Dangerzone

If people have paid good money for products/promises not delivered - I think we're getting to a point where maybe the blame needs to be shared. If it's "Once - shame on them, Twice, shame on me" - then where should we be 10 times over? Things have gone on the way they are long enough that we know we're not going to change ED with their priorities - and we know how things are. As unfortunate as it may be - we don't get to decide how DCS is developed - we just get to play the hand we're dealt. Either we're happy to buy what they're delivering, or we're not. Seeing this, and then expecting something different from ED is... well - what's the saying. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? The fact is, many are happy with pre-purchasing, and EA. For those that aren't - and have been burned by EA before - they need to take some onus on themselves to learn from their mistakes. This isn't saying that I agree with the way that ED is doing things (I don't), nor am I defending them... just to question how long before we take some responsibility for our own actions and happiness - especially when we have a good idea how things will turn out, but get on the hype train anyway - and then complain when we have a repeat cycle. We can pre-order, or for the sake of ~$6 - we can wait until it's released, and see what others who have purchased it say. That's $6 well invested in my books, so I'm happy to wait. Pre-order makes no sense to me. Pay for a product with no ETA, and no way of knowing how good it is. But I understand others see it differently, so great they have the option. Whether it's VR Headsets, DCS Modules, DCS terrains, etc - it's pretty obvious to me that trailers and content creators do not give accurate representations of what users will experience. For me, waiting until something is released, and seeing real consumer recordings on youtube, and feedback is far more valuable than $6. To keep my own sanity, I have changed the way I perceive Early Access. It now means - have it 'as is', and don't expect frequent ongoing development. Then when development comes (could be a few weeks, could be a year, could be 2 years) - it's a bonus. If I don't like the module or map how it is in Early Access - I have no expectations for anything to change, and thus won't buy. (At least until something does change). But I have come to expect now that teams will be 'distracted' by the next thing as soon as they get the EA out the door, and simply plan accordingly. The FA18 getting out of EA without the DTC is proof of that. You only get what's available now - everything else is a bonus. That's not saying that teams aren't doing ongoing development - but I think the DCS 'world' that we live in is at a place where one in the hand is worth two in the bush for many. Our choice is to either keep being upset and wanting ED to change their priorities... that never comes - or lower our expectations, and decide with lower expectations if something is worth it or not. We don't get to make the (DCS) world we live in, we just get to choose how we interact with it. Lowering expectations can make life more enjoyable. It means I don't commit $'s to something I'm not satisfied with, and when things exceed my expectations, and it's really the only way for me to maintain my interest in DCS, Nothing else has changed - but I'm happier because my expectations are realistic within the DCS borders. It also saves me spending some $'s on things I'm not satisfied with in advance because I get to review before I commit - while allowing me to focus on the things that are at or exceed a level I'm happy with and enjoy those. For people who are upset with Pre-Order, or Early Access - I'd strongly recommend that you give changing your priorities a try. I know - "if we accept it, it will never change". Well - people haven't accepted it, and it still didn't change. So now the question is - how valuable is your happiness and sanity? DCS is here to serve me. To bring me joy. If it gets to the stage it's work, or it's causing me mystery - it's better to walk away. As for the name-calling to the mods here - that's totally unacceptable, just as much as someone abusing someone behind the counter in retail for a decision that a CEO at a chain-store has done. I've modded forums before. It sucks. Can't speak your mind because even if you agree with some people - you're paid to represent a company and that's your job. If you're frustrated - focus on the issues at hand. Leave personal attacks out of it - because in the end - what you're saying says far more about you than it does about the people you're slandering.

Just wondering if it's worth asking in a 'wish list' instead. I mean, it's great to be able to hack - but would be really good if this was supported officially so it doesn't break IC?

I can see why you would say that, but actually - it is floating, not sliding. (in 2-D it may give the appearance of sliding, but in VR - it is definitely floating. You can definitely see it closer to you, and above the ground). You can actually see the ground on the other side of the white line under the line if you get out of the plane and view externally. It's as though it has 2 anchor points - one at the west end, and the other 3/4 of the way to the eastern end - and the line is straight - and does not curve with the ground. As such, it is suspended/floating in the air between these too points. The video would have shown it much better if he was out of the cockpit, but either way - nothing compares to seeing it in 3D for just how 'in your face' (excuse the pun) it is.

Hey BN, Just a quick one... is this still a thing? I heard chatter that this was no longer required as the update does this anyway - but I'm guessing since you're recommending the above, that this isn't true, and deleting FXO & Metashader2 is still required for optimum performance? (Just looking for definitive clarification one way or the other). Cheers DZ

You would be correct, except that in DCS, shadows (especially 'flat shadows') can work differently to save some processing compared to RL - and the shadow itself can sometimes float. (Different issue - not related to this topic - except that it's causing the screenshots not to show correctly). Even when I know very well what the problem is - to me - the shadow appears on the ground in the screenshot - but I know it's definitely not. The problem can't really be seen in the pictures. It's best to take a look at the video for a better explanation (4th post) for what's actually happening. It's even significantly more obvious in VR.

Hey there... If the forum writers are tinkering around at some stage to enhance the forum, it'd be great if we could have the option to "Ignore Topic", so topics that we aren't interested in don't keep appearing in the unread/new section. Also - it would be great if topics started by users on our ignore list don't show up in those results as well. Thanks for consideration DZ

Dude. Come on. It hasn't even been 2 years yet. Haven't you heard... ... 2 yearstm is the new 2 weekstm.

No - not selfish at all. We all use DCS for different reasons and it'd be arrogant for anyone to tell you how you should or shouldn't use it. One of the things I enjoy doing is content creation (script and mission wise) and seeing how much I can improve DCS for players. The best I've found (that I enjoy myself too) is PvE co-op persistent campaigns that progress through a MAP over time. It gives me purpose. Let's me see more of the entire MAP - and there's something new each time I get on and there's been progress. I've found numerous other people who enjoy the same, and I enjoy the social aspect of getting on and doing cooperative work together. (It also helps form groups for when we want dedicated mission sessions as well). That's me. I get that others differ, and that's cool. This has worked well for me up until more recently. Normally most people getting onboard with a new map would encourage the rest to join in eventually too - and FOMO would keep people up to date. But lesser frequency of players, and number of players has had a big impact with this. If people aren't using their current maps much - there's lesser incentive for them to buy a new one for something new, because they haven't seen all they can see with their current maps yet. (Not no incentive - because different players play for different reasons, but it does have an impact). I can imagine that things may change significantly when the DCE gets dropped, or if ED are able to come onboard with more of the requests from scripters/content creators and get things more stable so we can get to a point where there is more to do in DCS for people. Honestly, as someone who loves DCS - looking at the comments of the latest DCS youtube video for Iraq was disheartening to see where the current PR is with DCS. Iraq is a much wanted map for years, but the current state of DCS has left what should have been an exciting announcement getting a lot of negative feedback. This isn't the map makers fault - and there's not much they can do about it - it's more the core of DCS and where things are at presently. Sinai is very promising - and I hope to be able to use it more oneday (I have purchased it). I'm looking forward to seeing it progress, as it's probably my last purchase for a while. (I haven't touched SA, Kola, Afghanistan, and probably won't the others until there's more to do in DCS than just see new scenery as the current maps I have give enough variety for that for now).

The biggest issue I have with Sinai is up-takers. I love the map, and would like to be able to do a lot more with it. But maps seem to be coming out so fast now, that people seem to be divided and very selective as to spending on DCS at the moment. We've seen a significant decline in regular gamers being on DCS lately, and while I'd love to do more missions in Sinai, I need to cater for the people who remain and the common maps that they have in order to try and have a decent number of people show up. That's left us really with Persia and Syria (which are the 2 maps that pretty much our regulars own in common). So, we don't really have anything to do with Sinai (apart from me using it for SP stuff), but it's not because I don't want to - it's just because of numbers, and people who seem to be hesitant to spend more on DCS just at the moment.

Or a track!

Are you talking the Burj Khalifa? I didn't realise that it had a collapsible model. That's cool. Now I'm going to have to try it.

That's confusing to me. Hyperthreading is intel's name, isn't it? Is there any intel consumer CPU that supports more than 32 threads? i thought the 14900 only had 24 total (8 performance, and 16 e-core)? Wouldn't it be easier to say no intel CPU should have HT turned off then for us not as familiar with CPU's?

I thought EDs recommendation was for disabling hyperthreading anyway. Is this no longer the case?

Aah - sorry. I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.

I would like to put forward a suggestion for having more than one voice option available for radio calls that the pilots make. At present, when I have 3 others inbound to the same carrier or airport - the recorded voices are all identical to each other. There's already talk about how we need female bodies in cockpits. I would suggest that it's more immersive to have some different voices added to DCS (which also include female options), given that this would have far more impact when we fly than bodies we can barely see unless we're doing the Topgun 'international' relations maneuver - which I certainly can't pull off. My proposal however is that ED makes an allowance for us to select a voice similar to how we can select liveries (but maybe in the settings setup). It would be good to have 3 or 4 different voices to choose from (by default) - including a female voice for female pilots, but I'd like it done similar to liveries where it would allow users to add additional voice files into the SAVED GAMES directory so they could add more of their own custom voices. This would mean that if liveries were shared (the same way as plane skins), we would get to hear the different voices that others use in the process. It may be that ED are working on something already where they plan on doing voice recognition instead and we may be able to get away with the F10 menu, which would be even better - but if not, could there please be consideration for having voice liveries for the radio calls?

Thanks. I know this probably won't get seen here. (One of the mods said they only read the first one of the request), so I'll add this as a new request feature. Never know, it might get a look-in.

Wouldn't it be up to the mission designer to put SAMS down where they want - not the map maker?

I'd vote for that too. Option to specify different resolutions for different areas such as mirrors vs MFD's would be great. Even if it was just a setting in the autoexec.cfg

I chose BEFORE the update due to the fact that before the update users had an option to disable this option.

To be fair - I don't think that decline is solely for the dots. (Don't get me wrong - I wholely support the option for users to be able to turn these off, and it is likely a contributing factor - but one of many). There is a lot more going on at the moment that I think it contributing to the decline in DCS. The graph seems to reflect what we've seen in our servers - maybe maybe only 1/4 of our usual player base are still regularly active. From conversations, it seems the ongoing instability, and performance issues between DCS releases is a factor (especially now since stable has gone), and there is also a fatigue when it comes to some mission makers / scripters / server hosters where passion is slowly being lost as well as the work involved in trying to overcome things that break between releases is getting to a point where it's very tiring. I appreciate that the last 2 patches have been focused on bug fixes and performance - but concerned with the reckless assumption that all is right by ED removing features (like ST, or the ability to turn dots off, etc) without at least having a release tested and proven in the public first.

I differentiate between games and simulators, but fair call.

It would be nice if the CH47 brought in more of an incentive for ED to look into doing this!

If your post is about a wishlist for ED to recognise - my suggestion is don't get your hopes up. @twistking is steering you away from hoping for ED to do something for a very good reason. Check out this to get an idea of how some incredible content creators have been treated by ED when looking for interaction with scripting and API. If this is what ended up happening with the creator of overlordbot, beginners wanting basic help have much less hope. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/270863-expose-apis-for-f10-radio-transmissions-especially-new-marianas-atc/ This isn't to put ED down (as much as I am extremely disappointed in how RJ was treated) - but moreso just to give you a real indication of what to expect from ED so you can have more realistic expectations and work with what's more likely. What Grimes has done - in expanding the scripting options for all of us (and others as well who have contributed) - is no small feat. Without them, I probably wouldn't even be involved with DCS today. They are significantly underrated, and even if the documentation has a lot to be desired - they do it all out of love for DCS and the community and their own generosity. On the other hand, if you're just looking for help by anyone and that video may appear beyond your capabilities, I would encourage you to push yourself and give MOOSE a try via some other video's, etc. Or try starting with one of their demo's. It does seem overwhelming at start (I remember when I started watching the video again, and still not getting it until I actually sat down and repeated it for myself - and then it all started making sense). In addition to this, you will find the community is quite helpful if you do get stuck on some basic stuff. But just being realistic, you are almost infinitely more likely to get assistance from the community instead of ED. What exactly do you want to achieve to start off with?

Yes - but only if other pilots could see the dog too - staring at them, before I shoot them down.

I respectfully disagree. There's no need, and I have issues about pandering to the illogical just because they're the squeaky wheel when it's not necessary, and honestly - I don't think this setting will apease them anyway - because I seriously doubt it's really about cheating, but something else. At present, the dots are 100% of the size that ED has set them to be. Allowing a player to turn them OFF, (or otherwise reduce them anywhere from 0% to 100%) has no bearing on cheating at all, because by changing the setting away from 100% to lower, you're actually creating a handicap for yourself more than anything else. Changing the size of dots would only be allowing cheating if they allowed them beyond 100% of what ED has set. That doesn't mean ED shouldn't still work at it so it's correct for all - but while they're 'working at it' - the option to reduce, or turn off should definitely bet there for all, SP or MP. So, I don't buy the complaints about cheaters because there's zero logic in it. It's not about cheating. Allowing an option to turn dots off wasn't a cheating problem until ED took it away, and now it would be considered a form of cheating for those who's dots do show up as big blobs? Give me a break. If people were worried about cheating, they'd be wanting the option for dots to be turned off because at present these big dots are giving the people who don't want them a bigger cheating advantage than others. I see the objections to allowing people control to turn off or reduce being more about jealousy covered up - that some people have VR or better systems than others and it's about getting a kick out of seeing problems remain for those people that otherwise don't affect the complainer so they can feel better about themselves than it is about cheating. And as such - I don't think ED needs to be working on unnecessary options that won't satisfy the complainers anyway. It'd be a waste all round.