einarabelc5

Keep goin guys, you're killing it! And tell your Electronics Engineer he has a fan, :). Very good point, I figured as much. What always worried me is that the base itself is too bulky so it gives the impression that the gimbal sits too high. Other than connection panels for their expandability plans I don't see the point for it. I'd much rather have a taller stick, sitting lower. That's the exact reason why I'm concerned about the Gunfighter for desktop. I don't think I can use it as intended, however much I loved its review here in the forums.

I wanted to come back and repost. I just found a German review of the Cm3 and the cabling looks pretty decent, not as good as VKB but strides above the old Virpil pictures of the stick. I did study the whole Noobifier teardown series, amongst others to decide to go with VKB. What set me over was the review of the NXT by some pilot they hired. While I like the TWCS I couldn't stand the TM1600 tick. The whole Space-Sim vibe of the palm rest vibe ruined it for me. It would make the stick go right no matter what. Just big enough to create momentum. The spring and cam calibration didn't help either. That was like driving a tank. Here's that German video I told you about: When they ask you to open the thing to adjust friction, you know they're confident. Yup, mine it's on its way. I figured as much. I've heard the VKB gunfighter is quite uncomfortable for desktop, whilst Virpil has both desktop and desk mounted version. I quite like the layout of the Russian stick as it has that F-18 vipe, plus the break handle. I'm not a fan of individual brakes on rudders, not even in a Cessna, except for the Christen Eagle II, is quite fun to Drift on that thing.

It must be running spyware in the background. After all, their new site says their hardware has a full blown processor, rather than an I/O chip

I am left wondering how many of these problems are caused by either, rushing a product manufacturing to ship with no quality gate to inspect and send back, I'm thinking about how the better guitar brands do this. Or damage during shipment.

I own a Gladiator NXT and except for being a little too narrow and short for my hand is the best joystick I've ever used in its range, after even trying the CH products F-16 one. VKB definitely has the best engineers out there, not only from a design perspective but from an implementation and PCB and Electromagnetic Compatibility perspective. I spent months looking at reviews and breakdowns of products after returning the TWCS pair from Thrustmaster and I went with VKB as soon as I saw the interior design of the joystick you mention and read its detailed review here in the forums. The way the NXT expands, it is a thing of beauty, no doubt about it. It hits all the marks for an engineer because unlike other products it actually scales well. That's no easy feat from a physical standpoint. Most companies are NOT interested in benefiting the customer at that level. The best part of it is its friction grease and how it returns to center which according to biased reviews (take it for what it is) is akin to real life Aerobatic stick feel, plastic gimbals and all. I looked at the Warthog, noticed how the stick metal can fatigue and break, notice how messy the interior was, same for Virpil, sticking cables to the PCB with a glue gun and was just put off by it. The VKB on the other hand, is well designed from a hardware perspective. Everything connects, is at 90 degrees, there are no extra long messy, loopy cables, has proper grounding planes and capacitors and, it is the only one of its range with a replaceable USB. Whoever designs these joysticks actually knows and understands Electromagnetic Compatibility, which after dealing with the Saitek/Logitech X-56, was a very welcome experience. I can't say the same for either Thrustmaster or Virpil, they're also a gamble. I realize this sounds like an add, but I'm actually thinking about getting something else because the NXT doesn't fit my hand that well. As for their software, they don't even bother buying a certificate from Microsoft to sign their executable with, which throws the typical Windows UAC alert. That should tell you how much time they spent. Other than that, seeing raw input is great.

I just got a Warthog, been using it for less than a week and am not satisfied with it at all. That's coming from a bad X-56 that I fixed myself with ferules(typical ghosting) and before that the TWCS and the X-52. The button layout on the X-56 (despite being defective and crammed on the right throttle) is way more versatile for my needs and that's the thing the best review out there will tell you, the Warthog is not that versatile. Half of the switches don't work in half of the positions, is either on or nothing. It's designed for well, the warthog. They're not toggles, but either half toggle half switch or half a switch, with the off position doing nothing, despite the text. The throttles themselves for the new version wobble even more than my broken X-56, which did have a broken screw holder. Despite how heavy the base is, I'm still able to move it around, so unless you're planning to mount it, I wouldn't bother. I even disabled afterburner detent after enabling it because of it. The center of gravity is not that good. The deal breaker for me was the sharp edges on the throttle, too uncomfortable for BFM. So, it over-promises, it under-delivers and it's not as good as it's poised to be design wise, while also having manufacturing defects, including the infamous Slew joystick, which I've been able to live with by means of calibration, but it's still annoying. The only positive is that it's 16384 positions because of the HALL sensors but that doesn't make up for all the other problems. The software seems ok, but I quickly lost interest in it. I'd stay away, I'd take the TWCS which honestly is better than it. I wanted a dual system, so there you go. There's also WinWig Orion but I don't know what to tell you about it.

Mine is brand new, straight out of amazon. It wiggles all the way through, specially the left engine one. They don't make them like they used to. It's literally worse than the X-56 I had previous. Less than a week of use. Isn't there plenty of evidence to the contrary? And to be honest that vague response merits a reply. Or translation: Thrustmaster or better said Guillemont as all coporations, in their endless quest to cut costs has raised the tolerance levels of their products to ridiculous levels of abuse by hiring cheaper manufacturing contractors and you should shut up and suck it!! What you did is not cool.

That's why I was thinking if it would be possible to do a collab on these things by using git. Please see my other question about that. I'm not a texture artist either, just someone who uses git. But perhaps someone else in the community could help? The other question is does the interior has to be realistic 100% or would something similar to the other Sukhoi's suffice. Thinking about the Su-30 and the Su-35 mods you see on Youtube. That's a pleasant surprise to hear the new one is an EFM. Thanks so much indeed.

Suggestion, why not put these in Github and make it open source. That way multiple people can collaborate. You still have veto power to merge pull requests. You can also leverage the platform so set other things, like virus scan on push.

Is there a reason why the interior of the cockpit has such flat textures? Is there a way to implement normal maps to bring the current textures to life? That's odd. I guess the 2020 model I tried last didn't even have that system implemented. I remember climbing to outer space in less than 5 minutes with that thing.

This is a great first logical step, basically crowdsourcing. I see you addressed the nuance I pointed to that viruses/vulnerabilities are not always known to developers so I also thank you for that. I totally agree with if you're not sure about a mod don't download as a first approach. What I've noticed though is that more and more mods are not uploaded to the DCS main website User Files section since after I left the game for a hiatus. The modders simply post links to the mods, mostly to random places. As for relying fully on the crowd I also mentioned the example of zero day exploits, etc. The issue is, which obviously I haven't been able to communicate until now is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Anyone who would LOVE the features developers/modders are sharing can also be able to rest knowing good steps are being taken to ensure sufficient security and that the rest, is up to them. That can be accomplished without breaking the flow of mod distribution if developers are willing to collaborate and distribute their files through sites like github.com, gitlab.com, and so on. As long as a pipeline is included, they can scan their code the moment they upload it to those servers for both viruses and security vulnerabilities. Pipelines may not fix zero day exploits either, but they sure are much faster than the crowd, since they're automated.

No, you just don't have the education to understand what I'm talking about so using a straw man argument is easier, which is a tendency most everyone has and that you chose to take. For example, what do you mean by trolling and how did you arrive at that conclusion? If you're going to accuse someone who is spending their time on something, you better have an argument as to why you're making that accusation, least you might look like you're being intellectually lazy and just like to insult people's character at random when they don't agree with you. At least @Rudel_chw is asking the right questions, which is an actual DIALOG. Is not that hard. Besides those two questions, what do you mean by trolling and how did you arrived at that conclusion here are a couple more for you? Is it possible? Every forum post could be for trolling Is it probable? Perhaps, depending on how much effort you put into engaging and find out, you're also free to leave if that's what you think. Is it plausible? Why would I spend all this time and thought on such a thing. There are HOT threads in these forums where trolling is much easier to do. That to me is the insulting and berating part. Here's my argument as to WHY I'm not trolling, which is why I came here to follow up on the first place until I found that jewel above. Here's an example, with an relatively new mod, which is actually been in the works or mentioned for about 2 years since I first purchased DCS: Non secure/dubious way to do it, which is why I started this thread: In short the installation is: download from discord, copy/paste, run, rely on your single node machine to do all the work. You don't know where the Discord LINK to the file points to, might as well be a random server that you don't know anything about. Better way to do it. The person who wrote these lua scripts also uses github which opens a world of possibilities: DCS User files for the same mod: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3320335/ That links here: Step 0, accomplished. You're not downloading files from random servers anymore but from trusted verifiable software development website: github.com, your machine won't get attacked by talking directly to github.com, they take good care of that. Step 1, accomplished: You now have full access to the source code, you can look for vulnerabilities, which are not necessarily viruses, see more at the end of Step 3. https://github.com/RedK0d/CLICKABLE-FC3 Step 3, the actual VIRUS scan BEFORE it hits your machine: https://github.community/t/performing-virus-scan-on-git-hub-repo/1880/4 https://github.com/marketplace/actions/git-anti-virus-scan And that's it, as a dev all you need now is a way to run a github pipeline and use Clam Antivirus which is a popular scanning tool used in IT. Even if the developer's machine gets infected, you'll make sure that the files are scanned before they're distributed to people. You can actually also scan for code vulnerabilities using Sonarqube just like you do viruses. The only question remaining is, can github run pipelines on free accounts? I do not know the answer to that one since I don't use it to distribute code. But other than that: Problem solved. @Rudel_chw Thanks for using logic to engage. To answer your question, there's always hope. Not necessarily, what you do is a "sufficient" amount of effort to make sure that the files, the server and the code itself are as safe as possible. It's always a best effort approach to security, rather than a minimum, which is what my OP is precisely asking about. The way I exemplified here, it shouldn't cost a ton. It just depends on what the developer is willing to share. As far as I know LUA files are just scripts, which means, anyone who downloads them can read their source code. So I don't see a problem with devs sharing and using github with pipelines.

Thank you so much for replying! A simple search for the keyword "virus" in this mod forum has 36 results of antivirus desktop applications from users saying their downloads trigger antivirus with recommendations to ignore them or turn them off to actual infections, like @Rudel_chw pointed out. https://forum.dcs.world/search/?q=Virus&quick=1&type=forums_topic&nodes=184 Why would an AV falsely flag a mod file as a virus only to proceed to ignore it? As for the centralized place, excellent question!! A desktop software antivirus is not a bulletproof method, which is the assumption everyone has made from the days before the internet exploded. The server where you make the request to get the file from is also at risk of infection, and therefore infecting you, even if the files are clean, simply by the way it communicates with your local browser. Heck, even your personal Google Drive account can be infected even though Google maintains their servers clean, feel free to google that one. Also, there's a common misunderstanding of how virus resolution works due to lack of education in how things have changed in the last 20 years or so. A virus signature database is what allows your AV to do a 100% identification of viruses. There's no way that db stays up to date with stuff that keeps coming up. The rest it's called heuristics, which is not more much than educated guessing based on trends and file activity in your system, as well as traffic, if you got an up to date AV. There are ways to get around those, ever heard of a Zero day vulnerability? That's when a virus or an exploit is discovered after lurking for a long time. There's also the possibility that the mod files when and IF (and that's a big IF) so consider it a remote possibility, can be used to exploit machines just by the way their source code works, even if there are no malintentions. Like I mentioned in my OP, there are also worms, which remain dormant and are only activated remotely at a later time. Which is why a more sophisticated system with real threat monitoring, file behavior and traffic analysis as well as other measures implemented at a network level rather than on a single machine, like Web Application Firewalls and so on are put on servers to protect them from attacks. Some systems won't even let you execute a file if a new version of it is downloaded/installed because the hash signature of the file has changed. My point is, going willy nilly installing random files downloaded from random places was fine for Internet 1.0, but nowadays, 20 years later that's just not secure. Which is why Microsoft and Apple now make money from developers having to buy a certificate to sign their applications(just like with HTTPS hand shakes) with so their OS recognizes it as a valid application. It's complicated, convoluted and there's always ways to take advantage of the situation, but at end it is the end user who's at risk.

I've been looking with excitement at many popular youtube channels of DCS and the mods they display, at that point I was already familiar with many of the DCS official modules so I could tell them apart. When I first started DCS I figured all files were distributed on the main website under User Files: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/ I've noticed though that there is a pattern of mod contributors offering their files at their discretion and that there's no unified way to monitor for malware. Does either the community or Eagle Dynamics plan to address this issue. There is plenty of evidence in this forum itself of users getting infected or having to deal with infections in some way shape and form from module installation. This might completely and entirely happen unbeknownst to both the modder and the user who's installing the mod as there are many steps in between. But at least it would be a positive shift to address the concern that when a file is uploaded to the network and distributed for consumption that file in those specific systems is free of malware. At the time being though, this seems to be quite loose and remember, just because you don't notice there is a virus in your computer it doesn't mean you might not get something like a worm, a specific type of malware that distributes itself to several computers and then it is controlled remotely to harness its distributed power to attack real systems, making your computer effectively a platform to attack somewhere else on the internet.

Same here, just watch the video from Grimreapers and then use the Instant action missions to practice. You're literally 2 steps away from completing the process.

Why would a customer that paid top dollar for a module have to work for free to fix something that the seller should've fixed. To be honest, that is kind of disrespectful to the customer. It's not the same as modding, this is actually fixing an issue you've already paid for. If what you said is the way to fix it does that mean everything in those missions is done through an scripting editor rather than actual coding? That might explain the limitations, but it also gives much less of an excuse to the module retailer to leave said missions in such a half baked state and then charge full price. From a more general perspective what you propose though, is not a fix, is a workaround that fixes a particular issue on a particular mission on a particular plane, not the actual bug, which is a design flaw hence why my idea to override the step being stuck is at deeper level. And to be honest, I already got enough practice just doing the instant action missions as thankfully there are not many steps following the fuel pump and there are ways to find out the rest of them by looking at the internet. Other than cold starts, there are some mission like landing the Su-27 asking for the runway to turn on their lights after the menu key stroke sequence changed but like you illustrated, the validation in the mission itself didn't change to adapt and some similar issues that happen mid flight. This is why an override button feature would be nice, it might not fix the mid flight issues when communicating with airfield and so on, but at least it would make cold starts more palatable.

I've found the DCS "training" tutorials to be consistently broken. Their trigger/event system is either too sensitive or not sensitive enough, it either skips through steps or it literally sits there waiting for you to do a step over and over again. So either: 1.-There's something wrong with my set up throwing the triggers off in an unforeseen manner. 2.-There's something wrong with the triggers because I've seen this in all modules I've tried cold start or landings on: Christen Eagle, F18, F16, Su-27, Su-33, Su-25. I did a search for this module and found this thread, which by the posts in May 19th and 26 that this module exemplifies what I'm talking about on item 2 above. Let me add one more bug to the mix, the taxi and take off tutorial starts with the engine on...then automatically shuts it down and stops the propeller, while the tutorial keeps blabbering Cold Start Tutorials are usually the prime example of things being broken, but I've seen the nighttime landing for the Su-27 and the Carrier Landing for the Su-33 have similar problems. This, after two years of having this game, is just ridiculous. The basics really need to be fixed. It shouldn't be this hard, how many events do you have to count? Literally, simply adding press spacebar when you're done and then checking the state of the plane would be a simpler approach than an wait and receive loop, can you say "no" go back one step and to it again, at least during cold starts? Honestly, I would much prefer being the judge of whether a step is complete or not by having the option to override the "checking" algorithm than sit there and wait or have the darn thing go through steps without me realizing what's going on. Keep it simple please. Just in case you haven't noticed, this is extremely frustrating and makes the user take the Sim less seriously as a first time experience.

Now that normal maps are being included for exteriors I'm wondering if you'll them to the cockpit's textures so they stop looking so flat. I've no idea but every single youtube video I've seen of ANY DCS mod, the cockpit's interior is always flat.

Hi, I own several DCS modules in Steam. I was planning to link my account to Steam and use DCS natively. I haven't used DCS in over a year now and I don't know if my account got deleted but I can't recover it. Passwords should be correct by all extent of knowledge. Adding email.ru to my Safe list to reset password doesn't change a thing. The reset password form does recognize my account but I get no emails. What do I have to do to recover my account, where do I get the data for keys/etc to email Eagle Dynamics to restore my account. Can I do that without installing Steam and getting the keys? Would the Steam website suffice? If I don't emails from eagle.ru I can't reset my password, even if Eagle Dynamics restores my account. With no password I cannot log into the Desktop DCS client, without Log in. There's no module validation. Is eagle.ru being blocked by Western companies due to the conflict? is that the root cause why I'm not getting emails from you guys? Thank you in advance!!

Welll... It wasn't my idea...

Thank you for asking. Because I came to this forum and specifically this thread to learn from people like you but I found what looked like at the moment like someone having a valid complain and getting barraged with information rather than being convinced that he's actually wrong by demonstration. Which is exactly why I took a few days to even look back at the thread. In summary I think I was VERY confused and made the wrong call and ended up making accusations that simply did a disservice to my learning. To be honest I got too invested in the argument and forgot to look at the bigger picture while trying to push for an argument that would fly over most people's heads instead of actually listening to what they were trying to say inevitably getting insulted in the third person and called a charlatan by someone who didn't like what I had to say so they could disregard my point, whether my point was made atrociously or not straw manning is a great way to shut down communication. In comparison, you replied and continued the conversation and so I'm replying back because you actually asked questions over and over again to try to see the other side's point and that is actually quite uncommon. Here's what I learned: There is MORE than on DCS world so to speak, this is not a gaming experience where design decisions are made on the principles you'd expect in regular games. On the other hand, there are obvious ways around that ONCE you become aware of how the game is ACTUALLY structured. It doesn't matter how much you know about Military technology, there's a way to find out. I was side blinded, my perception was distorted by the decisions I made when I joined the game. Given that I liked ED's past products I was partial to siding with those products. As I started writing this I realized that the quality of modules can really define your experience and that there are many external factors that define what ED can and cannot do which I can't really make my mind up about. For example, how come there are "realistic" models of Western planes (not only American) but none of Russian? Is it ONLY related to ED's geopolitical situation, disclosure agreements, available information? The date and age of certain factions/products create a whole level of disparity that apparently can't be made up for on the developer's side and has to be taken into consideration as part of the responsibility of the player, but for that the player must be informed. It would seem the learning curve of the game is high and you would only be able to fully enjoy if you're at least AWARE of the intricacies of the product or if you come in expecting such things to happen. Rather than complaining here is a suggestion of partial solutions that might help level things up but that are entirely up to ED to decide to take on. 1.- Gamer ranking/server ranking: The 2.5.6 version now awards medals for single player missions and AFAIK DCS ALWAYS counts your flight hours per plane on a profile basis. There's no reason this data couldn't be leveraged to throw players against each other whilst in the zone of proximal development. 2.-An "Introduction" process to DCS where you're given awareness of things. Simply stating what's obvious now(thank you @Cmptohocah) :

You can't get rid of people, only change their minds. If you're gonna tell Russians to go suck a fat one might as well go play Flight Simulator and stop playing DCS to be consequent with what you're saying. And don't worry, in 20 years or less you'll be the one making up conspiracy theories and calling people "totalitarian" even when they politely disagree with you because they can't entertain them, after all there's a reason for everything. That is, if you don't manage to leave the environment that'll make you do so first and "forget" about it. As for the assets it must be because ED is over 20 years old and is Russian. Pretty obvious to me. I never criticized your arguments, everything you said is obvious, well founded, super demonstrated and logical. The difference in age and homing technology of the missiles is more than enough to throw down any conspiracy. I criticized the WAY you presented them which in turn makes it really difficult for someone in the OP's position to pay heed to. And it's obvious that approach was enough for the OP to start calling someone who gave a much more polite response than yours Totalitarian. So obviously I'm not making things up. Did you miss the part when I made the point that this thread's been going for quite a while with back and forth arguments? For instance, there's no reason not to tell pepin to stop whining and learn how to win with what he has instead of telling him he's making up conspiracy theories about Russian side being sabotaged by a Russian company that cut its teeth making "simulators" about the Su-27 and probably still uses some of the same code from 20 years ago. If there's experience there's proof no? Show me don't tell me kind of thing. I mean, any Growling Sidewinder video would do right? For example, does he even know what a Fox 1 versus a Fox 3 is and how speed and turn rate are inversely proportional?: As far as sim versus game. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I didn't mean it as in computer game, but as in engagement. I could be talking about play and tumble for all I care about. Sarcasm - The same could be said for a "real" dogfight like the new DCS module, the SU-30 - end Sarcasm: The SAME psychological rules I keep bringing up still apply as it is directly expressed by the actual Fighter pilot who made and posted the video: you win some, you lose some. So no I'm not making any assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that you didn't understand what I meant by "game" and keep insisting on "simulation". Well you can simulate a dogfight with REAL equipment and the same rules still apply. As for "conspiracy" pepin, if you were Russian, you would be seeing conspiracy theories EVERYWHERE too, believe me. You have NO IDEA how good you still have it, psychologically speaking. Arguing about how he's wrong rather than showing him is completely counter productive, that's my point. As for myself being an autocrat and "slowing" down, since when does presenting the facts gives you the right to treat people like shit? Because they know less than you?

Is not cryptic when you know. I get the gist though, same idea that I had but with fuel not air. Thanks! P.S. I just reread my original post, that had a few critical mistakes. I need to stop posting so late :S Thanks again! Well, I like to stall on purpose at 18,000 ft :D. I do remember that this behavior was already in place on LOCK ON or Flanker 2.0

Ok, my bad. That was bad language, I totally EXAGGERATED that statement. What I meant is that things have to remain competitive before they remain realistic because before being a simulator this is a game and the number one psychological rule of gaming is that each member plays so they can play again and again, they have to be able to win and have fun at some point. They need a reward that entices them to keep coming back. My CENTRAL point since I saw this thread has been that regardless of everyone's level of knowledge, opinion, psychological state, blindness, ignorance, arrogance, wisdom, etc...NO ONE can escape that rule and there's VALUE on what the OP said from that point of view. If the SU-27 doesn't get fixed and it truly remains underpowered people will either stop using it or stop playing online. There's tons of research about why and how this happens, from rats to human children. Look it up. Arguing over the minute details to "WIN" the argument for "argument's" sake without keeping that in mind accomplishes two things: 1.-Alienates the most ignorant side of the argument and prevents it from listening to the knowledge of the most experienced side. Simply because the ignorant side is not going to lose it won't use pure reason as long as the game seems "rigged" to them. They already are backed against a corner so to speak. 2.-Makes the knowledgeable side fall into the trap of autocracy. Incapable of seeing the obvious because they pre-assume they know ALL the reasons why they're right. This tempts it to disregard the other side's arguments and even treat them as second class and inferior people. You might think you're "protecting" your game but what you're doing is ISOLATING yourselves in the process as well in an us versus them scenario. It is ONE thing to know about simulation and it is an ENTIRELY different thing to know how to effectively treat people that fall into the first category. If the "knowledgeable" side actually had known how to deal with people who already are convinced they are at a disadvantage this thread wouldn't be 8 pages long now would it? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Using the same arguments over and over again: "realism" in simulation and "we care and that's why we know better" while we mock you and TRY to make you look small didn't work AT ALL. People simply DOUBLED down in their prerogative. So why keep repeating it with EVERYONE that you identify as an antagonist to even BOTH sides? Even when that person (myself) was completely SLOPPY at redacting their argument. Seems like an autopilot habit at that point. This can happen to ANYONE at ANY point in any argument and I'm pretty sure most if not all of us have been on each side. And that's why the thread got heated and quite hard to read actually. The only REAL way to know who's right is to TEST IT. To test it implies to go into the field with the real armament and use these weapons....who is willing to do that? That's why it's called REALITY. It's common sense, no one will. So that's why I wrote what I wrote. SLOW down, get a grip and KEEP PLAYING!! CHEERS!

Love your pic, thanks! Well either Antivirus was the cause, which leads me to think the way this "keyboard emulator" thing is a security hole (shouldn't be injecting commands across programs which SHOULD trigger AV) or the fact that I had the X-52 installed and some of the "keyboard" and "mouse" hardware emulator components from it weren't uninstalled when I uninstalled it. Once I went with a fine tooth comb everything started working. The X-56 DEFINITELY has Electromagnetic Compatibility problems, starting with COMMON MODE rejection, but those can be fixed by re-arranging wires, wrapping cable bungles in ferrite and installing a filtered USB cable. I even TRIED the Powered USB Hub thing, DON'T, it sends even more noise into the thing. Specifically the external hub, which means it's gonna be though to get good grounding between the outlet and the Power Supply. I'm not paying over 100 USD for a PCI one. I rather fix it. It would make sense that adding more current capabilities would work as more power would increase the SIGNAL to NOISE ratio, but that's a workaround, and "keep fingers crossed" one at that. You gotta get rid of the noise on the FPGAs/Microcontroller inputs to begin with and along the cables to eliminate crosstalk.