Dangerzone

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.

If we're talking about realism, and variety - one of the things that gets me is that it's the same voice each time for each radio call. Whether female/male/etc, doesn't matter - just having different voices would be great - but while we're doing it - it would make sense to have a mix of options both male and female, so people have a choice of choosing which voice would play for their own radio calls. Currently I hear 3 other planes call inbound for a carrier landing - and each with the exact same voice, the exact same phrase. How good would it be if there were 4 or 5 different variations of the voices where pilots could select which iteration of the voice they want used when they're calling inbound in a setting - including male and female. Or even better, if voices could be done like plane liveries - so we can add them to the saved games directory and choose our own voices for our own calls. Then people who want this feature can share voice 'liveries' like we currently can do with the plane skins. For me - this would be far more immersive changing than changing a pilot model that we rarely would see anyway because we're in the seat when we're flying. I would also think it could be an easier change than doing a bunch of different models with animations for the cockpit. (I'm no animator so I don't know, but I would imagine there's more work than that, than having a setting that determines which version of a sound file is played when triggered?) I know one way to achieve this already is to have all players use VAICOM, and disable the voice in game, and just use your own voice, and have it transmit over SRS at the same time - so we can hear each other's own unique voices for the call. But this does require all players to use VAICOM. Still - maybe this could be a big help for your female friend @buceador if you haven't considered VAICOM and how it could completely change the immersion on that level?