Leaderboard

I've updated the first post with a download link. The pack isn't as complete/polished as I originally planned but I don't know when I'll have the time to work on it. So I might as well share what I got so far. There are 4 variants: M2, Mk19, TOW and Cargo.

Tobi is polishing the last few items on the OH-6 while I'm finishing the assets. Nothing really worth showing at the moment but we're almost there

I think people that don't like playing simulations shouldn't be playing simulations.

That is correct no FC3 or any other module is needed.

Heatblur Simulation: Another livery in the bag! Representation of all F-4 operators in DCS: F-4E is key.

As mentioned in the locked thread it is not something we are planning, I am happy to leave this thread open for discussion as long as it stays civil and constructive. thank you

While I'm not convinced we need an outright easy AAR mode, I think DCS could do a much better job at teaching AAR and making it somewhat more accessible. We have an overlay for the IFLOLS, why not for the PDL? We have an alignment overlay for sling loading, why not for probe and drogue refueling? Learning to hit the basket is a lot easier when you actually know what you're doing wrong. Why don't we have proper tutorials for all aircraft? Each and every module teaches you how to take off and land, why not how to refuel? We typically get one single mission or maybe an instant action mission (no consistency!) without any guidance. It should be a progression, from formation flying, through very simple AAR scenarios to refueling in challenging conditions (at night, in a heavy aircraft etc.). With the voice of Wags guiding you through the entire process, giving you good information. Right now the AAR learning process is digging through forums and YouTube for advice, half of which is dubious, and trying with practically no feedback until it somehow clicks. We can do better.

I knew the M2K did something with RCS, but it's interesting we have converged on essentially the same solution. In the F-4E implementation the relation between RCS and the amount each side presented to the radar is not linear so as to give a shape closer to that of the general trend of RCS diagrams. There are factors for, side, top, bottom, and front and back which multiply the base RCS based on the amount of each side presented to the radar (as mentioned before not linear though).

Target orientation (how much of the nose/tail, top/bottom, or left/right are presented to the radar) will significantly alter the resulting RCS of a contact in our model. Just to clear something up, the conical scanning is simulated, so there is no "transferring the lock away", rather the antenna is pulled towards the maximum of the total signal (in the conical scan on average), including all kinds of clutter/noise (jamming, chaff, ground clutter and targets). As for chaff the problem is more complicated, currently in DCS chaff objects are very short lived, so building volumetric chaff clouds is not possible (with correct synchronization) or worth the cost at this time, we have asked ED for a more useful data-structure with regards to this which is being looked into for the future. The primary concern relating to the above is the track being disturbed by an aircraft dropping something which a huge RCS very quickly. To combat this the chaff takes some time to bloom and gradually comes up to it's full RCS (as it would IRL) as specified by DCS.

Yes, I think it's very important to support CH! I've been a Member of DCS World since its release! As we all know CH has brought so much life to the DCS World Community! The models CH uses are NOT cheap, so I believe that supporting CH is the least we can do! CH has stated that all the support goes towards the Mods he has created!! I thank CH, he is an amazing creator, so if you enjoy CH's Mod throw in a few bucks, it's the least we can do!! Timex 3

2 AI variants of the Seaking (Sikorksy SH-3H and Westland Mk48) as well as 2 static ones with folded rotor and tail to place on a carrier deck In the mission editor, the AI Seaking can be found under the helicopter tab (it should appear at the very bottom of the list) The static object variant can be found under Static Object -> Helicopter -> "Static - Seaking" Credits : Original 3D model by Julialt (CGTrader) US Pilot 3D model by CombatSystem3D (CGTrader) US Navy Liveries by Gunslinger22 German & Iranian Navy liveries by Neo47 UK, Canadian, Spanish and Australian Liveries by CrazyEddie Belgian Coast Guard livery by Eightball Special thanks to Admiral189 and CrazyEddie for allowing me to use their AW-101 as a template, to Backy51 for helping me with the lua as well as Tobi for the Blender exporter. DOWNLOAD Paintkit by @Neo47: DOWNLOAD PAINTKIT US Navy Liveries by Gunslinger22: German & Iranian liveries by Neo47: UK, Canadian, Spanish and Australian Liveries by CrazyEddie:

This is a wish list, and you have come to the right place. Unfortunately, this topic "AAR Helper" is know to be irresistible for some of the, uh, more outspoken "git gud" crowd, with motivations I try not to speculate too much about. In case you haven't yet used it, there is a very helpful function available to you that can make this entire discussion (albeit not AAR) a lot more palpable: the 'Ignore' function that can tune out those whom you deem not worth your while. I use it sparingly, yet I notice that I only see half of all the messages in this thread. Go figure. So is an AAR helper a legitimate wish? Yes. Why? Because you wish it.

Hey, Hi, electronic engineer here and some rant I put a lot of admiration to effort given to details of any engineering modelling of aircraft systems. I generally enjoy such details as those are basically aligned with my field of interest and profession. Though, the recent announcement about INS/GPS feature improvements made me start thinking "is this even make a sense". 1) Who wait for this? I do not recall wide discussion about urgent need for this feature. We already have basic implementation of dead reckoning. Why to spend more time if more wanted features are in queue? 2) How we can use it? I do not recall any API which allows to influence on GPS precision. We do not even have damage models for this, nor we can trigger GPS precision degradation from mission scripts to simulate some nice scenarios (like in recent battle fields). The only way to degrade GPS is to switch the date before 1991 (or something like that I do jot recall exact date coded into DCS). 3) How many of us will ise it? No one will use those INS features as in most servers we have GPS. As long as you have GPS the total error is below a couple of meters. This is a measurement error. It does not matter for plane navigation as this error does not accumulate! While GPS is functional. 4) Should ED spend time on more wanted features? You tell me? - heat seeking missiles see through clouds and mist (same AI units without radar like WWII or Cold War) - TGP is jumping like a rabbit when.l tracking AA targets (no inertia simulation for camera head) to the point you cannot distinguish the siluete. - no pilot body - damage model is a joke Yeah I get it the idea about simulation details and I will probably enjoy this details os few cold war missions. Though comparing the development velocity for ED and some third party vendors, and also level of perfection and details to core features, makes me very bad emotions. I'm waiting for major bug fixes mentioned above but instead I get more detailed feature almost noone will notice on daily basis. The only way to make sense of having those improvements wouldn't be model of electronic warfare or at least dumb API to define zone with degraded GPS precision.

oops, made a mistake while renaming one of the texture folder. it should be "hmmwv_prop" and not "hmmvw_prop" I've updated the download link with the fix

I was debating back and forth with myself as to whether I should follow my own advice and not try some kind of cute setup, but I was too slow to edit it out. Sorry about that. I'll just not be coy or vague about this: the switch between flight models I'm asking about is already possible. You can already grab control of and jump into an AI aircraft, flipping it from AI to player flight model, and then jump out of it and flip it right back. The only issue with that is almost completely separate: taking control over AI aircraft make them abandon their flight plan, so the coding needed would be to either just continue what they were doing before the player intruded (which arguably is a needed fix anyway), or — in this case — be context sensitive enough to figure “oh, I'm being activated in a refuelling scenario, so let's refuel from this tanker right in front of me”. Remembering what waypoint they were on, or doing a specific in-flight task when called upon through some UI mean that explicitly says “do this task” shouldn't be a huge coding hurdle. It's a contextual auto-generated pushTask for one of the most trivial tasks in the game. e: In fact, it was brought up earlier, and if we're going for a full-on self-flying scenario, I'm not sure any flight modelling at all is even needed. It's already possible to snap the player in place relative to a moving unit. An extreme case would be to apply that existing functionality to the appropriate position relative to the tanker. Whether you'd want to go that far is of course entirely up for debate. It certainly risks looking ugly. Yes we can. That was the bit I was alluding to, but rather than be constructive about it, I tried to be cute instead. Again, sorry to Grodin for that one. I'm playing semantics to show what a non-argument “not needed” is unless it's padded out with a whole lot more context. Is it not needed because the function already exists? Is it not needed because it's outside the scope of what the game is trying to do? Those are really the only two options and neither applies in this case. Simplified AAR is needed because it is fully in line with the stated goal of the game “to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator”. If “both hardcore realistic and casual gameplay modes and options” are to be available as key features, why should AAR of all things be excluded from that? Simplified AAR is needed because it provides those who don't know how to AAR a means to still take part in missions where AAR is needed. Consequently, it removes a hurdle for mission makers in that they have to either make special considerations for those who can't, or limit their audience — i.e. it allows for more content for everyone. Depending on how it's done, it also provides a better learning environment for those who don't know yet, and for the mission makers who want to create those teaching scenarios. It provides a lot of things to a lot of people. To almost everyone, in fact. Simplified AAR is needed exactly because it can avoid creating the kind of negative learning that self-guided practice invariable creates. Again, if implemented sensibly, it would create an environment where common mistakes can be pointed out and not made by the learner to begin with. It cannot be circumvented by unlimited fuel — in fact, unlimited fuel does the exact opposite. There is nothing to suggest that it requires much in the way of complex programming. And even if it did, that doesn't mean it's not needed for a myriad of other reasons.

Caution: Meta/Oculus may have disseminated another auto update today which came up when I started Oculus. My DCS Steam did not launch. Fix was to stop Oculus VR Runtime, roll back my Oculus diagnostic, client and runtime files, then restart Oculus VR Runtime.

Again, as has been described, that does the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. Removing all ability to manage fuel is not a replacement for wanting more complex fuel management. It's an idiotic suggestion.

Of course it will. It will help people who want to take part in more complex missions but wouldn't otherwise, thereby entrenching them more in the game and giving them more reason to play more and practice more, especially with friends. Making practising and learning fun. It will help people by smoothing out the learning curve and creating means to actually teach AAR. making practising and learning easier and more efficient. It will help people by creating more complex content for everyone. …and just because they did it the dumb and inefficient way, all others who follow must categorically do the same? No. Tradition is bunk — hazing as a tradition doubly so. Doing something badly is not an argument in favour of keeping doing it badly. It's an argument for improving how it's done. No-one is trying to change simulation into arcade. Quite the opposite. They want to experience more of the simulation because they like simulations. That's why they are here. As it happens, one of the best ways of improving a simulation is to increase the number of means and methods in which an increased number of situations can be broken down in learnable and teachable bits. As a bonus, it also lets everyone enjoy it more, together. That's an extraordinarily poorly designed AAR practice mission. Hence why better tools are needed. …and guess what makes that practice be vastly more efficient? Helpers that show you what you should be looking for so you can get your eye in for what's right — what the world around you should look like — so you don't have to guess or, worse, learn the wrong things. Conversely, if the opponents could come up with an actual argument against this addition, they wouldn't need to resort to fallacies.

But it wont help anyone, They can, as it was said countless times before, use their free time to practice formation flying and then aerial refueling. As thousands others have done before and succeeded in doing so, instead of dropping bombs, they spent their time learning to fly formation. Then after they learned to fly formation and refuel they started dropping bombs. Or if they skipped AAR they know they don't qualify for long missions, so they do short missions. Body height and eyesight is not something you can choose - how to spend your free time is something you can choose, I suggest you spend it on practicing. As for your ground school etc, you can choose that but DCS doesn't require you to go through all that. And lastly this is a simulator, not real life, I hope you can distinguish the two. CTRL+Y, and speed up or pause is for testing and bug reporting purposes mostly, but its convenient if you don't have much time to spend through 30 min of straight forward flight, or you need a toilet break, we are at home after all. Yes it is ok, skill is something you get by spending time practicing, it comes down to your choice of how you'll spend your time if you don't practice you wont get the skill required to accomplish a certain task. And that is not the reason to turn a simulation into arcade. And if you can not do AAR then you are not qualified to do long mission which require AAR, for that reason you should do shorter missions, or, we come there again, practice AAR. After all AAR is not required to play DCS. As I said, people that don't like simulating shouldn't be simulating since they don't like it. But instead they want to change simulation into arcade. I think that is whats wrong here.

Only really in the sense of “here's a tanker — try to connect.” The game doesn't really allow for much more, and that's part of the problem. Whereas other things that you need to practice a lot have all kinds of functions and triggers and shortcuts that you can employ to create a smooth learning curve and to create missions that actually teach you whatever it is, AAR does not. Because teaching and learning AAR properly is apparently “arcade”. You must absolutely do it the worst way possible because… Lots of things aren't “necessary” for the game. Like the Hornet, for instance. Completely unnecessary. So that one really needs to not be in the game and the devs shouldn't waste any time or effort on it… right? Or maybe you want to include them anyway because it brings something to the experience. In addition, as maps get larger, AAR will become more and more natural to include. And you don't want to exclude players from having that experience for no good reason, which in MP in particular means that you need to cater to a number of different skill levels and playstyle choices, preferably without cutting out a different category of players in the process. This is why anyone with even the slightest shred of understanding of the game knows that unlimited fuel is not a workaround: because it cannot be selectively applied and because when it is included, it breaks all fuel management. Removing fuel management is not a replacement for requiring fuel management, but in a more complex way. In fact, it does the exact opposite of what you want. It's quite silly to suggest otherwise.

Simulations! Yes that's a great way to look at it. I am too tall to fit into the cockpit of many of these aircraft. DCS simulates that I fit. I am too blind to pass a vision check to be a military pilot. DCS simulates I am 20/20. I am too impatient to deal with ground school, flight school, exams, paperwork, trainers, first solo flight, air force academy, etc. DCS simulates I can skip that. If I die in a car crash on my way to work I am dead for all time. DCS simulates I can respawn again and again. Sometimes I forget where the basic gauges are, or the controls. DCS simulates that I can press CTRL+Y to magically know my altitude, speed, heading, or pause to change a setting. In real life time moves at one speed regardless of if it's convenient for me or not. In DCS I can speed it up or pause it to 'cut to the action' or take a leak and grab fresh coffee before taking that cat shot. All of that is okay, but if I lack the skill to complete AAR and DCS simulates that I do have the skill to accomplish it, then I don't like simulations and the whole point is ruined and you're offended personally that I want THIS shortcut? I'm sorry but I think there is plenty of room here for another difficulty option or simplification, and that it should be implemented. If we don't want to offer varying levels of help/crutch then can we simply have a way to go to precontact and let the AI take over the jet temporarily to fuel up in missions and servers where it won't offend anyone?

Классика - сам себе придумал чужое мнение и решил, что кому нужнее :)) Поищите опросы юзеров ДКС. Откроются глаза. У половины ПК средней цены, треть юзеров старше 40 лет - играет только офлайн и хочет развития песочницы, а не графических наворотов.

@BIGNEWYappreciate the reply. Agree that you have kept the community informed. Understand that you are only the messenger also. You are a conduit between ED and the community, and vice versa. I hope you relay to the powers what community sentiment is on various topics. Moving forward, perhaps the “no hotfix”/ fixed patch cycle policy should be reconsidered. ED already are not sticking to a schedule as evidenced by the delay in this update. Recognise that this problem (caused by Meta) rendered DCS totally unusable for a number of users, for weeks. ED could have fixed it. ED SHOULD have fixed it last week!

The planned update was the 3rd of April, it had to be delayed and is now planned for the 10th. Appreciate you and many others are unhappy about not getting a hot fix, but as I have mentioned many times on this occasion and patch cycle it was not possible. The meta update created the problem, and then left us in a difficult spot, I have tried to keep you all updated on the situation, we have posted various work arounds that many are currently using, but also understand that not everyone likes using work arounds. All we can do now is wait for the patch and the fix. thank you

Modern ejection seats are called zero-zero for a reason. I wouldn’t want to be ejecting if the seats barely clear the vertical stabs: those pilots would have some serious fractures.

I don't think we need multiple difficulty settings. But having something akin to the 'easy comms' toggle would help not only players, but also content creators, who must rely on various walkarounds to make their AAR missions more accessible. The idea is simple. By ticking a box in either the DCS settings or in the mission editor, and then positioning the aircraft inside a fairly large box behind the tanker, the player will automatically begin receiving fuel. Contacting the tanker or extending the probe is not required. Although the player is free to try plugging in and improve their skills while waiting for refueling to complete.

Go figure... I find this community friendly and - more importantly - amazingly helpful. Got a bunch of spot-on pieces of advice here countless times. Including AAR - someone said "dude, it's like learning the piano" (of course the piano is way harder than AAR). I followed, it worked. Well, as many people as many opinions, I guess.

Oh, boy... so you, PhantomHans, want the whole set of functionalities, multiple elaborate AAR help options etc. Look, unlimited ammo was relatively straightforward to add, because planes must be rearmed on the ground via the Rearm/Refuel window. Once you program that, you can sort of use the same code to "rearm" in flight. You just have to check when a particular pylon gets empty etc. and trigger "automatic rearm" with the same type of weapon. Not too much work. No damage is virtually for free - you keep your code for taking damage as it is and either go around it, if no damage option is on, or do something similar. Now, your AAR options seem laborious to program! And for what purpose? You think such options will get you where you want to get, but you really ignore the most important fact that AAR (or formation flying) is a MOTOR SKILL and there's one and one only method to aquire motor skills - regular repetition until it clicks. Not because I say so, but because that's how brains work (the cerebellum in particular). Your IQ doesn't matter here, you may be as smart as Stephen Hawking if you like - it doesn't matter. You just need as many repetitions as it takes, divided into short sessions (until you can't cope with frustration). If you're young, maybe 3 sessions in total. For me it took some 10 days, I think! Yeah, it felt awful, terrible, but I kept doing it for half an hour a day (or 2 or 3 sessions on a free day - morning, mid-day, evening), day by day, no "holidays", no excuses, shut up and try again next day. And then... it just clicked. Pretty suddenly, by the way. Problem solved. Nobody's a newbie forever, it's always a transitional state, temporary phase. And you don't become a newbie ever again - that's permanent. Yes, you need refreshing every now and then, but it's never nearly as hard as the first time. That's the PROVEN way to get there, while your AAR helping options are, so far, imaginary ways to get there, you IMAGINE they will help you. I doubt they're worth the time to implement. If it was a simple "bubble", I wouldn't mind, beacuse it would probably take relatively little time for a dev to implement it. But you want the whole slew of elaborate crutches, while in reality... you will still need to practice regularly until it clicks. If you think you can somehow "trick" it, learn it without that painful boring repetitions, you may as well insist you can learn to see infrared with own eyes or hear ultrasound with own ears. It's the brain, you can't do anything to "work around" it. You might think people are just vicious/malicious/malevolent or something, because they've gone through this s**t and now they want you to suffer just as they did. No. Not at all Those people just know how it works and they want you to stop dreaming, wasting time, and just follow the only known path to get there. You may disagree, but, well, in that case you're stuck where you are. I learnt AAR using A-10C (because I wanted to "master" the Hawg), but later I discovered that probably the easiest plane to AAR is the Hornet.

Грустно это когда вопросов больше чем ответов. А выбор уже давно сделан.

Very nice!

Unlimited fuel/ammo/inv can be used to set up prolonged practice dogfights to get better at dogfighting, or to replenish your bombs to get better at bombing, etc, without wasting time to reset the mission. Easy refueling will not help you learn how to refuel, quite the opposite, it will teach you bad habits, and give an easy out to avoid learning it. Not to mention what you propose is a complete waste of dev time, while we have so many pressing issues that we eagerly await.

Personally I don't have a problem with people asking this, BUT... just to point out that those "horrible realism-breaking options" are NOT the same, as you seem to suggest. It's a "narration". Unlimited ammo and no damage options are didactic aids, they help you LEARN something. They should be used with a little bit of mindfulness, otherwise they may teach you bad habbits, but still - they are basically didactic aids. On the other hand, easy AAR, such that - for example - you fly into a mile-wide "bubble" around the tanker and fuel gets teleported to your tanks (can't remember AAR in LOMAC), is not a didactic aid. It's the opposite - prevents you from learning. Is it bad that people keep asking for easy AAR? I don't know. Honestly, I don't care, either. I know they're making themselves a disfavour (by not learning AAR), but it's their business what they do, not mine. Would I prefer ED to focus on other subjects that I consider a lot more important, such as bug-fixing etc., instead of getting "distracted" by easy AAR? Yes, I would.

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.

Hi @Eightball There seems to be a missing texture. All four are affected. They look great otherwise! Thanks for sharing!

I still have a cart of it! You should check out Thunder Helix, it's LHX but made as a passion project.

We are discussing and you start calling people toxic... not really nice, there is no reason for AAR sorry, I already explained why.

Just attempted to sort the pictures, because they are backwards, but this editor doesn't work properly

Don't update if it works now. Better yet block it. Who knows what else they break.

G'day, Sir! Strap in and enjoy the ride. Don't worry, making all the control assignments takes shorter, maybe 2 hours in total (once you know very well what you need and how you like it), it only feels like a week Judging from the serious gear set you've ordered, you'll have plenty of options. There are more planes with relatively simple weapons systems, depending on how you define "simple". One day you may want to try the "forever free" A-4E-C Community Mod. You may think that a community mod can't be as good as a paid module, but... not in this case, the Scooter is fantastic (rolls like mad, but one can decrease "Saturation Y" to cicrumvent it). Whatever you choose, for starters or later - wish you lots of fun

Owning a pico 4 and an 8kx is a bit of a luxury, so of course I can’t help comparing the two. I had the 8kx first and have now had the pico for about 9 months. both are great headsets and I’d be perfectly happy with either. I thought I’d jump between them more, but actually I don’t. I just spent a couple weeks forcing myself to fly with just the 8kx to “get used to it” again. No doubt it has that lovely fov and nice colors. Then today I put the pico on again and flew a few of the same missions I had flown with the 8kx. Expecting to be a bit underwhelmed by the pico due to the smaller fov and VD with compression, I was not at all. In fact I’d go as far as to say the pico is nicer in visuals than the pimax. With the exception of the fov, the sharpness is the biggest noticeable difference. The 8kx gets very blurry away from the center quite quickly, meaning that despite the larger fov, i have to move my head more with he pimax than the pico, in order to see the details and labels around the cockpit. comfort is the other immediately obvious one for me. The pimax is not uncomfortable, but switch over to the pico and the weight difference and balance is like a breath of fresh air, as is the actual breath of fresh air provided by the little fan inside. im still in awe of this little headset for dcs after 9 months. VD works great with it and I get solid performance with high settings in dcs and godlike in VD with hvec encoder and 150mbps, at 90hz. At the price this things sells for it really is astounding. Highly recommended.

We have had one tester reproduce the issue, but the good news is the next patch does not show the issue. Please wait for the planned patch ( currently the 10th April ) and retest after. thank you

It is? Or it isn't? I suspect you missed a "not" there but stand to be corrected!

Why do you think this one detail does not deserve to be fixed/corrected? Do you have a list of what should be perfectly simulated and what can be neglected or left off? I mean this is a bug - unrealistic behavior. What's in it for you to come and spoil the report? You want to remind us that it's just a computer game and it's not real? Devs wasted so much man hours for you but, believe me, there are many who appreciate every single detail simulated correctly.

And again, just know that any amount helps. As long as enough people contribute regularly, we'll be able to help Currenthill bring more to DCS.

Every one can wish whatever he/she wants in the wishlist section. Especially optional features which you are then free to ignore

Excluding systems like Combat Tree, you don't get a distinct "foe" response, just no response whatsoever. The problem with IFF is that when it responds, it sends out a signal, which can be triangulated back to the source. So, Mode 4 gives no response to an incorrect interrogation. Other modes are for finding a specific aircraft (Mode 2) or a specific mission (Mode 1), and they simply respond "match/no match". Combined with a list of codes for all assets operating in an area, this can potentially factor into a decision to engage (although I wouldn't rely on it), but those two modes would be turned off in Indian Country, as anyone interrogating those modes would get a response. So, if the bandit haven't detected you on radar, but ran an IFF sweep and saw a strange "no match" readout where there shouldn't be anything, he'd know to expect to find something in that direction. Combat Tree did more or less exactly that: interrogate the MiGs' transponders to find out where they were. This system could be said to have a true "foe" IFF response. With later systems, an incorrect Mode 4 response would be highly unusual, since it would suggest the aircraft did have proper codes (since it accepted the interrogation), but somehow managed to mangle the reply.

Daily MiG-29 Slovak UB Tigermeet

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.

Folks please keep it civil. As mentioned the ocean is to far outside the planned area for carrier ops, Afghanistan terrain is already one of the biggest terrains in DCS and we have to consider not only file size but performance. thank you