einarabelc5

No, that's what I meant on the last paragraph, of course I'm not in Open beta, that's why I don't see it when I triple checked. But I'm not supposed to know that out of the top of my head and even if I knew it, I could easily forget it. I haven't seen a release since the F-16 came out, and that one is still in "Early Access", I think then I was on Steam Open Beta so I had no clue. It just left a bad taste in my mouth that I had to file a support case to find out the intricacies of the game...that's not normal software customer experience, even if "technically" make sense. As a software engineer of many years, when I'm the user I want the software to treat me as if I were stupid, to be easy, and only powerful when I wish to think instead of making me work for it and I know for a fact I'm not the only one on the field who thinks the same way, it doesn't give me ANY pride to do the opposite... I troubleshoot enough as it is for a living and don't have the energy or patience to go back into that mode after a long day, even if I can. Like I said, putting the darn disclaimer in the module manager instead of buried under 4 different clicks in a website stuck somewhere and having the user guess what category of the support case should it be in order to "prevent" the user for filing a case that has a perfectly logical explanation and requires no real support is NOT good UX, even if from a technical standpoint (and I agree) putting the new modules in open beta is making perfect sense. With all that said given the track record of DCS, this is like a joke now, since planet Earth in DCS is actually the Twilight Zone or The House of Mirrors...complicated for the sake of it...ah, well, that's enough DCS for today, I'll wait until it goes on release.

Didn't we go through these DRC woes already with Sony a couple of decades ago? Lucky you, my F-15E module didn't even show up. The whole DRC system needs to be revamped and though out from the ground up, I've seen other issues as well. You must know by now there are issues, but I don't know if you're aware that launching the MT version for my account, which pre-purchased the F15E-SE does not show the module ANYWHERE inside the game. The Website shows the order where the module was purchased for the discount price of 56, and the module shows as "BOUGHT" with an "You already own a License for this module" underneath it, but inside the game engine, I cannot find the module anywhere. Neither under installed modules, available modules, NOWHERE. What's going on? Should I re-log in? If that's the case, please consider having your team split up your API calls and separate login from checking for modules. It shouldn't be that hard. Wait a minute, I tried filing a support case and it says in there that New Modules that have just been released are ONLY in Open Beta? Why not make that clearer to the customer, why do put us through having to dig through this or even having to remember it? I'd be perfectly happy with the same disclaimer inside the module manager in the game engine. Thanks!

I don't think AI based frame generation would be good for some scenarios like BFM but for Ground where the GPU usually strains and there are no sudden changes is welcome.

DLSS in DCS, that's a game changer, is FCR also involved? Never heard of that one coming before.

Thanks for the feedback. Trim helps but what I noticed is that if trimmed towards a wing if you bank over 40 degrees in the direction where the trim is set up or so the lack of lift is so pronounced the plane almost starts falling in that direction, ergo the undesired roll. So it is a lift problem. I think the original complaint/experience I had was caused by the fact that the A/P secondary selector was set to HDG and it was banking the plane around. Because I was practicing the mission was set for unlimited weapons and because a LAU has to be emptied before it's filled again by that set it is also possible that it caused an unforeseen unbalance leading to unexpected behavior causing the frustration. Another thing to mention: could it be possible to add clip/ragdoll or some method so tanks don't stay floating in mid air.

I will try to post a video capture of this with MSI afterburner running in the background to see if I can get it to reproduce. It doesn't always happen and when it does the lag is noticeable, basically one can go from 75% CPU usage at a certain zoom level and a decent frame rate to the 20s FPS and very low CPU usage. If you zoom out the FPS immediately increases. I tried doing a video capture but it actually slowed things to a crawl. Usually seems tied to flying low and getting a significant decrease on FPS, probably simulations of possible collision models with ground objects. I'll try in a large city and see if it's easier to capture there. You'd expect that the CPU is trying its best to render at that level of zoom but instead is becoming idle and with it, the FPS count slows significantly. Interesting enough to start the thread, I'll follow up with a video when I can figure out a more efficient way to capture it.

Update, it looks to me that using the correct trim modes together with the two auto-pilot switches while avoiding to use bore mode left and right but only change the attitude makes this somewhat effective. Now, for more mission feedback, the tank column stopped moving at a bridge instead of going between red and white smoke. Because of that, I destroyed the bridge, the center T-72 stayed "afloat", see screenshot. Obviously static tanks are a lot less challenging than a moving column, something to keep in mind when programming this mission, if user waits long enough, user can get easy targets. I would say, if possible update the FOV setting on the BORE mode so aim can be improved. It took many turns and missiles to get the first shack. I can only imagine with a single missile left. Attached also is the Tacview and mission Track, right before the last strafe run I pull hard back on the stick, you can see the plane "fall" as I was referring to when trying to get the moving targets originally. In that scenario, which is different, you'd expect to be able to turn fast after you miss a run so you want to go slowly, turn almost immediately and aim again. That's what I couldn't do and what prompted this post, I had to fight the plane instead. Tacview-20230608-195454-DCS-Lesson 20 - AGM-65 Maverick.zip.acmi Lesson 20 - AGM-65-Maverick-Finally-Success.trk

On the AGM-65 Maverick Mission, I already reported something that's fixed in the latest BETA version as per QA, see here: Attached is the modified version of that mission I've created. A simple re-configuration of the Player's F-16C payload where the fuel tanks are used as counter balance to the heavier wing with the 3 AGM-65D. So I have right wing, AMRAAM Sidewinder,3 AGM-65D. Left wing, AMRAAM, Sidewinder, AGM-65K and Fuel Tank. Center, Fuel Tank. Please drive this configuration to Steer Point 4 where the Boresight mode practice moving vehicle column is and let me know if it is not a frustrating experience trying to control the plane in rolls between 384 and 300 Knots without autopilot engaged as the trainer indicates (since you have to aim with the nose of the plane). Whether the plane is roll trimmed or not, it drops like a brick when turning, making balancing pretty difficult and much less practical to aim with the nose. Am I wrong about the physics of this and if so, please educate me as to why, I'm willing to learn. Or is there a real issue here deserving constructive feedback? IMO and compared to how the exact same module on the exact same version behaves when strafing with either guns or in BFM it just doesn't match the behavior. Plus is pretty common knowledge that most modules in DCS de-accelerate too quickly. For this task the strafing MUST be done at slow speeds in order to have the time to aim the reticle while being CLOSE enough to see the vehicle column through the missile's Feed. An unstable plane, which is trimmed and under an FCS makes that pretty incredible. Unless we play with angles of attack but then again, the Maverick doesn't maneuver that much to take that kind of approach. Lesson 20 - AGM-65 Maverick.miz

TBH, the whole flight model of the F-16C is hard to believe to be anywhere near realism. I'm up to Steer point 4 with the Bore mode and it's almost impossible, even when hits within 7 to 10 feet of the moving vehicles with either the K or the D model of the Maverick. The thing tanks and stalls like there is no tomorrow apparently due to drag and wings needing trims, it's a completely different animal when flying BVR or ACM. Incredible hard to iam with this TRUCK. I did PLENTY of BFM before this, external fuel and all. Including having to trim roll to compensate for imbalance. If this were the real F16 and I watched this as a buyer I would either laugh out loud or leave the negotiation immediately and if that was the case, it wouldn't be such a popular plane. No way the drag model is correct. The more I use DCS and read about it and see reviews from regular users and real pilots and the more I see how it's operated the more disenchanted I'm with it. Back in the day you had multiple vendors like Microprose, Janes and so on, but now it's just this Eagle Dynamics/Fighter Collection thing and honestly even back in the day of Flanker 2.0, it wasn't a very good experience either.

Oh thank you!! I came back to tell you that what triggers it is the destruction of the Dog Eared Radar on Steer Point 2(or it could be anything on that steer point really) and that's why after I clicked through the exception (which is handled by the thread) the trigger event's didn't move onto the ship on steer point 3. I literally just got the same error with a copy of the mission where I put the SA-13 missile launcher next to the radar and was able to repro the nil value error. I mean, after the maverick impacts, the script even posts the "shack" audio and moves on. What was the fix then? I'm also a QA so I'm curious

Got this gem when training on the F-16C for Maverick in Infrared/EO mode with the TGP. It's a 3440x1440p display so bear with me. Now, the after I clicked ok the game just kept running, but it came to a halt when that Window popped up. Message on botton right was Dog Ear Radar Destroyed (It was an SA-6). After that, the lua script died and the mission didn't continue, I didn't get any further instructions on the next target ... The mission comes with DCS and I'm on the latest stable(non beta) version and I can confirm, the SA-6 Radar Antenna vehicle was destroyed: null Attached are logs and I noticed this before the LUA error triggered: 2023-06-06 05:21:01.717 ERROR APP (Main): Error: Unit [F-16C_50]: Corrupt damage model. Now, the Maverick reached its target, just know I was about to press F6 to watch the missile when this error happened. As you can see from the HUD the launch parameters were ok. dcs.log null

More than likely you're too slow when hitting the eject button sequence. I have it mapped to my Hotas and have been ejecting from every single module I have since 2018. As for the pilot being dead, if you press F1 and it doesn't show the cockpit view with the UFC, your avatar is done. Is the same as crashing. Yup, you're dead....you just said it yourself. OUTSIDE.

For the next people coming here. Don't take the training missions seriously, I just overcame the BVR and ACM modes and noticed the exact same things you're asking. You're better off either using the Instant Action AIM9-M/X and AIM-120C missions in Nevada and reading through the Early Access guide along with Chuck's guide and the F-16 Tutorial by Grim Reapers and Tricc about ACM than using those training missions as guidance. The training missions are always buggy and giving the poor nature of the lua script they're made off combined with the fact that you're in an open map, it makes it practically impossible to program a good series of events for said missions.

Hey Newey, More than likely your team is aware but I wanted to let you know that while the load on the CPU spikes from the 30 % to the 80 % when I render cluster bombs, now the FPS only drops to the 27 FPS (being down to 2 or 0 and freezing before with no significant increase in CPU usage). The ONLY difference is the CPU, so it is related to how the memory for these calculations is managed. Before I was using a Ryzen 3900X with multiple CCDs sharing cache that's away from the multiple chiplets. Now I am using a 5800X3d with a single 8 core CCD with access to the cache on top of the chiplet, so that significant reduction on latency to the L2 cache helps. The number of core reduction came with it, but the back and forth in data transfer was reduced as well as the IPC count.

Oh, thanks be to God. Thanks sir!