...

It is the best open server in the entire community and brings together the best virtual pilots both on the red side and on the blue side. There were synchronization problems, weapons and systems problems with the release of 2.5.6 that are gradually being corrected that affected this and other servers. On the other hand, people have been locked up at home for four months because of Covid19 and now I suppose that people prefer to meet with friends and family rather than stay at their desk. But the 104th is and will be the best human versus human role server and I am grateful to be able to participate. Thank you

Exactly, it is not an exclusive problem of the Supercarrier. This also happens in Nellis (Nevada) in one of the predetermined missions. Looking in any direction gives more than 70 FPS and looking at the parking area reduces the FPS to 45/50. Nor is it a problem unique to DCS, as they want to imply. This problem is present in most flight simulators and I have tried all of them. If the Stennis gives 60 FPS and the Supercarrier with ultra-detailed textures gives 45, something that is basic math. All this fighting to beat you 5 FPS? Because you will agree with me that only a computing miracle could match the FPS of the Stennis and the Supercarrier. On the other hand, we also do not need studies and tests that tell us that eliminating the deck crew and deactivating the shadows improves the FPS because it is obvious, it is something we all know.

Of course it matters, especially if you are trying to hold ED responsible for problems caused by NVIDIA, Windows or other platforms.

The Hornet SA bug was a bug in an NVIDIA driver version that was fixed by reverting to a previous version.

:doh::doh::doh:

If you understood the obvious, no one should have told you that it is obvious that the Stennis gives you better performance.

I have already given you useful information, you decide whether to use it or discard it. You can't claim to have the same performance in low resolution areas as you do in ultra-detailed settings. The sooner you understand it, the better for everyone.

No one can beat irrelevant examples, friend. You started the thread comparing the Supercarrier to the Stennis, until your feet stopped.

If it is reasonable. When you have 100 + FPS in the rest of the map, you're flying over low-quality textures, it's that simple. Here is a screenshot of a tree and a house in DCS. Now you understand why the 2080 has 100 + FPS on the whole stage and 50 FPS on the Supercarrier? [ATTACH]244284[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]244285[/ATTACH]

You already have the low / medium / high complexity option in the general settings. When you configure your graphical panel, you must think that you are now at sea, but then you may be flying between trees and buildings, therefore you must reduce the general settings. I haven't even seen Matt Wagner set vegetation and visual range to maximum in ULTRA mode. I still wonder who would want a Supercarrier to turn into a Stennis by reducing the quality of the textures and eliminating the deck crew.

I highly doubt that you had 40/60 FPS at London Heathrow. As in DCS, your performance in other simulators will depend on the quality of the textures of the area you are in. You are the one who compares the performance of the Supercarrier with the general performance in areas of the simulator with less graphic quality. I'm not saying 30/35 FPS is enough. I say that they are reasonable considering the quality of the textures and the graphic load in equipment like ours, in my case a GTX 1060.

From my point of view it is not as "tremendously" slow as you put it. I repeat, 30/35 FPS is what you would get in other simulators flying a PMDG 737.

The main one interested in a performance improvement would be me, but while the miracle comes, I can be grateful to be able to move in the Supercarrier in a stable and fluid way thanks to the realization that my PC cannot afford to fill the supercarrier platform with static elements that increase the graphic load. EDIT: I just saw, furthermore, that you don't put much of your share with a visual range in ULTRA and vegatation to the maximum.

Nor do I pretend to argue with Dmitriy. The point is that all DCS maps have been developed with low-detail textures. The trees and buildings are modeled in such a way that they don't have a huge impact on performance, but when we hit the Supercarrier we get the same FPS that we would get in any other airplane simulator like PMDG's 737. Have you tried the Presets? Maybe that helps more than looking for manual settings, because in DCS 2 + 2 they are not 4. Did you know that the SA page performance issues were actually caused by an NVIDIA driver version? Most of the people who came out of tunnel vision managed to fix it by reverting to an older version of the driver. I don't mean to argue and respect your point, but please understand the more graphic detail, the more impact on performance.

Sorry, for some reason the infantry is not doing its duty. Depending on whether I hide the units on the map or select the (off-road) or (custom) units, their behavior changes to the point of scattering, stopping, and doing some pretty strange things. Two updates ago it worked perfect. After a full day of testing, I have failed to get the (Strike Group) to accomplish its mission. If someone understands more about the subject, they can modify or fix it. The base is ready, you just need to make it work. The role of the (Assault Group) is to advance on the ground to a safe assigned point outside enemy range. Attack enemies within range and standby until 50% of enemies in the area are downed. At that point the group should RESUME and advance to the next waypoint to finish the job, release the prisoners, and board. The problem is that if I place the units (off-road) they move in line, one behind the other, without covering the whole area, but if I place them in (custom) (diamond) mode (on the left) the group is dispersed throughout the exercise, gets lost very far from the assigned waypoint and never embarks on the transport.

Where is the problem? We all get the same FPS on the Supercarrier that we would get with a PMDG 737 anywhere on the map of any other flight simulator. Welcome to reality. You get excellent performance on the rest of the map because the trees and buildings are low-quality textures, and you come back to reality when you zoom into an ultra-detailed environment. If we don't want details on performance impact, let's go back to Stennis.

This is the Briefing. Obviously it may be very poorly translated, but it has all the information. Entering heading 330 does not mean going straight, you have to use the mountains for cover and enter through the lowest points outside the range of the armor. (See photo) During the entire route, Manpad must be deployed at tactical points to protect us from the Ka-50. The briefing photo shows the entire area with hostile areas marked in red. You have to avoid flying high through populated areas because there is Manpad and RPG. If in the mission we do not receive air support, we will find a Ka-50 and three armored vehicles. Ka-50 priority 1. If it is not knocked down it is impossible to enter. Tunguska priority 2, if it is not demolished it will be impossible to access the extraction point. There are also photos of the position of the tanks. I feel like I should accompany all of this with copilot audios, but I don't speak English :( ***BRIEFING*** It is necessary to clear the area using air support air naval units securing the airspace and air-ground attack units for a precision attack. With the area clear, the UH-1H rescue team will be able to access the camp by disembarking a tactical assault group a few meters from the extraction point, remain in place and wait for the area to be secured. The extraction point is located on Lake Minab, 8 miles heading 330 from the Logistics Base. Access to the camp will be through a safe area, using the terrain and mountains as protection. IMPORTANT!!! It is important to access the extraction point with the gunners in ceasefire mode so as not to fire on the prisoners. ***IMPORTANT*** In the absence of air support, each UH-1H unit has a group of six Manpads for tactical landing at assigned points and an ASSAULT Group made up of five soldiers in charge of carrying out the incursion and cleaning the area. This does not guarantee secure access and its effectiveness depends on the accuracy of its deployment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSAULT GROUP LANDING INSTRUCTIONS Entrance to the ***RUMBO 125*** extraction point. In the area are the remains of a downed American helicopter. This will be the landing point for the Strike Group. ***After disembarking***, ***if we have not received air support and there are armor in the area***, we will attack SA-19 ​​Tunguska with priority using the terrain as a shield for a surprise attack. In case we have received air support, we will simply wait for the Assault Group to clear the area to access the extraction point, board the prisoners and return to the Logistics Base. AWACS: 251 AM CVN-71: 127.5 AM. TACAN 1X. ILS 1. I have already removed the music from the beginning. As soon as it is updated, I will attach a plan with the entry path to the extraction point and share the file. In the photo of the briefing, the map of the entire area appears with the range of the T-90. It is possible to enter through the side of the dam and cover yourself with the mountains. I have tried to explain the entry in picture, but this destroys the multiplayer mission because it reveals the red coalition where we entered. It is not necessary to leave the Manpads at the exact point, they can be left in close proximity and they go to their area alone. But leaving the Manpads at a great distance from their established area can cause their death or that they do not fulfill their function. [ATTACH]244233[/ATTACH]

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Thanks mate. Yes, maybe it is incomplete information and without waypoints, because my initial intention was to add an ADF both in the enemy camp and in the base camp since the UH-1H does not really have GPS capability and marking the current point on the kneeboard is unreal. . So I added a map of the enemy camp with the threats and their range. You were probably shot down by a T-90 or a Tunguska. In the updated version there is also a Ka-50. I understand that for those who do not know the position of the threats it is suicide. I will try to create a graphical route or add route points. I will remove the music at startup and other suggestions before uploading the updated file. Thank you very much! I forgot it! I kept the rest of the planes in client mode in case someone wanted to share a mission with their friends and have access to air support to take care of the armored vehicles or have a real defense on the red side, but this is optional.

Hi, something puzzling has happened to me and I really don't know if it is due to an error or my ignorance. The ATC gives me CASE 1 and tells me Notify see at 10, but the rest of the instructions are for CASE 2 and CASE 3. Establish, start, etc. At that point I don't know what to obey, whether to follow a CASE 1 pattern or take off at 7,000 feet and 20 miles for CASE 3. Is it a multiplayer error, or is it me? Thank you.

i7 7700 + GTX 1060 6GB here runs Supercarrier with no problems. It is true that the FPS are low. In my case, I move between 30 and 35 in a stable, smooth and smooth way.

This past week I have started to go red with the Hornet to balance. I usually fly on a blue side because it is what identifies me, but if we are all on the blue side, the mission is meaningless. The problem is that in the Desert Víper mission the following happens. You have to travel 100 miles from Bandar Abass to intercept targets, after intercepting, you have to travel another 100 miles of chase, because they are in air-ground attack configuration and flee to take refuge in the sams of their ship fleets. This means that most of the time you have to travel 200 attack miles and 200 return miles without having achieved any objectives. The problem is that the refueling planes are over the airports of the red side and not several miles ahead protected by ships, for this reason, rather than refueling in the air, we prefer to land directly. If refueling planes were in the mid-range of the journey, it would be possible to establish an intermediate orbit without having to return to base each time the enemy hides in their aircraft carriers. Just a suggestion. Don't get me wrong, the 104th for me is the best multiplayer server in the whole community and I am grateful to be able to participate. A hug.

Nosotros no podremos entrar, ya te puse los motivos por privado, pero te deseamos toda la suerte. Me parece una buena iniciativa.

It is possible to use the elevators to go down to the lower area and back to the deck, perhaps not in the most elegant way. In my opinion, a radio command could be implemented for the elevator, but the way to operate would be completely arcade, as shown in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqFzNVZ_vV0&feature=youtu.be

There is no stock for Europe. All products are out of stock.

Mission complete, with some infantry issues. They do not behave as programmed. They do not embark on transport quickly, they disperse, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpT1NzYpHaI&feature=youtu.be