Leaderboard

after seeing Nick Grey interview.. and watching the events of the recently release and cancelled game "The Day Before" made me realize more how lucky i am, and i think how lucky we are to have Eagle Dynamics. 1) Mr Nick Grey.. this dude flies real planes. i mean, he can easily just bat an eye on simulators.. but he continues to share the passion of planes being involved in DCS. 2) "The Day Before" was a game that was based on investor funding, which ppl who have nothing to do with gaming, at least from news that i have seen. this project ended up being a scam which ppl paid for and then a week later they pulled the plug on this game. as much as we complain how ED aren't doing something things, but i feel like they do other things, things that just take time. thank you and keep doing what u are doing, ED and all the 3rd party guys.

Its the lovely irony of PvP environments... People don't wan't to fly F-14 on modern because the 54 is just outclassed by the 120 and to an extent the 77. Simultaneously nobody is allowed to fly it with Phoenixes on the weird community canon of what cold war is, because the jet and weapons outclass almost everything flying there. (All of which occupied the same timeframe as our F-14A) Might be the problem is not with the plane or its missiles... On topic of the missile. The AIM-54A seems to have really cool motor ignition audio right now, I couldnt hear it on the AIM-54C. Is this intended or bug/WIP?

Gentlemen, version 3.0 has been released: ■ I LOVE THIS JOB (LAST VERSION) ■ HUEY SHERIFF SKIN Includes 2 new SAR missions + a "NO TIMER" option. So you can play all the missions without the timing pressure (injured people wouldn't die if you don't get them on time to the hospital, bombs will not have a timer... etc). Besides I solved the problem in the Swamp mission that doesn't allow to end it and fix all the bugs, errors and typos related with the Syria map update. I hope you like it!

While older planes certainly need a bit more skill, learning and patience to operate, they can have a great advantage in this regard: Usually here one switch does one thing, and even if there seems to be more stuff on the surface, there is less complexity altogether. I have too many modules, and I often realize, after not flying a 4th gen for some time, that I can't remember the DMS left short + TMS down long + China hat forward + boat switch aft + blink twice + clap 3 times HOTAS command I would need for the mission... maybe it's just me. I never forget, how to operate the MiG-21 or the F-1, all I need is usually 5 mins of aerobatics, to build back muscle memory. That's much more fun for me compared to relearning the HOTAS. So, learning curve is steeper but useful knowledge is less perishable I think.

So tired of people that keep telling us "I'm not having issues so it must be you" Yeah I some how went from a perfectly smooth game and THEN just right when it moved to 2.9 it stutters every few seconds... I absolutely love this game so much that I've sank $900+ but now it's unplayable EDIT: I've tried EVERYTHING known to man to bandaid the situation without no success.. Even my buddies with the best Gaming PCs have issues with Stuttering / FPS Spikes Ryzen 7 7700 RTX 4060 ti 8gb 32gb DDR5 6000mhz Windows 11

DCS was playing back fine with 2.8. Now with the issues of 2.9 there are all those threads popping up how to optimize Windows, what to disable or enable now. Maybe even suggesting that my CPU magically starts overheating, the exact moment I updated to 2.9. What a coincidence. The percentage of time making DCS playable again after an update is higher than actually playing it. Please give me one of that magic inhouse DCS testers PCs that always seem to have no issues before a new update is published. I'll pay any price for that PC. Sorry for this not helpful post. Just needed to say that. Edit: BTW all my settings are set to LOW, there is no more headroom to play with. And I have tried all the major things suggested. If not right from the start, DCS will turn into a stutterfest for sure after a certain amount of play time.

Soon (TM)

This question would be more appropriate on OvGME thread as it's about how to use OvGME. Under Config - Edit Current. The path you set for "Configuration mods folder". Just drop the zip file of this mod into that folder. And then enable the mod.

It's beneficial for everyone who deals with AI. Limiters can be a clumsy, but possibly an easier to implement way "de-UFOing" the current AI, but that's not their primary purpose. Mission creators of all sorts would find them useful, not only high end ones. For instance, if AI is crashing into the ground, set hard deck at some reasonable value to maybe prevent this. It might still dip below the hard deck because it's DCS AI, but that would not be an instant crash, but instead it'd try to get back over the deck, overriding all other behaviors. Also, mission makers could use this to make AI follow published limits and procedures when they won't do this on their own. ED is working on GFM, which will hopefully help with other issues. I'm not suggesting these are a fix-all solution. They're not. However, limiters would remain immensely useful for anyone working with triggers, who wants the AI to behave in a specific way.

No news on multithreading, vulkan or VR bugs ? Thanks

Nick Grey VIAF interview Q&A: Nick Grey use DCS for Free Fly and Acrobatics Nick has fly real WW2 Fighters as Bearcat, Sea Fury and Gladiator near 40 years, and Cold War and moder fighters as Hunter, Mig-29, Su-27 and others. DCS started on 1991, by 3 ex-enginers with a flat green land, blue sky and a very primitive Sukoi aircraft 3D model. The phisics, inertia and trayectories was real. The develop was founded and move from 91 to 95. DCS future targets has build more ambitious, inmersive world with better visuals. Make aviation a level of perfection and detail dificult to compete. Moving to make more realistic and precision as Strategy vs only pictures. ED team has a team of 190 members. Fly combat market has smal but on growind. That has complicate system to modeling as F/A-18C and no target to any gamer. DCS has grows slowly, but grows (20 to 25 years old) with continue back to the product. Nick favorite plane on DCS has Spitfire Mk.IX (very close to reality), the Mustang, Mosquito, F/A-18C and F-16C. World Map Spherical Earth started develop 3 years ago with a smal R&D team, lead by George programmer, based on south caucasus, and actualy has a 4 man team working on that technology. That technology make many thinks changes as the balistic. The bigger issue has make some inexpensive to build something realistic and looking good with too manua work. The actual maps with the Terrain Develop Kit (TDK) has many manual, with a lot of hand work, ED team expected develop a tool with make many automation, slightly diferent to MSFS (the planes dont fly)... without put millions of dolars on technology develop. The SE espected see soon on some years on the future, to the entretainment and profesional market, The next ED / DCS products on working will reveal on 2024 and beyond video. Confirm the code show on 2023 and beyond video was Afganistan map. Other map will coming on the early 2024, "reveal on two parts". Has dificult qualified personal to ED, as personal on aerodinamic. Develop a aircraf phisics has special complex as a Flight Model, and required FM engineers. Actualy has six and required more. Nick has very exited by the F-4 module by a iconic jet, by the Hellcat, he love that airplane, by the CH-47 Chinnok, realy cool and fanky. Has more and more people participating on complex missions on DCS, adding pieces of missions with dont exits before as Logistics, Supply and Special Ops on the future, and he expected see a good air show on the Chinnok. Multithread deploy to the servers, is planned, and Vulkan will be deploy next year, but not expected incredible benefits, but any little steep count. Thypoon module, has been slow down by a number of reasons, and actualy has been a develop time more longed. ED has none plans to put subscription model on DCS, that has not a Content based bussines, but ED has a tech company, no a entretainment company. ED expected improved the miles reward system. Dynamic campaign has on the ED mind from a very long time, but they never wanted to do was a BMS equivalent. The problems faced was technicaly very large, first conected to machine learning, ang being able to use AI, and on the last year or two has accelearte a bit. They have four peoples working on them, not many, but very good quality and serious people, they has very big ambitions technically for the dynamic campaign, maybe too high, and dont like make them more simple or fast, that has a mistake. Today the fun of DCS is essencialy getting good at doing something but that is not been fed entretainment you really go and make it yourself as air to air / air to ground combat, learning procedures, on a dynamic campaign, you can part of the story, of something with evolving, no only today with I fly, maybe on two days when I come back, and being able to offer is a important step of us and we are not to walk away from. Its just more complex that we thought it would be. Nick like see a better throttle and stick quality and make better formation work. Nick has very demanding on thing with has very important as the feeling of fly as CEO.

After watching Reflected's DCS Campaign Buyers Guide" youtube video (and me never tried a single DCS campaign in my life) I purchased a few. Couple of days ago (when MP cold war server was full and couldn't join) I decided to give Fear the bones a try more like f14 training. I ended up flying one mission a day and it felt like watching TV series in 80s when I was a kid... and looking forward what is going to happen tomorrow. AI was behaving nicely, never felt like it was behaving unrealistically that usually kept me from flying in single-player. Learned few things about F14 that i didn't know before, and overall it was fun.

I surely understand that the reasons that cause the issues are various. And I appreciate very much that ED is trying to adress as many possible causes in different hardware combinations. I have a high end system ( i13900 KF, RTX 4090, fast M2 drive) and I run it on a Varjo Aero in VR. My system is on the edge. Every minor impact on performance adds. And it keeps adding in every update. We are a small group possibly, but I guess I am not the only enthusiast spending a lot of money in hardware, but also in DLC by ED (lots of maps, almost every aircraft) Of course our small group are the people crying the loudest if performance degrades. But we are the best ED clients. My PC literally exists to play DCS only. The average player, who plays occasually on 1920x1080 flat screen will not notice a performance degradation of 15 %. But for high end VR users a smooth 90 fps minus only 15% = 76 fps makes it a stuttery mess. So these are the people who will complain first. For a good reason, spending so much money. But in ED products as well. I cant believe that EDs testing team does not have at least one high end VR machine to run a comparison before pushing an update out. Check my post history. Every update I contribute with performance info. While updating my hardware to the latest available. And every major update brings my newer hardware again on the edge. The performance degrades quicker than better hardware is available.

I wouldnt expect much better PK to be honest, as missile performance wouldn't drastically change. Remember that AIM54/AWG9 weapons system was designed in 1960s and put operationally in 1970s, so yeah no wonder that missile from 2000 - AIM120C-5 is better. However for nearly 20 years of F14 until 1991 (when first 120As appeared), Tomcat was only fighter with true FOX3 capability. And F-14B we got is essentially from 1987, so in typical "modern" setting pvp fighting against F-18s/F-16s from 2005 with JHMCS/AIM-9X/LINK16 its no surprise that tomcat is "out teched". But if you had historical 1989-1990 settings with same F14 we got, with all its weaponry (minus BOL chaff expanders) fighting vs AIM-7 only F-15s/F-18s or AIM-9Ms only F-16s or R-27Rs 27s/29s, then everybody would fly F-14, isnt it?

True!!! Finished quite some times ago and is one of the best , if not the best, Campaign I played!!!! Again thanks for this masterpiece

Пофиксено во внутренней версии, будет в ближайшем обновлении.

Objection! Yes you can. Simply when you prefer visual fidelity over 3D-depth and fresh air around your face. My Index is shelved (yet again) for those reasons. I get the appeal of VR, and I will retry it every now and then, and probably (hopefully) find it good enough one day to keep it….. but for now…. A statement I could get behind, would be „once you go OLED, you can’t go back…..“

I have already made several threads. The issue I run in all the time is in this thread: DXDiag from today, with the issue happening all over again is posted in the thread. I am contributing a lot, and not just complaining. And I take a lot of time to illustrate it with a video and track. I am just curious on how many ED test PCs issues are spotted of a planned OB release, but pushed out to the public anyway. ED always seems to be suprised about how many people are having issues, compared to their inhouse testing.

Its frustrating for us trying to help as well, you have posts saying you are having issues, but no data we can look at. Please make a new thread with your dcs log and dxdiag thank you

If you're interested in econo-cruising with reduced power and no warning sound, just get boost to 7 first and then drop rpm to 2000 or below. That will push boost down to 4-4.5 without beep.

Exactly this. When ED removed "MSI" from the Hornet's roadmap due to "no evidence", there were many threads here and elsewhere detailing the public and unclassified info. After much discussion ED said they will add some MSI symbology after EA. It's been more than 2 years after that and we still know nothing about it. People wouldn't be as vocal on that issue, if this feature was not promised before EA release during preorders, and during many years into EA. Many people bought the module knowing that MSI will be developed eventually. And it isn't a minor feature. It's a system that the F-18 was built around, and it is what makes the Hornet, a Hornet. An F-18 without MSI is not a Hornet. It is a draggier navy-spec F-16.

You can dimm the hud down, which reduces the green glow and for low light operations there is a red filter. (right middle center console, looks like the pull string of a lawn mower)

Per dev comments in interviews, the Chinook BARELY made it into that video, and it was 100% stationary art only, no systems or flight., which is why you've seen 'nought afterwards. None of the published content has been recorded in Vulkan.

realistic HOTAS configuration is part of the official manual that comes with the module.

Well... I hope this will change the approach to setting certain priorities in terms of what to focus manpower towards upcoming patches. I am 4k 2D on a 7900XTX and 5800x3D and I can still not manage to have 60fps all the time. Biggest Problems Mirrors and MFDs with TPOD or other Sensor Pictures. Take your 4090 and a 15900k or 79000X3D go K50III Singe player mission Convoy hunt and point the Sensor into the Forrest ahead of you... Do a Low level pass in in the Caucasus Mountains in with Trees maxed... Turn the mirrors on and off to see the difference. Take the Harrier use the Tpod bring the target 180 degrees behind you flat angle so your exhaust shows watch your fps drop more then 50%... This is priority in my eyes but maybe makes much more sense to hunt those bugs down once the new graphic engine is implemented if still necessary at that point... would be nice to see if the developers think the same way... Ah only other priority that has nothing to do with Vulkan in my eye is the Mig29

You assume, that it is unknown what this service actually does. Which is not the case, disabling and enabling certain services is not a weird trickery, but a feature. It’s of course mostly for admins and advanced/power users and not for John Doe. People who don’t feel comfortable to tinker with the OS are obviously not the target group for such things. They have to wait until someone else figures out a solution for them. And when you think that it is always the application who is at fault and not the OS (which can be very weird/broken/inefficient), you are naive. Most likely it is a combination of both. But hey, you do you. For me DCS is running fluid and flawless again with 2.9 and MT and I‘m trying to help others who also don’t wait for an solution or who just have fun tinkering with their system. The latter is actually very useful for learning how all that stuff works, which in turn can help to find solutions on your own. And by the way - disabling the power service is child‘s play. If that scares you already, you would be horrified with most of the other stuff that I have done with my system. DON‘T get me wrong - There is absolutely nothing wrong in being just a user, who wants stuff working and don’t want to dive into the inner workings of it. Nothing! But don’t assume, something is dangerous just because you don’t care about it or don’t understand it.

Thanks and I'm staying in 2.8 until the cruise missile issue gets fixed.

Hi, the game mode was removed from DCS as it was creating problems, we have no plans to bring it back. thank you

You are unstoppable!

It would be necessary even then. For instance, consider an instructor on a training mission. He can say "I will roll my aircraft slowly so you can practice staying in formation with me, then slowly increase speed with each turn". AI will never be able to come up with that on its own, but the limiters I propose would make setting such a situation up a breeze. You could have an aircraft that, in-story, has a failure that forces it to limit its maneuvering, but it's an AI-only aircraft without detailed failure simulation. Again, easy with artificial stops. The big one is altitude: the exercise says hard deck is 10kft, go below that, you crashed, and you have to RTB to get yelled at for busting the deck. AI won't come up with that on its own, deck in the actual combat is deck. There are many reasons for restricting certain performance parameters. For a human, you just say to the pilot that he better not exceed certain parameters. For an AI, you need a trigger to enable a restriction for a given phase of flight. Even a competent AI won't obsolete this ability.

I think HB has made it quite clear the F4 won't come this year. And since steam F4 still only has "soon". Nothing is gonna happen very soon.

Double click can very easily unintentionally make switches hard to use. There are quite a few that I click through in quick succession to reach a given position. Hold click is also used for some dials and knobs. This can't be mandatory or it will interfere with these controls.

It very much would be needed even in that case. Smart AI still needs context. No matter how good the AI is, it won't know the difference between a training mission and a emergency interception unless the player tells the AI what is what. Floors are needed for common training scenarios, and would also be very helpful in setting up the AI for different types of missions. Other limitations may be desired for specific maneuvers like tankers, transports, or fighters doing a show of force. Better AI would mean less tinkering would be required, but you'll never be able to get rid of all of it.

It's in the GROUND CREW menu to request launch, not the ATC menu.

Nick Grey said Vulkan will arrive next year, and that we shouldn't expect huge performance gains from it...

А я так ждал обещанную в уходящем, ДК..

32'' is definitely a noticeable increase coming from 27''. ...do you imagine downgrading to a 22''? (those tiny little things heh) Now compare your 27'' to a 34'' SuperWide: If your desk is short and you're forced to be very close to the monitor, then of course a 42'' is probably out of the equation but, just look at the scale......... The in-game cockpits (everything really) then start to feel a LOT more "real life like" (LG 42'' OLED C2 or C3 are really, really good, I tell ya) PS: comparisons from https://www.displaywars.com/

A lot of the sources explaining and delvng into MSI are actually unclass research papers, public brochures and articles as well as the regular NATOPS containing some info as well. So there really shouldn't be an issue here considering we have the HTS pod for the Viper (among other systems in the Apache) which there is exactly 0 public info on outside of a certian other sim. So there is either an unwilingness, in terms of allocated resources and time, from ED to do this properly or inability to correct the already old codebase for such a feature. A Lot 20 C model Hornet without MSI isn't really a Hornet when it comes to its combat systems and capabilities. I'm sure this can be done in DCS but at what cost and in what timeframe is the question. There really needs to be a willingness and urgency from the develoepers to do this properly as I don't really see any other way.

It depends on various things... It depends on the system you'll be using DCS with that new screen. You seem to have a 2560x1440 27'' screen. How much are you seeing in the GPU usage? If you're already seeing over 80% of GPU usage at that resolution, then at 4K you'll certainly hit 100% with the same settings, forcing you to decrease settings. On the other hand, with the recent inclusion of DLAA, TAA, and DLSS, you'll certainly manage a compromise with settings that can make you really satisfied. It depends what you value most, more resolution or more framerate. The jump in clarity and definition from 1440P to 4K is as big -if not bigger- than 1080P to 1440P. It's that good. But it's still very intensive after all these years - it does push the GPU to its limits at a certain point... forget 90+FPS everywhere and all the time in DCS at 4K, it won't happen. As to say, if you're the type of person that "it always has to be 120+FPS all the time, period" then DCS in 4K is probably not for you. Especially if not using the very best hardware. It depends what you value most, vertical depth or horizontal depth. Widescreen format, either in 21:9 (super-wide) or 32:9 (ultra-wide) really is an acquired taste. You should definitely try it first, it may or may not work for you. Some swear by it, and it does have its pluses depending on application. For example, for sim-racing the big curved ultra-wide 49'' monitors are excelent. But then, we're talking flight-sims + TrackIR here.... and in this particular scenario (DCS and others) I personally don't think it works all that well. You lose the immersive vertical depth that a regular 16:9 screen provides, and is an important factor you'll be missing. Personally, I felt like "something is missing", as if the top of the screen was chopped off (I regretted it... never again). In regards to the spotting in DCS, even with latest updates, it's still mediocre regardless of resolution (IMO). I do not think this should be considered as a decision factor for your new screen. The immersion, the clarity, definition, motion handling, crispness of colors, overall image quality, now those certainly are. I'm sure opinions will vary but, I'd really recommend two potential paths in 16:9 format, first because they are safe bets for DCS and, second, because in your case it's basically taking what you already seem to like and make it "bigger, more better" : A good 32'' 2560x1440 (1440P) monitor is fairly affordable now. Yes, the pixel density is lower compared to your 27'' with same resolution (equivalent to that of a 24'' 1080P screen), but still very good on a bigger 1440P screen that is also easy to run (same as you have in that aspect). There are OLED panels at 32'' size, but they're too pricey for the size (IMO). Models with IPS panel are affordable and the better choice for this size, with good overall quality and no ghosting/smearing issues with fast moving images (likely to happen with VA panels and why some avoid these). Examples: Gigabyte M32Q, Asus TUF VG32AQL1A, LG 32GP750 and 32GP850 (these are all IPS) A good 43'' or 42'' 3840x2160 (4K) monitor can be expensive and a little harder to run but is, most likely, the choice that will knock your socks off. IPS panel would be good but don't know any high-refresh model (LG 43UN700-B is 60Hz only, ok but not "wow"). There are some with VA panel (Samsung, Asus, etc). An OLED panel is definitely the best of all (excelent) and very worth a look - if it's for pure gaming use (burn-in risk factor). Examples: LG C2 42'' and C3 42'' (OLED, 120hz) I'd even recommend a 48'' 4K OLED, but then we're entering a whole'nother level of "bigger more better"....

Hello, Just tried the Mossie, and I enjoyed it very much. Great work from ED, as always. Is there a way to turn off the beeping warning sound the Mossie makes when you are low throttle and with gear up? It makes you crazy after a while. Thanks in advance.

That would be nice. Community A-4 does a cart now. They just "wink on" and then "disappear" though. Ideally they wouldn't just appear but would be instanced from static placement on the side with an animation of some grapes hooking them Similarly, would be nice to see to some red skittles coming up with an ammo cart when you arm/disarm. Generic animation would be fine, though ideally would have the appropriate loadouts animated.

Man, that first pass of the Corsair said loud and clear, "FU Japs, comin' thruuuuu...!"

in 70's doppler navigation was a thing, you know? Same with modyfing inner pylons to fire sidewinders, 2 IR missiles is 50's era std, we have Mig 21bis from early 70's, and somehow export users modified it to allow double rack for R-60, we have this implemented in DCS Mig-21, but 4 Aim-9 that was std for F-5E II cant be? As for using F-5E for modern times, it's still in use with several AF's. It's not supposed to be competetive, but we have enaugh trainers in DCS already, and actully very few non FC3 fighters we can take and challange those F-teens in somehow realistic scenarios given maps we have availble

It is not a matter of want. The AH-64D in US Army has never been capable of employing Stingers or any air-to-air missiles. Such a feature would be as unrealistic as giving the AH-64 AGM-65 missiles. Further, there are no public references for how these weapons function in any of the foreign variants of the AH-64 that have been modified to do so.

Happy 3rd Year Anniversary to this bug still present - DCS 2.9.1.48335 Stable

У меня Intel Core i7- 4790K на Socket 1150. Материнка не понимает вставленную 3070 (слишком новая) и пищит при старте системы о проблемах с видео. И при этом симулятор работает нормально ровно многие годы. Наверно старый процессор не поддерживает все эти сомнительные нововведения Микрософт и работает спокойно в свою силу. А видеокарте все равно какая там скорость порта.

I am sure once we have a release date there will be more support.