Dangerzone

Right CTRL + Pause Break in DCS will show the DCS Frames counter. (Pressed multiple times to cycle through basic/detail info, and to turn off). Or alternatively - you can install OpenXR Tooklit. It has an option to show FPS as well. The DCS FPS is the easiest because it doesn't require any 3rd party installs, etc - however will show on the mirror screen. The OpenXR Toolkit on the other hand requires you to install it, and then configure it - but it only shows in VR. (So it can be handy if you're streaming, etc and don't want to see the counter).

I've sadly come to expect some 4 year old bugs to still be outstanding with DCS, but I thought HB were a little more responsive than this?

And that's the weird thing. I can look left/right (while stationary on the ground), and no issues. However if I rotate in say the apache in the same direction I was just looking the stutters form. Certainly a turn off for Helicopter work.

Thank you for this! This confirms what I've suspected. That the multithreading was pushed prematurely onto us (when they dropped ST support). I have found some ways around this where it seems to work - but there's a lot of tweaking just to get it to run smooth enough. it's not like the 'good old days' where it just worked so much better and smoother. Definitely sounds like there's an issue with the multithreading that needs to be sorted out. The problem is - has anyone seen anything official from ED/DCS in regards to these stutter issues. Threads like this seem to be almost exclusively us discussing this amongst ourselves, as though ED are either unaware, or indifferent to their being an issue with the stuttering as though it's nothing to do with DCS?

If it’s a forum account, I can’t create a new one because that would breach the rules for the forum account and risk me getting kicked off completely. If it was the DCS- I think multiple are ok as long as it’s not backing any other rules. Re multiple email accounts- research email alias. There are methods to have different emails per service but still have a single email account they all go to. But yes, to the outside world I have many email accounts-although no one would know because each service only see’s one each.

There are multiple ways of doing it, and I won’t go into detail here on exactly how I do it - but in short find a way to have a separate external email address for every single account that you have. That way if you start getting spammed on one account, you know exactly the entity that has either been hacked or is leaking/selling the information. There are various methods to do this - which you could do a web search and find out. However, with mine because of my tech background with email Services I’ve gone to a more advanced method than the majority would be interested in or able to do. (Just because it involves configuring and running your own email service). But I believe Services like proton mail might have the ability for you to have multiple aliases for the one email account which could do a similar thing. The added benefits going this way is that your secure account like Bank and government, etc will be unique and different to each social media and general email Accounts so it’s harder for bad actors to actually know which email address you use for your bank account to try and take control. Obviously, nothing is 100% secure, and this also requires a little more effort as you need to know what all your individual email aliases are for- but this does give more options and is also very good for tracking the true source of spam. (as well as dropping that email account once it has been compromised without losing access to all your other Services.).

This for me is encouraging. My 2 issues with performance doesn’t have anything to do with getting better graphics. One is a smoother consistency (get away from all these things that cause jitters, stutters, etc) and the other would be the rapid degrading in performance with the more unit count on the map. If Vulcan doesn’t give us any more fps, but we do benefit from being stable, and being able to do more (not graphics per se, but objects) - that is a huge win. Thanks!

Thanks for the clarification. So what you’re saying is that Coincidently, 10 minutes after signing into DCS, you started to receive spam from other entities, and you are assuming that due to the coincidence ED has sold or passed on your email addresses to spammers. I understand your assumption based on the coincidence, however I think that more than one factor needs to be examined to come to a conclusion. In particular, is your email address used for anything else. And another- is anyone else with a DCS account experiencing the same? I, for one am not having issues with spam from the email account I use for DCS. I also have a unique method to my accounts that help me identify where spam is likely coming from. Additionally, if your email is used for more than just DCS gives the possibility that your email was leaked elsewhere and this is a coincidence. It doesn’t make it so, but it makes it a possibility. Now, what is the likelihood that ED chose to only leak your email? While the timing is indeed coincidental, there’s more that doesn’t add up than does at the moment to give weight to this being DCS? Are you able to confirm if it’s your forum account that you logged into, or your DCS account that got the “welcome back” message?

I know that ED are busy porting DCS from DirectX over to Vulkan. I was just wondering what are the main benefits that we can hope to get from Vulkan once this has been done? In particular, can we expect to see noticeable improvements with the CPU usage/binding, or is Vulkan only really for GPU benefits only? I know that a lot of this will be speculation - however given I have zero understanding of DirectX vs Vulkan - just curios as to what are some of the more likely benefits we can hope to see from anyone who's saavy in understanding that area.

a few moments later... Well - this made me chuckle. Problem found.

I feel unloved. I'm not sure I get any regular emails from ED - definitely not 10 a week. Is it possible there's a DCS physhing website out there that you signed into and now they have your email? Additionally - I'd be concerned about your accounts integrity if that's the case - because this doesn't sound normal at all! I would recommend emailing support immediately and advise what's going on. If they're legit emails and something is wrong their end, they should be able to fix it. If, alternatively you have signed into a physhing site instead - you'll want ED aware so that they can protect your account.

My suggestion is to wait 48hrs. It's cheap security. Enough people will have bought it by then that you'll have a good indication as to how good the module is in EA and whether it's worth getting straight away or not. How it's released on day #1 will probably give you an indication as to what quality you can expect moving forward. I've done that for my last few purchases (or more correctly - the purchases I was going to buy). 2 modules didn't make the cut for me - so I'm glad I waited and didn't jump on the hype immediately. Of course though - that works great if it's released on a Thursday and you can let 2 work days go before the weekend. It's a bit harder when you're excited and if they release it right at the start of a weekend.

I'm no expert in this, but I'll offer what I can. Just the fact that VoiceAttack is recognising your voice but not doing inputs tells me that maybe VoiceAttack doesn't have permisison to 'input keystrokes' into the DCS application. Are you running DCS as 'Run as administrator' by any chance? If so - make sure you turn this off/disable so it just runs as a regular user. (You may need to reassign permission to certain files or do a repair - depending on whether updates have occurred under 'as administrator' and set permissions incorrectly). Same deal with NeckSafer. You may want to try uninstalling and reinstalling it - and making sure that it, and DCS is not running 'as administrator'. I could be way off, but it's worth checking.

I'm not familiar with how mods and liveries are done, but just wondering if this is something that can be done with a mod - and if so - would ED be open to a user making this change or adding this function and then submitting to them for implementing officially? Given this is something that was advised was being worked on in 2020 - and understanding that the team are no doubt stretched with their current workload and this would be a low priority - could this be an option for the community to assist ED to ensure it does happen?

Image from here: \ Can't wait!!!!!

Same problem with contrails.

Love your work. I have a couple of questions re the gigantic explosions. First - I notice that the radius and height are not constants, but a fixed parameter. ie: --Trigger the explosion local maxRadius = 200 * sizeScale local maxHeight = 500 * sizeScale Before I start hacking around with the code to meet my requirements - just wondering if there's any reason that this is like this, or if it's safe for me to change these to a constant / setting at the top so these can be customised for each purpose? Secondly - I notice that the checks appear to be done on a timer, as opposed to checking for event.hit or event.dead. My limited understanding - I would have thought that hooking the event function and checking for event.hit or event.dead and seeing if it references one of the units would be more performance friendly than doing a scan every second to see if something is hit. Please don't take this as criticism - I'm not saying this is the case, nor saying what you should be doing - I think you've done a fantastic job - this is more to query my understanding so I can learn the pro's and con's of why it was done this way - if you don't mind sharing.

Maybe autoexec.cfg is configured after it loads all the defaults, and any (and all) global variable defaults can be changed via it. If so - there could be hundreds of variables/options that could be set by autoexec.cfg that we don't know of (or shouldn't be touching) . That now has me wondering about the whole dynamic spawn at dynamically created CTLD FARPS and whether that could be set at the server via autoexec.cfg instead of hacking/editing the main install file. I guess for now, I'll be grateful to whomever found it and realised that it provided the solution that we have one. Honestly - I'd be stoked if it did come from ED officially through a support ticket, or even just see ED officially recognizing it now as a work-around solution. The more I see of AI, the more I see that it is nothing like the fictional movies that we have watched. The real danger we face with AI is taking what it says as gospel and being lead by it as it learns incorrect (or stupid ) content. It's pretty much the same danger that we face if we do a google search and trust what's been presented to us without scrutiny). That's why I prefer forums. People can challenge others and provide a different perspective, or even correct bad information. The amount of times I find myself arguing with ChatGPT and then realize "What am I doing"

I’d like to feel more life like there’sa world out there, and not just an individual mission I’m doing. Another old sim apparently did this well, making it feel like their was a bigger battle. I’m really hoping that ED have found a way to capture that same immersion with their DCE. That the DCE won’t just be like the quick generator but ongoing… but will be more like a full battle that we play a small part in a larger picture, with our success or failure having an impact on the bigger picture. As for civilian movement, well-with issues still with parthing off ground units in some roads, and performance issues, and trains, I don’t think there’d be much success adding civilian stuff on top until they get that bedded down and fully stable first.

This one appears bugs me with air refueling. Breaks the immersion.

Oh. So while the directors don’t detect statics, the spawning still does? That’s great. Thanks!!

I was thinking if it was an official configuration variable, there might be something. But if this is more from the SDK or things we're not supposed to know about, and someone has somehow figured it out by tracking what's in the DCS files and doing trial by error and testing, then that probably answers why ED are so quiet on all this. It's not something that we're supposed to know about. Just a pitty though that ED couldn't have thrown us a bone and said "Try this setting" instead of leaving us to have to hack through the files to find a solution, but on the flip side - I'm grateful to whomever came about the discovery so we have a solution to a problem! But now it's really got me wondering how many more secret autoexec.cfg configuration variables are available.

Hi, I was just wondering if we might be able to get a new menu option in the mission editor for "Import From Mission File" that allows us to import units/groups/statics/etc from another mission file into/ontop of the current mission. I know we can currently do this in a 'work around' way by opening up the mission we want, saving it to a static template, then opening up the mission we're working on and choosing load from static template. However this appears to be doing the same thing, but just forcing the user to do it in 2 steps instead of a single step? Is there any reason why this is 2 step, instead of just a simple "Load from Static Template File" that allows us to choose any .MIZ file, and not just those staves as a static template? Also - as an extra bit of help, it would be nice to streamline the operation by just selecting a .miz file, but then having options/checkboxes to allow toggling of: Import Planes Import Helicopters Import Statics Import Zones and a toggle for "Import All / Import Blue / Import Red". Thanks for consideration DZ

Are you sure? According to the picture you provided, the statics are on the port/left side of the forward catapults (which I understand to typically be Catapult 1 - but maybe I'm wrong)? Edit: Hmm... looks like I am wrong. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3312139/ Cat 1 appears to be on the starboard side. All this time I've been referencing the wrong cat number. Aah - thanks for the clarification. I was kinda hoping there was a setting I had missed, like the ability to block certain spawn slots (thus blocking use of certain catapults) - as this would be far more robust and usable. Sounds like you've found a sneaky workaround for now. Nice work though to figure out that method. That would have taken some time I imagine!

How are you getting away with having statics on cat 1 and not having a player spawn in and get nativated to cat 1? Have you found a way to disable spawning in certain slots? Or is this done by the way you delay spawning of certain flights? If the latter, it sounds like with each update, there's a risk that ED may change something on how this works that will ruin your mission. (ie, they could change the spawn order to be random, which may then use Cat 1 again, etc)? Obviously if it's working for you that's fantastic, but just something to keep in mind. Unfortunately for me, I gave up on having statics on the deck. There's enough bugs and issues to deal with in DCS to add additional risks into the mix. I don't have the energy I once had to keep testing and tracking things down as much as I once had, but I would still very much one day like to get back to having a carrier that is setup nicely.