Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/05/24 in Posts

  1. The very worst Q&A I ever saw. Answers to questions we already knew, about technologies implemented for weeks, if not months. Answers to questions about future as always with the ED - "someday, maybe yes, maybe no", and as we all know official timelines are less accurate than kid's storytells. Literally no info, or answers on current matters or new projects. Q&A no one asked for. Q&A no one needed.
    21 points
  2. DCS: OH-58 liveries list. Q: What liveries are included with the module? A: US Tennesee Army National Guard 1-230 152 US Tennesee Army National Guard 1-230 113 US Army Ft. Rucker School House 75H US Army Ft. Rucker School House 43E US Army Ft. Rucker School House 26E US Army 7-17 A Troop 'Shadow' 604 'Taz' US Army 7-17 A Troop 'Shadow' 964 'Marvin' US Army 7-17 A Troop 'Shadow' 039 'Lola' US Army 7-17 A Troop 'Shadow' 014 'Bugs' US Army 6-17 C Troop 'Crazy Horse' 367 US Army 6-17 B Troop 'Blackfoot' 366 US Army 6-17 A Troop 'Aces' 571 US Army 6-17 A Troop 'Aces' 523 US Army 6-16 G Troop 'Grizzly' 356 US Army 6-6 A Troop 'Assassins' 971 US Army 6-6 C Troop 'Outcasts' 587 US Army 6-6 C Troop 'Outcasts' 179 US Army 3-17 C Troop 'Crazy Horse' 976 'Jenny' US Army 3-17 C Troop 'Crazy Horse' 561 'Ariel' US Army 3-17 C Troop 'Crazy Horse' 179 'Presley Marie' US Army 3-17 C Troop 'Crazy Horse' 001 'Jasmine' US Army 3-17 B Troop 'Blackjack' 937 US Army 2-6 129 US Army 1-17 B Troop 'Bootleg' 381 US Army 1-17 B Troop 'Bootleg' 024 US Army 1-17 A Troop 'Roughnecks' 344 US Army 1-17 A Troop 'Roughnecks' 115 US Army 1-17 A Troop 'Roughnecks' 079 US Army 1-17 A Troop 'Roughnecks' 002 US Army 1-6 A Troop 340 US Army 1-6 A Troop 161 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 336 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 335 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 334 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 333 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 332 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 331 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 330 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 329 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 328 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 327 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 326 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 325 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 324 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 323 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 322 Croatian Air Force 393 Eskadrila Helikoptera 321 Taiwanese Army Tunisian Army Greek Army British Army Air Corps Desert (fictional) British Army Air Corps (fictional) Russian Army (fictional) Polish Army (fictional) Dutch Army (fictional) Japanese Army (fictional) Israeli Army (fictional) French Army (fictional) Spanish Army (fictional) German Army (fictional) Australian Army (fictional)
    17 points
  3. Should this really still be being sold ED given that people away from discord will not be aware of any freeze on its development and the ongoing discussions. I add given it now seems like Razbam have lost some lead F15 developers (they have gone public with their resignations) and as such surely there comes a morality issue of still selling a product when you have resonable suspicion you may not be able to deliver the item as specified? Probably worth a temporary hold on all further e-sales until you can hopefully resolve this issue and provide clear consumer direction.
    12 points
  4. You are very welcome. I look forward to more such videos every couple of weeks, or so. Kind regards, Wags
    12 points
  5. Dear Community, We are immensely grateful for the tremendous response we received to the Developer Q&A we initiated late last year. The sheer volume and thoughtfulness of questions we received was astounding. Over the coming months, we will steadily answer all of your 1900+ questions by splitting them into categories and publishing a new video and forum post for each. We believe that this detailed approach is the most suitable approach to repaying your dedication to DCS and we greatly appreciate your patience in the time it took us to organise and gather answers. Thank you for your support. Please read today’s Newsletter for greater context of the thread below, which is the first of many. 15th Anniversary Q&A: ‘Performance’ in DCS This thread has been created to host the written answers for the ‘Performance’ Category. Wags covers most of the questions in the published video, but additional and written answers are available here and below too. Please join Wags as he talks around 'Performance' in DCS: Where usernames were submitted with questions, these have been included below. Please write to either BigNewy or NineLine if you do not want your name to be displayed. Name/Username Your Question: ANSWER FOR PUBLICATION dutchchili Realistic missions requires sheer numbers of planes and ground units. What can we expect this year in terms of performance improvements to facilitate such missions. Both in single player and multi-player? When delivering MT we saw improvements to MP sessions. As the simulation's size and user expectation grows, performance improvements are not often easy and simple to deliver, especially when we integrate more graphical and visual updates. The implementation of DLSS, FSR, and Vulkan will (in future 2-3 years) both give improvements and increase our scope to facilitate continued performance upgrades. However, performance vs graphical beauty is always a compromise affected by hardware. As components improve, so will we. Mason0920 The multithreading update was a huge improvement for overall performance, Does Eagle dynamics have any future plans to improve the game engines performance going forward? Yes, we have multiple plans to improve the performance, but users must not expect any magic button. The delivery of MT and DLSS have been well received, and FSR advancement will help too. We're working on Vulkan, but this will give us the platform to expand from rather than an immediate boost, so after initial delivery please do not expect anything significantly noticeable for some time while we work at it. Every time we add new features and updates the additional complexity means more performance is always required and it is a constant battle. K6D Are there any plans to incorporate Nvidia or AMD frame generation technology? I have used it in Microsoft Flight Simulator and it has greatly enhanced my experience, especially because I play at 4k 120hz. Without it, the unsteady frame rates tend to bother me a lot. Not in the near future. But later 100%. Phoenix 1-1 | ViperForce Will FSR 3, and other general performance improvements be added to the core engine in the near future? We are working on Vulkan API as a necessary step to advancing FSR. If FSR 3 will have Vulkan support in future, we will plan to integrate it. This will not happen in the near future. *Freelancer* Jaghammer What is planned for future Multithreading implementation/improvements? eg split DCS graphics or Simulation pipeline into more threads We already have two independent layers. Graphics being what you see and Logic translating how it all behaves. So far, MT has been implemented into the graphics layer. The next big improvement will be successful implementation into the Logic layer, but we cannot share a timeline for this, other than it will definitely not be complete this year. JET4LT How is the rendergraph engine progressing? Can we expect to see hardware agnostic upscaling tech such as FSR3 in the near future? The Render Graph is evolving but we have no details to share right now. We are with FSR1 and are implementing Vulkan which will allow steps to FSR2 and maybe FSR3 if support is introduced (FSR3 is at the moment DX12 only). This will not happen in the near future. Snowblind How are the core tech enhancemts coming? Is the multi core as good as it’s going to get or should we expect more performance improvements to come soon (within a year) We plan to deliver more performance improvements and currently working on them. We will deliver them on-by-one and some of them will be done during the year and others will come later. suti1979 Could you make more effort to finish multithreading? It's unusable for me and most of my friends. (my setup: i9 12900, 3060Ti) Unusable: laggs, freezes, slow, no improvement on fps at all. Please, report the bugs and provide tracks. We need to understand in details what is going on for you. Because a lot of people received the improvement of the performance. We would like to focus on your cases. Vojtěch Oujezdský Will DCS ever support ai upscaling? This was introduced with DCS 2.9 Raven (Elysian Angel) Burning question since DLSS was announced: what happened to ED’s stance on not incorporating proprietary technology? Why not focus on FSR (2 or 3) instead, even though it is widely considered to be inferior to DLSS at this time: it is open-source after all… DLSS has been implemented. FSR 1 is implemented and we are working toward integration of Vulkan API which will allow us to explore FSR 2 and beyond. ZeakQ Will you implement newer versions of DLSS? We support 3.5.10. Yes, we will implement further updates. Loukuins When does DLAA and DLSS will be implemented? Implemented. PricklyHH72 Can we expect further roll outs of the multi-threading system for DCSCORE, or is it complete? We delivered graphics MT which we announced and worked on. There will be another round for Multi Threading to be implemented into logical level of the game. We have already started to work on it in several areas such as ground units. We will not talk about time lines and milestones. The logical level will be improved step by step and MT will be partially delivered at each stage. Fwood2 Are you gonna make DCS have better performance Our work on MT, DLSS and Vulkan demonstrates our commitment to improving DCS performance Thank you for your input and dedication to DCS. We look forward to sharing more with you soon.
    11 points
  6. Guys, all this speculation is doing no one any good, let management on both sides work it out and once this is done we will let you know what is happening. Thanks.
    10 points
  7. Man the excuses that are being posted about the lack of available manpower for the small Yak issues that need fixing are very telling. I purchased it using the same decision as I purchased the F18, F16, SC, and many more ED module, that I would get a complete and working module at some point, at this point its still EA and the F16 isn't, which is more complex. I don't care if it was a private product released to us, I don't care if you don't have enough manpower to fix it, that's not my issue that's your issue as a company, you took on the project, you sold it with features and into the DCS eco system, your still selling it, you should complete it or at least fix bugs that have been listed and not fixed for years. Stop working on the F6F/E for 3 months and fix the Yak, we don't have that plane yet so its made you no money, wont harm anyone to wait another 3 months for a plane not released. At this stage I,m regretting my pre purchase of the Afghan map and really will consider all my purchases of ED modules in the future seeing how the community mangers engage with long term customers when asked about certain products.
    9 points
  8. Can you try and make the answers more concrete? 'working on it' -> planned for May 'performance improvement' -> the number of calculations will be reduced by 10%. FPS effect depends on your system. We tested with .... and resulted in xyz FPS 'system dependent' -> we've accomplish a constant 90+ fps on instant mission 'performance test' with an i9 ....RTX .... (a test mission would be great for the community to test if they have local issues, if you provide a reference performance. This also ensures that you can do performance regression testing_
    8 points
  9. Please note all newsletter now have their own thread here https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1229-official-newsletters/
    7 points
  10. There are several problems with this.. A) Even if Razbams really withdraws completely from DCS , ED may not have the entire strike eagle source code yet. Even if there were contractual requirements to hand over the code in case of withdrawal , Razbam could, at least hypothetically,for example be hot-headed and flat out refuse. Then ED would have to resort to legal measures and that could take a long while to sort out. I'm not saying Razbam would do this. B)Even if ED got the code from the code from either Razbam directly or after sueing or whatever, ED would need to get familiar with that huge heap of code, before they could start to work on it. I assume this would also take longer, since the F15E is a quite complex aircraft/module. C) Even after getting familiar with the code , the F-15E is as mentioned , complex and I really don't ED having the capacity or spare employees to take on an additional project of this size and complexity and bug-fix and further develop it. Just look at the glacial pace of developement on their own modules, ( most of them in EA and unfinished) , they seem continously overstretched and regularly bust their own timeline estimate by large margins. They have announced the next few EA modules in developement ( Mig-29,Chinook, 2 Maps, etc etc.). I really don't see them successfully updating and developing this , even if they took it on. So no, I wouldn't say Razbam is in a weak position. Regardless of which side you wish to take , from a customer standpoint and PR standpoint, this has been very very bad for ED as well, not only Razbam
    7 points
  11. Regardless of who is in the right or wrong here, this is clearly going to put a severe dent in the confidence of anyone contemplating making further purchases.
    7 points
  12. No, we have already posted a statement on Discord and we wont be discussing it anymore until it's resolved. We are doing our best to get it all straightened out. We have nothing more to say on it.
    6 points
  13. so for us who bought f-15e; are we new generation of Hawk customers? Promoted from tranier victims to twin jet fighter victims?
    6 points
  14. Adding meagre drawing tools is not a 'huge improvement' to the mission editor; all the same limitations, bugs, broken UX and lack of features are still there. Just now you can add low res 2d drawings (and those tools have bugs too). I think your ability to be impressed is a little overboard. It's a hardcore military flight sim. Clouds are nice pretty things to look at, but the core sim and it's abilities didn't improve by adding better looking clouds, esp as the enemy AI can STILL see through them - you know, like how tanks and see and shoot you through a dense forest even when flying NOE in an Apache - the sim needs serious work - not just on the pretty stuff. Lipstick on a pig springs to mind sometimes when people go on and on and on about the 'clouds'. This isn't MSFS. We need more than pretty screenshots.
    6 points
  15. Recently released statements by both RAZBAM & ED are most disheartening! I’m sure the contract ED & RAZBAM have is detailed and comprehensive. And, I am sure it will recognise that, from time to time, there may well be contractual disputes. I am also sure that there will be clauses in this contract that specify how such disputes will be resolved or arbitrated. The public statements made by both are extremely damaging for the whole DCS community. I have invested in many mods & all maps for DCS. However, given the current state of affairs it seems difficult to have any confidence that anything I may purchase will be completed & maintained in the long term. Therefore, I’ve decided that, until this matter is resolved amicably, and assurances given by both parties confirming their commitment to DCS and the continued development of these modules, I will NOT be making ANY more purchases AT ALL. Which, in the short term means I have cancelled my intention to purchase Afghan/Kola maps & F-4 Phantom. Do get the matter sorted, soonest, privately, through the proper channels.
    6 points
  16. I hope both companies get this stuff sorted out. The way they throw mud in the public at each other is extremely unprofessional. I own every Razbam module and I'm very concerned that especially the F-15E and SA map won't see a finalization anymore. As a customer I feel like being held as an hostage by Razbam and thats a slap right in the face after supporting them over the years especially while their first 2 modules needed many years to mature but nevertheless I always trusted them. This trust is annihilated. This dispute had never had to reach the public. The companies should work their dispute behind the curtain. Man. I have other businesses to care. That's so annoying.
    6 points
  17. Whatever, the important part was - it is more than one. People are jumping to conclusions and in reality they don‘t know anything. It‘s a dispute between contract parties and they should solve it behind closed doors. The court of public opinion isn’t well suited for those matters. Razbams vague statement was semi-professional in my opinion, and forced ED into a reply (that I found equally „semi“ tbh). But from here on it should stay between them until solved. Even if that hurts our (mine for sure) curiosity.
    6 points
  18. I believe that the issue aren't the particulars of some bugs by themselves, but the perception that bugs, after being reported, aren't responded to adequately. As a fellow Yak-52 owner (I own all modules, and am a strong supporter of ED and all things DCS) I'm sure I'm not the only one who read your January 26, 2020 statement that said Now, we may differ on the definition of "feature complete" but I think we can agree that the '52 still has some way to go. But again, the specifics aren't as important as the perception that too many things in DCS are moving slow, and ED's focus seemingly is on creating new modules rather than finishing existing. Since DCS's income stream is based on one-off sales of modules, that makes complete business sense: money spent on an obscure, released module like the '52 can generate only a tiny fraction of the expected return if it was invested in a new module with much greater mass appeal; 99% of all Yak-52 sales have likely already been made. That's heartbreaking to me, but understood. "Caveat Emptor" applies to anyone who enters the "Early Access Lottery" and I knew what I was getting into. What I do find a bit irritating is what appears to be some attempts at gaslighting: claiming that everything is fine, and all that needs to be done is to report bugs in the proper forums and things will be perfect. I own, fly and love all DCS modules. Many of them have issues, and the time it takes to fix them does seem to greatly correlate with their module's popularity, meaning that known issues can linger for years in modules that aren't top sellers. I now see that ED have changed from a 4-week to a 6-week (currently it looks more like a 7 week) cycle. That's fine with me. I'm sure that ED understand that with longer cycles their customer's expectation rise as well. And people do get frustrated when, after eagerly browsing the change log, their pet peeve wasn't addressed again, and the next fix is at least 6 weeks away. That's bad. But it's worse when we hear from the perspective of ED that everything is actually fine, and all we need to do is merely report bugs in the forum and they will be addressed. Many aren't and unfortunately, too few are commented on by someone in authority at ED (and by "commented" I mean "acknowledged, reproduced, scheduled for fix"). That is what I feel chafes at people's minds (I'm speaking for myself, and reading the comments I think I am not alone). Mind you, I'm not accusing ED of being lazy (far from it), it's that many of us feel too little of the effort that ED pours into the modules that we bought. We'd love to hear more, and more frank, updates. Tell us if fixing a bug has low priority for ED. I would understand and manage my expectation accordingly. I think we can handle the truth (admittedly, also browsing the comments, that's not a universal trait exhibited here).
    6 points
  19. Brigadier General Olds flew the F-4E in combat. During Operation Linebacker (circa 1972) - years after his 8th TFW tour flying the F-4C & D - then Colonel Olds had a staff job at the Pentagon. After the improved North Vietnamese GCI system took down multiple USAF F-4s in quick succession , he was dispatched to Thailand with orders to audit the air to air training level of the USAF wings. His Linebacker tour was supposed to be ground-duty research only, but “somehow” Olds wound up flying combat missions in the F-4E. He delivered a candid report informing HQ USAF its pilots were woefully underprepared for air combat. Nothing was immediately done to address that.
    5 points
  20. Can you keep us up to date here as well? Not all of us are Discord users.
    5 points
  21. Whatever is going on, I hope it can be resolved amicably and development can continue. I have every single Razbam module and the possibility of no more updates or development is giving me a lot concern. I waited over a decade for the Strike Eagle, and the Mirage and AV8B have always been some of personal favorite aircraft. Not being able to fly them in such detail in a simulation would be a huge personal blow for me, on top of the money I've already spent. I did not buy these modules under the assumption that bug fixing and development would cease at any point or that the modules might cease to exist from DCS either.
    5 points
  22. It wouldn’t be the first time, nor the last, that a party to a contract breached confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions. As a lawyer and commercial litigator, I see it all the time and it’s no indicator of who is in the legal right here with respect to the underlying dispute. Furthermore, and largely depending on the language of the contractual provisions, even if ED breached first in some way with respect to payment, it would most likely not permit Razbam to violate any other provision of the contract, nor serve as any meritorious defense to such a claim.
    5 points
  23. It's a shame that the users are being used as leverage here. If there are contract problems, they should be solved professionally and not made such a move. Well, I won't be buying anything from RB's EA anymore. In terms of quality it was always a gamble and now something like this.
    5 points
  24. Wouldn't the business decision to make the module in the first place ,mean your committed to completing it and that in itself is a commitment to your customers who purchase it, this goes for any module Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk
    5 points
  25. 05 April 2024 Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, The initial set of answers from the 15th Anniversary Q&A, presented by Matt “Wags” Wagner is now available for your enjoyment here! We hope that this video gives you a better understanding of our plans and goals regarding game performance in 2024 and beyond. Answers on additional topics will release steadily over the coming months. Thanks again to all of you who took the time to participate, we are truly grateful. We are thrilled to share our latest development on the DCS: F-16C Viper’s complex INS and GPS improvements. It is important to note that not all features have been added and more enhancements and bug fixes will be coming soon. Fox3 Managed Solutions group is running a DCS tournament in support of the K9sforWarriors charity. We encourage you to participate in the event as all proceeds will go to the cause. Please check out the details below. Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics 15th Anniversary Q&A Videos Performance We hope that our approach to packaging your questions works well and that you will enjoy Matt’s performance. Over the coming months we will be providing further videos covering your 2000+ questions. As you can imagine, quite a few of the issues raised have similarities and hence we have categorised them in subject matter blocks published on Youtube and on our Forums. Enjoy! Check out the first video on Performance questions. Written and additional answers can be found on the Forum here. Thank you for your patience and all your support! F-16C Viper Development Report F-16C INS+GPS System Overview The navigation system on the DCS: F-16C Viper is a complicated mixture of technical solutions that are intended to supply the avionics with coordinates, velocity, and angles, that are characterised by precision, availability, integrity and autonomy. This is achieved by the cooperative work of the Inertial Navigation System (INS) and Global Positioning System (GPS) whose navigation inputs are processed through a Kalman filter in the Modular Mission Computer (MMC). Let’s discuss each of the components in detail. INS The Inertial Navigation System is an autonomous device that performs dead reckoning of aircraft coordinates by measuring the accelerations and then integrating them twice whilst taking into account the aircraft’s orientation in space. The latter is obtained from the F-16 ring-laser gyros. This type of INS is termed “strapdown” as there are no rotating parts. Basically, INS consists of three accelerometers, each for one orthogonal axis, and three gyros. The main features of INS improvements are: Autonomy, as it doesn’t require any external signals to do dead reckoning. Stability in a short period of time (5-10 minutes). Noticeable error accumulation over longer periods of time based on the physics of dead reckoning. Together with the integration of accelerations (to update speed) and integration of position (to update coordinates), the small errors at the level of accelerations that are introduced by accelerometer noises and imperfect alignment are integrated twice as well. Furthermore, the larger those errors are, the faster they accumulate due to the so-called integral correction of INS, which updates the local Earth gravitational force vector with the coordinates and adds them into the relative angles of the G vector. Another distinctive feature of INS is the Schuler Oscillation with a period of 84.4 minutes. Due to the integral correction algorithm mentioned above, the INS behaves like a pendulum. In ideal circumstances, it stays in equilibrium while the aircraft moves along the Earth. When coordinate errors appear, it displaces the pendulum from the resting point and it starts oscillating. The larger the errors are, the larger the amplitude of the introduced oscillations. That’s why one may notice that INS errors get smaller at a rate of 84.4 minutes once airborne. GPS Global positioning system measures the aircraft position by measuring the signal propagation delay from GPS satellites to the receiver. Satellite orbits are precisely known, the exact positions of the satellites are computed according to an almanack that is transmitted in the same GPS radio signals. That’s why GPS needs a couple of minutes after the cold to start obtaining the almanack. The moments of the signal transmission are also known and are defined by a very precise atomic clock on board the satellite. Thus, in an ideal case, if the GPS signals are propagated through space with the constant speed of light, as they do in a vacuum, the receiver could precisely determine its position by intersecting the surfaces of equidistant radio signal delays from the satellites. You may think of it as spheres with centres located at the satellite’s positions, although it’s a bit more complicated in real life. However, there are two significant factors that prevent us from obtaining the ideal point of the surface intersections; the ionospheric delay and multipath. Both add unknown time to the actual signal propagation time. Multipath happens when the receiver is placed relatively near the ground and the signal may be reflected from ground objects that results in the signal's edges degrading; this is similar to an echo in the mountains where it’s too hard to tell one word from another. When such delays are unexpectedly added by the receiver, the precise navigation solution gets lost and the output coordinate gets noisy. That’s where military GPS signals help to get a better signal resolution by the use of so-called P-codes, and the usage of dual frequency helps to eliminate the unknown ionospheric delay. Integrated solution. Kalman filtering To summarise the above: we have two navigation systems, both of which have flaws: INS accumulates errors over time, GPS is noisy and prone to interference due to natural factors like multipath and ionospheric delay and to enemy jamming and spoofing. Here is the good news! There is a way to avoid these flaws with the Kalman filter. It takes GPS and INS coordinates together with speeds as its input. The Kalman filter is a great algorithm that is able to get the maximum precision even out of measurements far from ideal, and it takes the best aspects from both systems: the stability and autonomy of INS and the precision of GPS to obtain an integrated navigation solution that is both stable and precise. Furthermore, the Kalman filter knows, in terms of mathematical equations, the dynamic properties of the aircraft that is moving through space. If the aircraft is moving, it predicts where the aircraft will be on the next filter step. That’s why it is called recursive and the filter won’t let erroneous GPS signals decrease the precision of the output navigation solution. Moreover, it is able to dynamically change its measurements vs. prediction weights to adjust to a degraded navigation precision of any input. Fox3 Solutions Charity Tournament This April, Fox3 is thrilled to announce a heart-pounding, adrenaline-fueled DCS tournament that's not just about showcasing your skills, but also about rallying our incredible community to a great cause; supporting the heroes at K9sForWarriors. Learn more about the K9sForWarriors mission. Mark Your Calendars! The battlefield opens from the 19th of April to the 21st, 2024. Prepare for three days of intense aerial challenges, camaraderie, and epic battles that will test your mettle. Please note that this is a charity event with paid attendance and fantastic prizes: Fox3's Ultimate DCS Skills Showdown is Here! Thank you again for your passion and support, Yours sincerely,
    4 points
  26. I really like the idea of Q&A, but in my opinion implementation could have been better for the chosen platform (YT). We get that people ask the same question over and over again in a slightly different form without bothering to check if it was already asked or not (and I get it can be really annoying, I'm working myself in a customer-facing QA and deal with this every day), but showing that so literally in a video is not doing anyone a favour. To me it felt like downplaying questions which obviously have some valid complaints in their essence, and I honestly don't think your goal was to publicly downplay those, but you kind of did. One of main rules of PR - never downplay complaints. Imagine yourself being a 5yo boy and Wags being your first kindergarten teacher explaining you that DLSS is already there while you are still asking for it. Video starts OK but further on as questions get overlapped a lot you start to get this feeling. I get that "DLSS is here" was supposed to be a joke, but there is just too much tension in whole performance situation right now to joke about it. You get to carefully joke only when you are sure you defused the situation, but are you sure you actually did? Just check the most liked comment in this thread. And as for the format itself, in my opinion, instead of a current format you could have shown those questions quickly on the screen, summarised them all in 3-4 sentences and just elaborated on your plans, and I'm pretty sure everyone of those who asked them would have thought you answered their question. Video editing is a powerful tool to make this actually enjoyable to watch and cover more ground. Right now this looks more like a radio podcast designed to listen without watching, and that is not what most of people expect from a YT video.
    4 points
  27. I was a little disappointed that no significant mention was made of the game AI and how it can be made more efficient, or its workings separated potentially outside of the main game thread. More units is a challenge for the client side to be sure, but even if you could render a whole airland battle, it won't bring you much joy when the gameserver chuggs to death because a script asked some armoured units to move to a town across the river and pathfinding exploded. Ditto considerations about running IADS, although there has been movement on that very recently.
    4 points
  28. Actually, this Q&A was 100% driven by users so maybe you know the answers or didn't enjoy it, but others might. We have more videos on other topics coming soon. Maybe one of those will be more to your liking. Thanks for the feedback.
    4 points
  29. Well so much for staying on topic. Closed. We will have a new topic for the next patch. Thanks.
    4 points
  30. We are testing newer versions, but we will need time to check them. thank you
    4 points
  31. 4 points
  32. вот реально, могли бы и дальше бесплатно поработать, ишь какие меркантильные оказались
    4 points
  33. When user buy module to DCS, it`s agreement between user and ED. So if Razbam put further support and development on hold (or completly stopped), ED should support and develop module by itself. Official statement from ED is required at current state. I also suggest to put on hold sales of the affected modeles. It definitely have consequences on sales from other modules.
    4 points
  34. I won't blame anyone, neither ED nor Razbam, there are things we don't know about but in my opinion Razbam didn't break any rules if no payments were made. The contract includes not only obligations but also obligations for both side. If it is true that Razbam has not been receiving money from ED for a long time despite reminders, then there is something strange here. The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but at the same time, the ED's response should be adequate to alleviate the situation, not to add fuel to the fire. I rather see Razbam's actions as a cry of despair, when all other means, e-mails, contacts, etc. have failed and despite this, adequate support and a solution to the problem have not been obtained from the ED (the ED is giving the cards here, remember, not Razbam, so it is a kind of "worker's strike" as desperation effect).
    4 points
  35. Depending on the outcome of this situation, the F-15E may be the last DCS module I ever purchase. Absolutely unbelievable, what a complete slap in the face to all the loyal supporters who really have no where else to turn for modern high fidelity study sims, many who have been here for more than a decade. My eyes are on both companies the EULA doesn't cover false advertising. The product page has a list of features that the module was supposed to ship with on release. So Either Deliver what I paid for or give me my money back. Period. Customers shouldn't be held hostage over disagreements whoever is right or wrong in this case or any case. Even with a best case outcome, this situation has seriously degraded my trust in both parties, and going forward I will be much more careful about supporting either side with my wallet.
    4 points
  36. We got the new clouds a while back, which is The Best improvement in years I think - and the best clouds in any flightsim - and there's the multi-threading and DLSS. I did see a sweet jump in my FPS with the multi-threading. It's not all coming around as fast as we might like, but the sim looks great and runs well. And Vulcan is on the way, along with new map and aircraft tech. I'm feeling positive about the whole thing.
    4 points
  37. I think the better analogy would be MySpace. Perhaps instead of the business model being 'announce new stuff and get pre-orders' there needs to a break from new stuff, and fix/improve/replace/repair the core sim, technologies and already 'out in the wild' modules. Surely with a more stable and better functioning and feature laden base, it will make focusing on the 'new' stuff much easier and quicker. And on a personal note, stop neglecting the mission editor and the scripting environment; most of what 'customers' complain about is the lack of content in the DCS Sandbox; that is significantly hampered by 25 year old tools and design approaches. Just my 2p.
    4 points
  38. Sorry for the late reply, guys. I'll look into it this weekend, I'll provide a new link to the mod with all the liveries included.
    4 points
  39. Agreed. The only real losers will be the dedicated fans...ie. us.
    4 points
  40. It sounds bad, because it wasn't sold as "special". When i bought it, i assumed it would be developed at a similar pace to other modules. It wasn't and currently aspects of its simulation are definitely not on par with other ED modules.
    4 points
  41. Robin Olds isn't flying the E. His mustache is. Olds is just along for the ride.
    3 points
  42. There are still modules that aren't being maintained properly for sale. Why stop with this? I don't fancy buying anything more in this type of environment. I'm a bit late for that though as I own most of it and they've taken my money.
    3 points
  43. We will release them as above. With each new video we will include them and the answers. Thanks!
    3 points
  44. Thanks Wags for answering the various questions (including my own ). I’m looking forward to the patch next week to test the new INS
    3 points
  45. Agreed. Details on dispute slowly emerging to the surface...seems like RB is cornered. No going to take sides here, but bad had just become worse.
    3 points
  46. Dear Virtual Fighter Pilots, Partners, and Friends, During the past 30 years, we have worked hard to bring you the most realistic combat flight simulators available for PC. Be it a WWII aircraft or a modern fighter our aim was and remains to offer realism and fun to the entertainment market. With the exceptional technical progress made in hardware and software, it is difficult to tell the difference between DCS and real-world footage. This is wonderful for you and for the industry in general. However, in the light of the current situation unfolding in Israel and Palestine, it is paramount to refrain from generating images which could be misconstrued and potentially put lives in danger. Therefore may we beg you to be sensible and avoid using DCS to create videos of this nature. Our thoughts are with everyone during these uncertain times, and we thank you, our dedicated and caring community for flagging such content and bringing it to the media’s attention. Fake news of this nature is too serious to be left alone and needs to be called out by those of you who know what to look for. Thank you for your understanding and for your support. Kind regards,
    3 points
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...