nosaMtrevoC

I don't know one way or the other as I'm pretty new to the WWII stuff in DCS, but I do notice that I'll get dozens of "Damage to..." stream across when I hit them multiple times and it doesn't seem to effect them (AI planes), but if they basically get a single small burst on me my plane is un-flyable. I'm ok with a single burts taking me down, but shouldn't it do the same to them. I don't know if there was another variable at play last night since the update or it was just my altitude and conditions different, but I've flown the p-51 a lot in the last few weeks very well until last night which during the challenge campaign to shoot 2 aircraft down I could barely pull on the sticks in any direction at almost any speed without the plane wanting to spin out of control or osscilate strangely... couldn't do a barrell roll or any manouvers. It was very frustrating. I havn't had this (other than extreme manouvers I realize it does this) in any of the other times I flew it.

I'm guessing ED is toying with the idea of implementing SSE at some level (4 or greater) to allow parrallel processing on multiple cores on a single CPU which SSE can help you do. I'm betting the majority of the community would prefer the efficiencies gained with parrallel processing (even on the server side) than having older processors work. Especially on the server side where it's more common to see 20 core 2.8 GHz machines than it is to find 4.8GHz machines (usually less cores) Anyways, just my 2 cents. Hard to guess what they are actually up to.

As stated below, yes, most likely your virtual environment. You'd be hard pressed to find a 64 bit Intel processor that doesn't have this support. It doesn't necessarily mean this at all. They could be wanting to use some of these instruction sets in a future update, and are flagging the requirement when compiling now so that they can slowly get every one on board with the new requirements before rolling out the code that needs it. That way it's easy to roll back if you get a lot of kick back from the community as no actual code has implemented this instruction set yet. If you want efficiency gains (read fps), it's instruction sets like these that allow you to garner them. That being said, it could have been as simple as having compiled the code with this requirement flagged by mistake.

i think the ideal image size for stream deck is 288x288 now

Yes, you could create a panel much like he did for x-plane that you could either re-create your stream deck on (easier), or use the stream deck api to mirror it on. A good place to start would be the code that draws the (easy mode) flight information in DCS when flying in this mode. check your Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\P-51D\Cockpit\Scripts\ARCADE folder for an example in that folder you have arcade_template_hud.lua (for the p-51 same for others) arcade_template_hud.lua would be a good start to see how to draw out particular screens for putting the streamdeck into.

I have been using the DCS-ExportScripts mod to export aircraft information to my streamdeck. So far so good using something like: local digAltitude = mainPanelDevice:get_argument_value(9) * 13000 ExportScript.Tools.SendData(2000, string.format("%d", digAltitude).." M") This works great for items available to mainPanelDevice. Wondering if there is some type of global variable within the scope of exportscripts that I can find things like gun ammo still available, and how to call it within DCS-Exports any info you may have may help poke me in the right direction and is appreciated.

irrelevant now, the new update removes the requirement.

Sorry, looked at the wrong file. Noticed it when i got home and opened it on my DCS Computer and saw different code. I was looking at the 190 code instead of the 109 Doubt I can figure it out without the module.

Thanks Rob, I'm just outside of Toronto bordering Georgetown/Caledon/Brampton. Love Kingston, I have family in Kingston who have worked in the penitentiaries for years. on point 4. I wonder what is effecting the lag in spawning AI? Proc./Memory/Caching. (this is exactly the type of information I want to compile so that we can get to the point where we know what type of hardware effects the MP experience. Have trouble finding guidance here.) On point 5., I have no problem setting it up, but can the server run in a mode that just allows people to come and go without my intervention (or anyone elses for that matter). I don't mind some sort of intervention (say changing the mission up once a day on a posted schedule etc..), but I just want to set it and forget it so to speak as people come and go. Excuse my ignorance here, I should probalby hop on and off a few MP servers myself so I'm not so blind in this respect. Have a lot of SP hours, no MP hours in DCS. If I have multiple missions uploaded can people select their missions or do I have to host a specific mission until I change it. I'll take you up on your testing offer. Just back to work over COVID to do some spring cleaning and Inventory before manufacturing starts again next week, but I'm going to poke at this and get some bare metal live for us to play with.

I'm not interested in getting into the weeds with you. I think you may have overlooked my point. Whether or not SSE5 was released, my point stands. Intel/AMD extension wars were over SSE4 and SSE5. AMD's failure to release it is irrelevant to my point. I disagree. Athlon / Athlon II and Phenom II (and more, its hardly exhaustive list) were all released after sse4 was and don't support it. My whole post is in the context of people hosting DCS in a datacenter and complaining about support for sse4 (which is a different issue surrounding their VM's and not the CPU's they're running on, but I digress). If anything my endorsement outside of enterprise is for AMD. You may feel that my endorsement in enterprise for intel is opinion, but I'm not alone. Single digit representation of AMD in enterprise (and that's only recently) speaks for itself. Good for AMD for raising the competition in enterprise to single digit market share, we need the competition, if for no other reason to keep Intel honest. I never once mentioned half of what you are stating, so I don't know why this has become part of the discussion. I did not propose the perf. gap between the two has anything to do with anything never mind instruction sets. I havn't proposed half of what you keep stating. IMO this is getting into the weeds and I'm not interested in walking through them. I'll go back to my OP/reply. Had OP bought an Intel chip during the same period he had bought his AMD (and paid a bit more for it), he wouldn't be posting here in the first place. That was the original intent of my post.

Excuse the ignorance, I've been playing DCS off/on (with some large breaks in between) since lock on su27/a10 I also have a large on-premise infrastructure of servers (for my business) that has a very fast gigabit up backbone connection and a number of Hyper-V Servers. Considering spinning up a vm for people to use but have a few questions. 1. I have a few hosts that have high core counts but low MHz (40 core, 2.8) and also some lower core higher MHz machines at 4 core 4.2 i think. Which would benefit more, Higher core count or speed? I'm guessing speed if DCS Server isn't optimized for multi-threading? That's the case on the client but I wondered if there is a difference with the multiplayer workload. 2. Does the multiplayer information get cached to disk? If not I can run on slower SSD drives, if so I can run on SAS Raid10 arrays. 3. How much memory is required to run this? Is 16 or 32gb enough to provision? is more better? Does the memory scale with how many players are connected? 4. I've seen a lot of posts about people with up to a dozen connected, but what scales when lets say a hundred people are connected? Is DCS even optimized for this, or is this even possible? and what hardware scales with number of people connected? more ram, proc? 5. Can I allow people to use the server without my intervention or do I need to logon and start the missions for them. Ideally I'd like to just offer the server for use to see if I can get some data on scalability over number of people connected. I wouldn't want to have to logon every time someone wants to play for instance and start the mission for them. I'd prefer to just offer the server for use (maybe an ongoing mission that just has radar and generates random AA traffic?) 6. What are the challenges for scalability of players on the server? Any of your thoughts or suggestions are welcome. I enjoy programming and tech and usually spend more time messing with DCS than i do flying. Have a lot of hardware resources at my disposal and figured I could have fun messing with a MP server and providing the information to the community. Any pre-help on these items would be appreciated along with any of your findings and experience which is usually invaluable. Thanks.

Sorry if I'm reposting prior comments, but I didn't want to go through the whole thread to give you my opinion. I'm running the AMD 3900X on an X570 MB. My processor(s) are barely being used. Although DCS isn't optimized for multi-threading/core, my primary core rarely goes above 45% with extremely high settings. I'm guessing any of the Ryzen 9 or 7 procs would be great, and the AM4 socket on the X570 MB's gives you plenty of future proofing as AMD has announced compatibility on their newer procs out to 2022 and Zen3. If you have a 2080 super I would believe that it will be the bottleneck once you upgrade. This should give you plenty of performance. Assumming you don't have some really cheap ram (you should go with at least 3200 ram, I'm running 4000 ram but don't think 4000 neccissarily gives a boost over 3200) Below 3200 will experience drops, dual channel shoudl be required IMO. I'm getting just shy of 60 fps, lets say 55 stable on most maps, around 30 on super carrier with a 1070 ti on very high settings.

Above being stated, we would have to test what happens when the 109 is loaded out with different amounts of starting ammo from the loadout screen. Is this set in a separate variable and the above numbers are a percentage of this other variable, or are the above number a percentage or direct number of the ammo on deck? I don't know, but the above are the first steps. Lets see what data we get from it. Post me a detailed answer here and I'll give you some code.

Also, just noticed something. Add these lines on new lines in the same function as above and monitor them on the stream deck to see if these numbers correlate at all to the guns being fired. Hopefully when you fire your guns these numbers will change. local gun1 = mainPanelDevice:get_argument_value(50) local gun2 = mainPanelDevice:get_argument_value(164) local gun3 = mainPanelDevice:get_argument_value(165) local gun4 = mainPanelDevice:get_argument_value(166) ExportScript.Tools.SendData(2010, string.format("%.4f", gun1).." g1") ExportScript.Tools.SendData(2020, string.format("%.4f", gun2).." g2") ExportScript.Tools.SendData(2030, string.format("%.4f", gun3).." g3") ExportScript.Tools.SendData(2040, string.format("%.4f", gun4).." g4") On your stream deck make 4 keys in a dir if you want and use the 3'rd option to monitor the dcs id's 2010 2020 2030 2040 These 4 id's should output a floating point number like 0.2353 (from 0 to 1.0) Shoot your guns Do they change? Which one or all of the 4 change? I think they correlate to the 4 guns on the 109 We could probably add these numbers together to output a single number or make all 4 numbers show on different lines of the same key like in my video above for the rpm/oil/temp etc...

In the code you replaced above in the 109 export lua file, somewhere between the function..... and end lines, add a new line like: ExportScript.Tools.WriteToLog(ExportScript.Tools.dump(mainPanelDevice)) Then start a 109 instant free flight (or any flight, just need to fly the 109) click fly, fly around for 2 or 3 seconds then exit. Now you should find a file in your logs directory something to the effects of export.log (I think this is the name of the file, but if it isn't I'll have to confirm) edit: find log here: "C:\Users<USER>\Saved Games\DCS\Logs\Export.log" post the contents of that file here. (make sure to post it between the code tags in the advanced editor of the forum, this is the hashtag symbol on the buttons above) I can have a look.

Glad it worked, Unfortunately, I can't help with the ammo as I don't have the 109 module. In order to dump this array to log I need to set the flag in the export script and then load the module to initiate the script. Without the module I cannot investigate. Maybe I can tell you how to do it and you can post the output of the log here.

Intel didn't release SSE4 to AMD for the same reason AMD didn't release SSE5 to Intel. Pick your side, it doesn't matter, it's two sides of the same coin. You misread my post as saying I prefer Intel because it's the better product. I prefer Intel because I know their instruction sets are more supported and quicker to be implemented because they are the more common implementation. I'm not talking about desktop consumer products for the most part as I choose AMD for their price/performance many times. I'm happy with AMD Competition, as I said I own one now in the 3900x. More competition is better IMO. That being said, AMD is relatively new in Datacenter. You can settle down a notch with the accusation of spreading misinformation due to lack of knowledge. I don't know why posts always have to go to this type of negativity. I have yet to see a first tier data center implement AMD at any scale until recently. Neither would we have ever considered AMD for our on premise, even recently. I wasn't speaking of Ryzen at all as obviously I don't have a problem with their price/performance and feel they beat Intel in the consumer arena.

Something else a community project does that is hard to quantify is keep interest in the product form people who float back and forth. I've come back and forth from DCS 3 times since the original lock on. I've owned almost every FS product that has ever existed since MSFS 1.0 A community project keeps people engaged in something even when they're tired of flying, which keeps them near the community and aware of the products you are selling. I spend more time tinkering with DCS than i do flying most days as I find this enjoyable.

No

This is not an AMD/Intel flame, but this is exactly why you pay a premium for Intel, especially in the datacenter. Intel XEON chips supported SSE4 right out of the gate (around 2007), while it took AMD another 5 years to even begin rolling out SSE4. If you are buying for longevity (keeping a processor for a decade for instance) which many datacenters do, you don't even consider AMD. That has changed of recent where AMD is stealing up to 15% of the datacenter market, but most of that is cheaper hosting providers who are not expected to provide down to physical cpu feature sets. That being said, I'm running a 3900x this year, and have bough AMD phenom and such for cheaper servers in the past, but I am well aware of the caviates that may come with them for that reduced price tag. AMD != Intel, but I like where they are headed with their consumer products. Intel better strap up their pants and get hustling.

I'm guessing OP didn't differentiate or know the difference between renting "CPU" which would be a single physical processor that you could enable anything you want on it and what he is most likely renting which is a shared vm environment of some type either renting cycles or just straight out share x4 type.

Your reply is on point, but I think I said exactly this above your post. I was however responding in this exact post to the OP who said "70% of CPU available to rent in datacenter" which IMO is specifically physically related to hardware. I do understand the need to consider their options with an upgrade like this, but as a developer myself, you have to understand the frustration of not being able to implement modern code when your users are screaming for more fps, and then as soon as you do they scream compatibility. The SSE4 instruction set is more than a decade old and well supported. Time for a new host IMO. The providers don't enable it mostly because its not required by most. I'm betting any provider worth their weight would enable this if asked.

i'm going to have to jump in on the yes please wagon here.

they've almost never jumped 50% in a year, so don't worry too much about that. the 1080 ti is about the only example of such a jump. In fact the 1080 ti was almost too good, which is why the 2000 series haven't seen the dramatic sales they were hoping for, and why the 1080 ti is still so expensive for an older card. Personally, I'm waiting for both the 3080 and big navi to be released before i decide. Is RDNA 2 just more AMD hype? Maybe. AMD is always playing catch up with big Green, but nvidia generation leaps are usually pretty small, 20ish percent. That being said, big navi will probably be released first, so by the time 3080 is released you can compare them. There is a lot of hype behind 3080, but such is marketing. It's a real tough decision if you want a graphics card first half of 2020. Hopefully big navi and 3080 will be seen before Q4

As for Sevenfox, your problem is more likely because of your VPS setup. (may be thats the OP's problem also) Most likely you are running on a processor that supports sse4.1, but your virual environment (depending on what they use) has not enabled or compiled your vps to run sse4.1 This may either be the level or tier that you are paying for, but it may be as simple as requesting it. Most of my virtual machines (core only) are compiled with a minimum attack surface which means you only compile the features that are necessary, unlike consumer OS's that have all features (essentially) available from the outset. If I need a feature, I need to compile a machine with it, otherwise it's off by default to minimize the potential of an exploit that may be introduced by SSE4.1 for example. I'd reach out to your provider.