maybe several of them. I'm trying to locate the culprit(s) using this empirical method: I fly a few feet from the ground, in the streets, and I look for big FPS drops, and I try to find the weakest FPS spot.

You got to Press the FP-A Button again an then select „CRS“. That brings you back to standard FP-A navigation. At least it did in the past. Edit to your edit: That happens for me, too. But only when changing back to CRS from Bingo. It sticks to the Airfield Waypoint. you have to punch in one of your route waypoints. But if i change back from "Approach" to CRS, it also changes back to the route waypoint and HUD + HSD Symbology without having to select a WP manually.

Hope I read this part correctly, so I must stress this once again: the problem doesn't go away with altitude. Unlike the original issue with this map when you could only see performance drops at below 2000 feet or so, this one persists all the way up to 80.000 feet (just below the free camera's altitude limit).

IndiaFoxtEcho is developing a Eurofighter for MSFS, but the important thing is: They use a model from TrueGrit, so I think it is possible our DCS-Eurofighter-Cockpit could look like that: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=773440944785728&set=pcb.773446841451805&__cft__[0]=AZUqS6FCjeyXjsz5TA1Zo8nGaWev5JcJM3B6_tZsY1U0GRa3kYVjx8U1LD2JDD3_dtq14IQNzHBeraQx1iujr19HUZSdG5RtM8uSwaIl0tB3QdUz9nx1qG3TaJ2uw2HnIBgtqfpcXSOgI-xTgVqXWMKLyo7dg1GePv6pV8K3TWK2zTFAexa3xLwICO8yh_Kl14K7c5fc8PPlnXjkEH-TAFfS&__tn__=*bH-R

F-8 guns were utterly unreliable, IIRC it had something to do with single point of failure (hydraulics? pneumatics?) that could disable all for guns simultaneously. So these numbers do not mean much, there are stories of potential gun kills denied by guns failure, just like missile kills denied by missile failure.

Because the fuel system in the DLL does not allow fuel transfer, as there is no code for it. Same for Wingtip Tanks, they can hold fuel, but the aircraft wont use it as there is no code to allow it to transfer fuel from those pylons.

Good points all around. Here's the thing about realism and why I responded with corrections. Some users hoot and holler about realism all day long, until it hits them in the face! This weapon or that system, the developers give it to us and some of us still complain. I came from the days of wishing DCS existed (FS98, Janes, etc.) And now it does! Why bother using resources on a thing that is not even a real or practical thing? IMHO, I'd rather see a more robust and animated Flight Deck crew. More parking and start positions. Better ATC around the boat (and ashore), more LSO/CATCC interaction, De-Arm after landing and arming on the CAT. Cyclic OPS would be nice! Recovery/mission Tankers and the TTLR (Turning Tanker, Last recovery). Even having a working barricade would be great. What is not needed IMO is a ready room (next users will ask for the paraloft) unless we are talking about planning from start to finish to coincide with an on-time recovery within a legit recovery cycle (no coming back when you feel like it, you need to be on-schedule). The AIR BOSS station would be good except, the only thing to get out of that would be turning on the deck lights and the Lens and such. The AIR BOSS is responsible for aircraft coordination and control up to 5 NM around the boat. All aircraft moves on deck are coordinated from Flight Deck control via the Handler (Aircraft handling Officer) btw! All of which should and could be done automatically (in DCS) if cyclic ops are done the way it should/could. Push back is definitely something that is needed. Last but not least, there are certain ordnance loads that cannot launch from CAT's 3 and 4. Some will strike the launch bubble adjacent to CAT 4 (Go-no-go restrictions). There are even restrictions on when a prop (E-2/C-2) can launch and recover when hot jet exhaust is in the vicinity. I cannot have a hot 4 row (CAT 2) and recover or launch a prop. The engines will flame out due to hot jet exhaust ingestion. What caught my attention was the assumption that pilots hang out in the hangar bay. Anyone that knows, knows that there's not much down there to look at, much less move around. Aircraft do not get armed in the bay, nor do they start engines and ride up to the deck, despite what's shown in entertainment. Pilots and aircrew often may be seen in the hangar for training on certain weapons or practice loading evolutions or Pilates classes, but the hangar is for AIRCRAFT UNDERGOING MAINTENANCE! GO birds are kept topside. If a bird goes HARD DOWN, it will be sent to the bay at the earliest convenience as to make room on deck! We have a specific pecking order for how and when things move down there. Most aircraft moves (swaps) happen at night, after Flight quarters has ceased. There are some moves before that but not a lot and only on a case by case (as needed) situation. At night, aircraft are respotted for the next day. Think minimal movement of elevators, (which are real estate during flight ops) and ships movement. Launch and recovery onboard an aircraft carrier is a beautiful and dangerous evolution (I love it) and if it is going to be done, it should be done as right possible! Anything else and we should just call it, Ace DCS (which I tried, once upon a time and it made me nauseous). This is not a diss in case one likes that kind of thing. But IRT realism... I don't know what ED's plan for this is. I'm here for it regardless (can't help myself) but I feel it is my duty to tell the truth about it. Also, I realize DCS is just a game, however, are we aiming for as real as possible or just some puffy arcade mumbo jumbo like the aforementioned? JJ171

You keep saying DCS tracks don't work even though you don't use them. I use them, like, a lot, and I tell you they are reliable as long as they are short. If you don't believe me, there's no need discussing this any longer.

I'll add to this request with a request to allow the community to record our own voices here. Or possibly some way to use some of the incredible AI driven TTS tools out there these days. Not just for JTAC but for any spoken DCS messages. Probably a pipe dream, I realize. However, that would allow the community to create and post voice packs for specific purposes such as British JTACs as requested above.

I always wondered why ED doesn’t let/ have 3rd parties develop asset packs for the game ( maybe they do in a way). Payware or not. I have a couple mod packs, Military asset mod, civilian asset mod, and one for ships( can’t think of the name) and they are great when you see them in action. It really brings more life into the DCS World. Considering what it probably costs ED to pay their developers to make these, why not offer the people that make these free ones some money to buy their asset pack(s) and officially merge them into the game? I mean they work just fine in the game. Seems like a win win. There’s thousands of static and AI objects that could be added. All sorts of military and civilian vehicles, aircraft replicas, structures, even just hay bales, sandbags, fuel tanks, different fences, even piles of dirt or rubble from construction. Anything and everything to flesh out the world more. Even if they are just fillers. Customers are happy to get more assets in the core game that aren’t considered “mods”, Campaign/ mission makers have a huge variety of things to choose from, the people developing them get paid something for them, and it would probably cost ED less than having one of their own developers sit there and create them. Not my business of course, but subcontracting that kind of thing seems like a relatively cheap way to add a lot of detail to the game that many people want.

For me the gun is F-104's most important weapon. All Starfighters taking part in combat or crysis US F-104C over Vietnam, Taiwanese F-104A over the strait, Pakistani F-104A over Kashmir, German F-104G during Berlin Crisis were equipped with a gun. Pakistani put them to good use. Compared to gun-less 1960s MiG-21s, F-4 Phantoms - Starfighter with its 6 barreled revolver was awesome. When F-104 entered service Vulcan gun was brand new invention and the best gun in the world. During late 1950s/early 1960s gun was still among the most important and reliable weapon. Plus it's just more satisfying to strafe in supersonics slashing attack some MiG, compared to firing the missile.

So how many A to A gun kills have been recorded since Vietnam? From Gulf of Sidra,El Dorado Canyon, The Iraq and Yugoslavic conflicts??? Answer: Bugger All: 2 credited to A10s in 91, And in Desert Storm F-15 Eagles absolutley reaped with AIM 7 Sparrows over Sidewinders & guns. I did not find any data to support widespread gun kill statistics in 1982 Bekaa Valley. The only comment stated that most kills went to F-15 and F-16s. (sure as hell does not support the Gun kill argument now does it?) Looked at the 1979 Sino-Vietnam war in hopes of finding significant "gun kills", but found no data what so ever on any of the A to A that occured. The only Data I could find to support decent "Gun Kill numbers" was the 1980 Iran-Iraq war. Even then Numbers show that Gun kills were mainly recorded against helicopter and other slow moving & manoever poor aircraft. IRIAF F-14 Kill Data of the conflict records 1 Gun Kill. And that 1 kill is statically insignificant against the list of (possibly) 50+ kills credited to the Tomcat's missiles. So your whole argument that the the Gun is neccesary (for A to A) becomes quite shaky post Vietnam and completely unsupportable after El Dorado Canyon. I dont know about you but I would like my Starfighter to remain useful into later life not just a 60s gunfighter! BTW all these people Bitching about a gunless F-104's, How are you going to handle flying RAF/USN F4s?

They'd be fools not to do that with the Corsair and F6F launch. Folding the WWII asset pack into the base game would clearly signal that ED sees WWII as a first class citizen of their ecosystem and not just some side thing that they don't want to contaminate their base game with but will sorta pretend to support a little on the side as long as you pay extra. ED really needs to give WWII some love for a while. Wags himself admitted they are starting to run out of modern stuff that would be compelling yet feasible for security reasons. WWII is still an largely untapped market for them. There is a large cohort of dedicated WWII players out there that have not yet been lured into the DCS ecosystem. Green fields. There is plenty of documentation out there for WWII stuff and avoids all the security friction. Airframes are fundamentally simpler (no complex computers or radar) and can be developed quicker. Once those new WWII customers have been won over, who knows what else they might buy on a summer sale. ED just needs to show they give a flip and will take WWII as seriously seriously as they do the other period genre. And it needs to be done with actions. Talk is cheap.

Yeah, eventually! On a bit of a DCS Burnout break right now, so hope to start on it in a week or two.

without knowing your hardware or set up, if you are running windows 11 make sure you have turned off Memory Optimisation and the VMP Options to Optimize Gaming Performance in Windows 11 - Microsoft Support also try 59 , some people noted that was "better" than 60 also you might try limiting to the frame rate of your camera if that is different or one below

Hey there try forcing a 60hz screen refresh, i assume you are using TrackIR

First of all, this thread has been locked and cleaned as some people can not treat each other with respect. Please remember the rules when posting. As previously mentioned in other threads the track replay system was initially a debug tool, and DCS has out grown it, we would like to redo the replay system but at this time it is not possible. It would require a complete rebuild and we are currently busy with other major tasks for the core of DCS. If you want to use replays for video editing you need to keep them as simple as possible, if you are using multiplayer with external scripts, or complex scenarios you are setting yourself up for failure. Our video producer uses the same tools as you all and I think we can agree his videos are amazing. So to recap, a new replay system is something we want to do, but it is something for the future. thanks

Well yes and no. I mean, starting engines in FC3 is a key combo which subtitutes RL procedure to get the engines running. So if you do the same using autostart, what is the difference? Also what's the diff. between FF and FC3 in: radar, ECM, flares, damage model, flight envelope? FC3 also models systems, it just that most of the systems are accessible only through common key strokes.

Submission to the Livery Competition: B-17 Flying Fortress Mk.IIA "S" of Costal Command 220 Sqn. Included are two skins: B-17 Flying Fortress Mk.IIA "S" of Costal Command 220 Sqn. B-17 Flying Fortress Mk.IIA "S" of Costal Command 220 Sqn. Generic Download Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332715/ B-17 Flying Fortress Mk.IIA of Coastal Command's 220 Sqn. in 1943, based at Benbecula, used for long-range anti submarine and reconnaissance duties from July 1942 to Jan. 1945.

Both issues are now fixed internally.

Then why did you patch it with work that clearly wasn't ready? Please just put it back to how it was at the start of the year. This isn't an Early Access module, we shouldn't be having it removed from usefulness for major portions of a year.

NVGs are set in the mission editor and the default is without them. So at one point whoever made the mission did enable it. With the NVGs you also get filters over certain light sources to not (totally) blind you

There have been a number of skins that have similar generic names for as long as I've been flying the Mi-8 in DCS... HOWEVER, they are all (normally) locked to specific countries. But when using the Combined Joint Task Forces to get access to all liveries, the "mess" in the first post shows up.

Submission to the Livery Competition: B-17G/PB-1 US NAVY Flying Fortress Included are two skins: B-17G/PB-1 US NAVY B-17G/PB-1 US NAVY Generic Download Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331122/ The Boeing PB-1 was the US Navy designation for the B-17 Flying Fortress. 48 ex-USAAF B-17Gs were acquired by the navy during 1945, to be used for patrol and air-sea rescue missions. In order to give more warning against Japanese attacks, 32 B-17Gs were used by the Navy under the designation PB-1W, the suffix -W indicating an airborne early warning role. A large radome for an S-band AN/APS-20 search radar was fitted underneath the fuselage and additional internal fuel tanks were added for longer range. Navy Squadron VPB-101 received its first PB-1 (without radar) in September 1945, the month after Japan had surrendered, and its first radar equipped PB-1W in January 1946. PB-1Ws continued in USN service until 1955.

Можем ли мы получить общую обновленную информацию о прогрессе по этим пунктам? На какой процент они выполнены? Каковы узкие места в работе, если таковые имеются? - Многопоточность - Вулкан API - ДЛСС - Сферическая карта Земли - Погода - ФЛИР - Механизм динамических кампаний Eagle Dynamics (EDDCE) - Управление воздушным движением (УВД) - Человеческая анимация - Палубная команда и наземная команда - Несколько источников света - Визуальные спецэффекты - Виртуальная реальность - Улучшения ИИ юнитов - Общая модель полета (GFM) для самолетов с искусственным интеллектом. - и вы также можете выдать последнее состояние «запрос создателей миссий и администраторов сервера на доступ к игровым API»

Hey all, I'm getting asked every day now to "fix the lighting issues" with foveated rendering (the imbalance when looking at the sky/sun, and also the NVG issue). And same goes for the double-cursor issue in ST. This isn't something I can fix. This needs to be fixed inside the game engine. Can someone please already find the proper way to report this to ED? And share whenever link/thread? It's not going to be fixed by them unless they are made aware of the issue. Thanks!

Syntax error corrected. Link is new. A few screens. There ARE a few texture issues! All will be corrected. The Character set is worth the trip! Very nice to add ambiance, even thou they are for the most part, static. Stay tuned!

MANTIS naming might not be the best choice indeed... you are correct as is related to C-RAMs defense. Moose Mantis script is a fully fledged Skynet approach. Use the "Auto Mode" and pay close attention to name convention. The "readme" explains everything very well. Just to highlight about CH assets: From SMA: RBS98M, RBS70, RBS90, RBS90M, RBS103A, RBS103B, RBS103AM, RBS103BM, Lvkv9040M NOTE If you are using the Swedish Military Assets (SMA), please note that the group name for RBS-SAM types also needs to contain the keyword "SMA" From CH: 2S38, PantsirS1, PantsirS2, PGL-625, HQ-17A, M903PAC2, M903PAC3, TorM2, TorM2K, TorM2M, NASAMS3-AMRAAMER, NASAMS3-AIM9X2, C-RAM, PGZ-09, S350-9M100, S350-9M96D NOTE If you are using the Military Assets by Currenthill (CH), please note that the group name for CH-SAM types also needs to contain the keyword "CHM"

Turn away, and not get shot at by SAMs, drop on multiple targets at the same time, spring obviously to mind.