Dangerzone

Don't trust ChatGPT. It makes things up when it doesn't really know the answer) - and often gives different answers. For instance, I just asked it and it gives this response: In autoexec.cfg, the bkg_load_signed_plugins setting controls whether DCS loads digitally signed plugins in the background during startup: true: Enables background loading of signed plugins. This can improve startup time by parallelizing plugin initialization. false: All plugins (even signed ones) are loaded sequentially, possibly making startup slower but more stable for troubleshooting. It's mainly a performance tuning flag. Most users can leave it set to true. ... which is a completely different response to what you got. Plus, if no one has any unsigned plugins (or even if they do) - I don't see how setting it to false would fix the issue, as @YoYo has mentioned. There's something more going on here. I can't find any documentation about it on the internet - and ChatGPT seems to be just making things up. Additionally, when I asked ChatGPT for it's source for this information it gave: The information about bkg_load_signed_plugins in DCS World's autoexec.cfg file is primarily sourced from user discussions on the ED Forums. For instance, a user named @Nightstormreported that setting bkg_load_signed_plugins = false resolved performance issues introduced in version 2.9.15, such as startup stuttering and mission saving problems. This suggests that disabling background loading of signed plugins can lead to more stable performance in certain scenarios.forum.dcs.world However, there is no official documentation from Eagle Dynamics detailing the exact function of this setting. The understanding of its impact is based on community observations and troubleshooting experiences. For more detailed discussions and user experiences, you can refer to the ED Forums thread where this topic is discussed: forum.dcs.world. We're stuck in a loop. ChatGPT is referencing us, and we're referencing it. This is why I asked the question where people are getting their information from, or even knew that this setting existed in the first place. There seems to be no official documentation available. Is someone doing searches through the binaries for text constants and found this as an option and decided to throw it into autoexec.cfg to see what it does, and it just worked? Or did an insider recommend to a friend to try the setting, who recommended it to another friend, and it finally made it's way 'leaked' to this forum? Or did this come from someone who submitted an official support ticket to ED, and they said to try it? Or does the first person who recommended it actually know more information about this setting, and is able to provide deeper information as to any potential side effects to watch out for. Or if there's no potential side effects - can we get ED to set this as the default to fix the countless people struggling with the same issues that don't frequent this forum. What's so bizarre about all this is that multiple 'stuttering' threads are popping up on this forum, with very few getting a response by ED reps. Then this comes out apparently from nowhere, with no source of origin. I'm beginning to wonder if this is a dev fallback solution that ED put in for a change they've made with 2.16 and it's leaked its way to us. And if so - it's very disappointing that ED hasn't acknowledged there's been a change that they introduced that has caused this problem, and being more forthcoming about trying this setting themselves to resolve it in the numerous 'stuttering' threads that are popping up. But this is conjecture - we seem to be very much in the dark about it. Plus, I'm beginning to wonder now how many more secret/hidden autoexec.cfg settings there are that could help increase our experience with DCS - which is another reason I'm eager to know the source of this information.

I honestly don't understand this call for more free stuff. As mentioned numerous times above - ED have a 2 week trial on most maps, and most aircraft (which resets every 6 months). A person could go and 'taste' 12 different aircraft during that time and then rinse and repeat again until they find what they're looking for. That's extremely generous. If what ED has offered in the way of free options (combination of free maps, free aircraft and the trial period) isn't enough and it's still a hurdle for new players, then I would question how much those types of players would be willing to invest into DCS modules after all. I'm all for making DCS more beginner friendly, but I think ED have actually done a better job than most with the free/trial stuff. Maybe part of the issue is that DCS is designed for a niche market? I think you've hit something though with your mentioning of iRacing and the MP / match making though! A big difference I see between DCS and other flight sims is that DCS is reportedly mostly SP. The others that I know of seem to thrive in a MP community. On wondering if DCS has gotten most of the way it can in the SP community and the rest is diminishing returns? Could the answer to catching a larger number of fish be a larger and more diverse MP environment where the other game/sims seem to thrive? However the MP side of DCS is left to community members to create environments for, and provide peer support - and this is an area I see that DCS lacks in... official support for the MP environment. We have had excellent 3rd party support/contributions with MIST, MOOSE, SRS, OverlordBot, Special-K's Bot, etc... but this is more in spite of, not really due to the support ED has given to these communities. It seems each new change they make that could support the MP community falls 'just short' of what the MP community have asked for. Look at the dynamic spawning. It's absolutely fantastic to not have to put down individual aircraft anymore... but one of the calls was to have the ability to dynamically place FARPS on the map and spawn from them, so that the players themselves add to the dynamic nature. This was so close to being done (so close, it can be done with a hack with a .lua file) - but ignored by ED. There are countless examples of ED not engaging well with the MP content creators, and I suspect we've been bleeding talent that is getting tired and burned out of waiting for ED to actually connect and listen or be more supportive in this area and fixing bugs they introduce with a new update in a timely manner. (Instead of taking 2 or 3 years to look into them again). When I look at these other more popular flight games/sims... one thing they seem to have in common is a thriving MP community. This brings in more MP options with real ATC, more engagements, more diverse environments, more bringing friends onboard, etc. Something where DCS unfortunately doesn't raise to it's potential that it could thrive in too. But ED have never appeared to be that worried about this. Maybe they're not after a larger community. Maybe they're happy just being a niche game with a niche market and are happy to coast along with what they're doing with the current customer base. I mean - do we even have a single official/commercial MP campaign? The other area lacking in DCS is the dynamic gameplay. Thankfully this is something ED have known and have been working on for considerable time - however again it seems they are prioritizing only on the SP side of things. Hopefully the DCE will be a major leap forward in attracting much more attention to DCS. I would like to think too that this time will be different and they'll actually be considering the MP side of things more than usual, along with consideration for MP content creators / server hosters with their plans for the DCE, but I have my reservations that we'll see more of the same as we have in the past for the MP side of things, and it'll be the lesser consideration.

I wonder how difficult it would be to introduce ai voice recognition into DCS. When I started, one of the biggest hello was being able to ask over discord during a flight “why isn’t my missiles firing”, and have someone come back with “have you checked x,y, z?” Given the majority are SP and don’t have MP servers to assist, could some sort of AI built into training where a user can just talk and the AI knows the situation they’re in (plane, etc) and can draw from the extensive Q&A on this forum, chucks guides and elsewhere and give help be an asset. Thinks like checklists, or “where is the x switch”, etc. Think an interactive tutor. How close do you think AI is to told and how difficult do you think it would be to implement. And would maybe a poor man’s solution of this already be available, in ChatGPT’s voice mode? Edit: just thinking of AI voice mode DCS, and it would open up so many more opportunities too. Imagine being able to do ATC using your own voice. We have had some brilliant third-party implementations with overlord bot and VAICOM, but a full AI system of this would be pretty epic too.

Just a follow up - does anyone know more about bkg_load_signed_plugins ? Is this a fallback to an OLD way of doing it (undoing what was introduced recently), or is this a test flag for a new way that could be implemented in the future? Is there any negative/downside to using this? Or is this just a setting that someone stumbled across in the dark, tried it - it fixed issues but no one knows anything more?

I get what you mean. I ended up with a love/hate relationship with DCS. Absolutely love it, but banging my head against a brick wall with frustrations over and over. Gave myself half a years break from doing anything with it, self reflected and realized that I have been trying to use DCS for things that it's just either not ready for, or ED don't have a strong interest in supporting. I think one of the MP server hosters came with a similar conclusion in a youtube video earlier this year just as I was getting back in, which I found as a bit of confirmation. Since then, lowering and changing my expectations, I've enjoyed DCS more. I'm trying to get less rapped up on what DCS could be (or should be in my eyes), reduced my commitment to deep mission and scripting, keeping it more basic and just accepting it for what it is instead and working around the flaws instead of becoming increasingly frustrated with them. Avoiding modules that are "too EA" (like the Chinook, Afghanistan and Iraq) - and rather waiting to see what is at a state ready for me to enjoy. (Jumped on Germany - that's been brilliant right from the scratch, even if it has it's quirks and is only stage 1). I'd say as a result I've enjoyed DCS more in the last few months than I think I have for a number of years now. Nothing really changed with DCS (if anything, it's become a bit worse in some areas since they've abandoned the idea of a separate Beta/Stable release) and I'm dealing with more bugs (where once I used to watch this space, see the amount of issues people were dealing with but by the time a stable was released, either the majority were resolved and those that weren't I had plenty of 'heads up' time on what issues were and how to go about workarounds). But even with all that, I'd say it's been better for me in general since adjusting my own "hopes and dreams" accordingly.

A comprehensive list of things to try is here: I would suggest you start with trying Turbo mode first, RivaTuner second, and continue from there. I thought about making a YT video with some of these (once I have a better idea of what works and doesn't for different people/scenario's), but in all honesty - a point by point post like this checklist that people can scan through in 30 seconds to see what they have and haven't tried seems far more efficient than a 30 min youtube video that people have to watch to get through all the points. Hope this helps. FWIW - Stuttering was introduced with 2.16. If this is your first setup the other thing you could try is rolling back to 2.14 and play until you get a good experience. This would eliminate the introduced issues with 2.16 out of the equation first so you can get a good experience.

I think the directors send planes to a fixed catapult depending on where they are spawned. I don't think the directors are currently dynamic and each follows a set path from each spawn location to the designated cat. Would love to be proven wrong, but that's been my observation so far. I get the feeling that the original idea may have been to be more dynamic than it is, but given reports that they went way over budget on this feature, I'd guess they faced unexpected hurdles and in the end had to go with a more simpler approach. One of the reasons I asked the question is that I'm aware of the over-budget thing, and am assuming that ED aren't going to want to invest anymore into this than is absolutely necessary to mark it complete / get the SC out of early access. I'm pleased to hear that they're still doing tweaks and considering requests. Hopefully the majority of requests we've asked for are simple enough to include with their tweaks, but I don't have expectations that we'll see larger requests such as dynamic cats (if indeed the whole coding is based on fixed paths and this would require a rewrite) is something we'll ever see. As for set MP mission events - I add a second carrier about 20 miles away for a reserved launch/recovery operation if something gets stuck with the main carrier. Not the greatest workaround, but we work with what we have.

If love to see this, but before rewind, they need to get the basic playback stable so it doesn’t go corrupt, and is true to the original gameplay. I believe they did do changes to it a few months ago to try and improve reliability, but not sure how that went? Does anyone know if you can replay back a full multiplayer mission now with accurate results without things going astray, or is their still issues with the replay going corrupt? I’m guessing from the above post, we’re still plagued with AI making different decisions with playback, et al? If there’s no stability with long tracks, I would imaging a rewind would be actually impossible to achieve. And not to be a downer, but to have realistic expectations - I don’t see this changing anytime soon. The best peak to progress I see this would have been some sort of regular “save state” option in the tack file to ensure points to jump between and ensure integrity of the playback. Now, looking into the new save feature, (if I understand it properly), it’s not much different to what people have smart achieved through lua scripts. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, it only saves basic unit information. It doesn’t save progress through paths/waypoints, variable status, trigger states, or any of the basic needs for resuming part way through commercial campaigns. If there was ever a time for ED to write something that could handle that sort of capability required for rewind- it would have been with the save/resume function to hold a game state so we could at least jump to periodic tone stamps and resume from there. So, short of something far deeper being worked on that we’re unaware of (which I doubt-why would they waste time writing a basic function and at the same time write a completely different deep function) I don’t expect to see a rewind function before, well possibly a whole engine rewrite. A bare minimum 10 years, and probably more. Dream and hope big, ButI suggest just don’t hold out for it and adjust expectations accordingly, and find friends with similar ambitions so you do have access to multiple real time camera angles to capture during flight. If nothing else, it helps us to appreciate just how much zero serious work goes into these amazing YouTube videos.

If this was to be done, I would be requesting an API function call to do it too. This would expand the options to be used in missions, scripting, etc beyond just a single purpose, but would also allow what you want too.

Thanks BN!

Hi, Just wondering if plane directors are considered finished as is (or finished as is for the time being), or whether they are still being worked on. There's a number of things I've seen requested, which I am hoping was included in consideration such as: Ability to bypass parking after landing to go straight to the Catapult again Bypass the Wing fold requirements. (For mods and other aircraft) Changes to taxi logic. (Don't have planes go all the way to the stern after landing during recovery ops) Ability to set the carrier in 'Recovery' or 'Launch' mode manually. (Triggers/API Script). Disable the 180 degree auto-rotation in missions (for when the mission ends). The ability to specify only which cats (and thus which spawn slots) are available to use (to allow for placing of statics on bow) Apart from the requests, I don't recall seeing any responses, so just looking for clarification as to whether: The plane directors are considered finished and no current plans for making any changes (besides bug fixes) The plane directors are considered 'on hold' for now as is... with plans to enhance them later in the distant future? The plane directors are still actively been worked on to implement additional functionality? Something else? It would just make it a bit easier for mission building/planning/etc to know what we should and shouldn't expect please. My apologies if this has been answered. I did a search and couldn't find anything, and don't recall reading anything. (Although that doesn't mean much - my google-fu ain't the greatest, and my memory has a bit to be desired too at some stages). Cheers DZ

I guess that answers my question as to whether you read the checklist. And the thanks goes to @actually_fred for putting me on the right path with this... I'm just paying it forward. If you start having issues in the future, it may not hurt to go through that checklist. I'm not saying it's all correct - but I think you'll find it far more exhaustive than a few you-tube video's (many of which will take up 10 minutes of your time to make just 4 suggestions)

Hi All, Just wondering if Olympus is still active and if it should work on the new Germany CW Server? I see there's no update since 2024, so not sure if CW Germany is supported? Thanks DZ

That's the exact issue I've been having. Not sure if you've had a chance to go through the checklist of mine posted above your post, but the solution for me (which apparently isn't a good solution, but did work) was to use RivaTuner to set the FPS at exactly 72fps. (Not above). This changed the messages from flashing orange/red to a green GPU Bound - giving an theoritical FPS limit too, which is much higher than the 72FPS that I'm limiting at. People far more knowlegable than I say that there should be no need to use RivaTuner, so take this advice with a grain of salt, but if it helps for now... it's worth giving a try with the caviet of keeping an eye on the 'chat' about stuttering because you may need to disable it once there's further updates. (Because all this though seems to have only occurred since 2.16. I don't think ED have acknowledged that there even is an issue - but I suspect (hope) that they do know of this and have found an issue, and will hopefully be addressed with the next update, because numerous people are noticing issues since the latest update). As per the thread above, if this works for you, it's an indication of a deeper issue that using Turbo mode may fix - however as mentioned in my case, while Turbomode made things significantly better, I still have times where using RivaTuner works better (albeit even though it shouldn't). IDK why and am still investigating. I have the same issues as yours though in VR, yet I run Pimax. I was wondering if it was a Pimax related issue, but given it's introduced with DCS 2.16, plus it's happening to non-Pimax headsets too - all fingers appear to be pointing to DCS.

Hmm - thanks. I'll check this out. Normally it will pop up with an alert if it blocks something, but I'll check it out and then will try again. Thanks!

Not sure if this checklist might be helpful for you: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/374746-june-2025-dcs-vr-optimization-stutterjitter-generic-checklist/#comment-5657256

hi Qcumber, I tried downloading and running the XRFrameTools installer, but was unable to get it to install. It did nothing. (There was no popup, no setup, anything). Just wondering if I'm doing this right, or if it installs silently behind the scenes, etc? Thanks actually_fred. I'll try changing mine and will see if I notice any difference. Also - very strange, but I was playing DCS on the weekend and stumbled across the stuttering again (with Turbo mode on). I task swtiched out and loaded up Rivatuner and task switched back in, and it locked straight to 72 fps, and went from flashing between Orange & Red CPU bound, to a green GPU Bound - and a theoretical limit in the high 90's. (I was running at 72fps). I don't doubt that the FPS limiter in Rivatuner is not ideal, and may cause microstutters, but it's far better than the frequent jittering that I get without it. (This changes depending on the mission/conditions. It's as though I must be close to the limit of CPU binding with whatever the spikes are, and once it goes over, it starts to fall apart). Very confusing to see how many different settings work so differently for different users. You've almost got to be an IT Technician just to use DCS in VR these days it seems.

LCTRL-F11 (I actually thought it was LALT-F11 - but I think I'm wrong ) does work in VR for sure. It doesn't move the pilot - it's a 'free camera', but moving the pilot doesn't really do much anyway. It only moves it for the player. For all other players observing -the pilot is static where they landed. About the only benefit the moving pilot really is for, is maybe some video recording work, but you wouldn't be in VR for that anyway.

Indeed. Where I've been running no shadows, no smoke, no heatblur, etc - doing everything on low to try and figure out what darn thing is causing these stutters and how to get rid of them. For now I've been fine with DCS running at 50% of what it could be - just to get a smooth experience, and then once I've got that stable and proven, I can start working my way but up to the best visuals possible. This is a major reason why I wrote the checklist. I feel like I've been 'groping in the dark' with DCS experiences trying to stumble across a solution. In some cases it seemed there were combinations, not just one thing that helped. By how much, I don't know. Part of a combination of changes too was due to the amount of hours invested, and then trying 2 or 3 things at once because the load times to get into DCS and close down again in the last couple of versions have been extreme, so I also tried utilising my time more efficiently. Dealing with the stutter issues hasn't been a smooth experience for me (excuse the pun). The FPS limiter was a solution I stumbled across, but then as pointed out by someone else - bad idea - here's a far better idea. The idea of making this list is to encourage discussions on things that may be wrong, or work better. Most of what I've found is lists, but no deeper information on when it's applicable, why it works, whether it's still applicable today, etc. Diagnosing these issues is at best a dogs breakfast to try and work through. (At least it was for me). In that spirit, are you saying that Game mode improves the experience for you? Same with Full Screen, HAGS, and HPET? That now that I have a solution, I should try undoing these settings one at a time because they actually give better performance? The list is more for me to learn from and be corrected than it is just giving other people ideas of what to try. Oh - 100%. This definitely isn't a "Do this". It's a "Check list" of things to try, as well as a list of things that need more discussion. Some of these things were recommendations, but I don't even know the why or how they are supposed to make a difference, or whether they're suggestions that are so old, that things have improved and they're no longer relevant. (HAGS, Full Screen, etc)?

I see your point, but I don't think CA with infantry gives the same experience. I've played FPS games where the idea is stealth. Run, squat hide, etc while enemy are closing in on your position. Fast paced - behind enemy lines kind of thing. It's smooth flow and high action. Using CA with an infantry guy doesn't really have the same experience as other FPS games. Don't get me wrong - I think CA is a great idea (and wish it was given move love too, TBH) - but the idea of merging FPS with DCS would be the ultimate IMO. Real guys running around on the ground, calling in strikes, etc in their own little world for a full combat simulation could have a lot of fun indeed. But I also understand that it would only serve a smaller % of the population (DCS is already a niche market, and there's far less that do MP already - and this feature would be far more nicher... (no that's not a word but I'm using it anyway ) that it wouldn't be a viable option. But who knows... maybe one day there will be an option for an API link between DCS world and some wild FPS game out there that allows the best of both worlds. If/when DCS actually goes 'full globe' - would it be much of a stretch to imagine some startup company could include basic aircraft in their game, and use API between the two to merge two different game environments together? DCS streams out where what aircraft and munitions are. The game streams back where ground troops and vehicles are running around on. I imagine taking off in an AC-130, getting on station, helping some guys out in their skirmish and RTB while hey continue on with their mission. I know it's the realm of dreams, but still fun to consider what could be one day. I know there's holes in this too that would need to be addressed, and I'm dreaming. The AC-130 isn't really happening (at least yet) - but neither is this option - just talking some day in the FUUUUUTURE. (As Andre would say). However... the 45 minute RTB helicopter RTB ride... yeah - I can see your point there. Might be time for me to come out of fantasy land.

Unfortunately I think the walking pilot is a bit of a “I wonder if we can get this to work” side quest for one of the devs rather than something to take seriously. But man, what I’d give to be able to eject and then forest person shooter my way hiding and evading the enemy and trying to get to a evac point and have someone fly a CSAR helo in, in DCS. That would be epic!! but I think not high up on the ED priority list. But one can dream.

I’m fairly sure I heard ED announce that DCE will be released as SP only to start with. MP will come later… how much later who knows. I think DCS does well without modules and maps for beginners. Free modules and maps, and a 2 week trial on most others is fairly generous. One of the biggest helps I’ve seen for beginners is co-op MP PVE environments where others are willing to help them out. When I was first starting out (and even occasionally now after having a break from a particular airframe), to comment in discord saying “why can’t I get this to work” and someone chime in and say “did you remember to set the MFD active”, etc has been invaluable. DCS is primarily SP, and I think with that often gets overlooked how much more valuable the right types of MP servers/communities/environments can be for beginners. How many RL pilots are left to their own to learn? Not many. . For this type of stuff the less popular PVE or PVPVE servers with a tight group of enthusiasts probably fair far better than the big player base more known servers. One of the larger hurdle for newcomers IMO, as well as retention is stability and smooth onboarding. Not everyone has the stamina to push through all the setting up/binding then diagnosing issues to get going and then have an update create more issues that need diagnosing. Even basic things like no default bindings - so people don’t have to know to search for another peripheral that might have auto-bound an axis would be good. Yes, basic stuff for us DCS veterans, but not newbys, some who may have fought with controls not behaving and giving up before even getting a chance to fly. It would be good to see some of these things change just to help users have a smoother onboarding experience.

Hi QCumber. Sure - I hope to be home this weekend, so will try and give this a test then. I've only been flying on CWG lately, so not sure how this goes with other maps. I actually thought that CWG was already optimized (given that it runs so well with the incredible amount of detail) - so are you saying that there's more optimization that's required on it. (Besides the bit up north of course where people seem to be getting some frames tanking - but I would take that as more of a bug than just optimization?) Either way - leave this with me and I'll test on Syria when I can and see if it is any different, and if not - get you some logs. Cheers DZ

Thanks Mordants - I wasn't aware of this one. I'll be sure to check it out! Thanks. I've posted a link to your post on the first post of mine. I think we're trying to achieve something slightly different (yours is more about getting the most performance out of your system, mine is focused more on troubleshooting jitters/stutters, but the two definitely overlap in some areas). As for some working the opposite way - could you tell me which ones, so I can tag them in the original message. I'm not saying that my list is anywhere near right - it's more for discussion (and I'll update my list as people correct me). The reason I've posted this thread is to get feedback on what's I have wrong. (After being corrected about using FPS limiters and that it's an indication of needing 'turbo mode on' - that made me realise some of the information I have been getting (and even giving too) has been wrong, and while it may help in some areas - it's covering up a far better solution. Thanks for this. What I found was that having preload radius up high (on a 4090) created major stuttering when I was taking off in a helicopter on CW Germany and rotating to face the opposite direction. Reducing the preload radius reduced the stutters. I thought having so much VRAM upping preload should do the opposite, so I'm very confused about this. However I also wonder/question if there's different types of 'stutters' - one that deals with initial loading/preloading/etc - and another one that deals with IRQ interrupts / ticks / or whatever turbo mode fixes, etc. Thanks for also adding the link to your post as well. At the moment I'm finding VR in DCS extremely confusing when it comes to optimizations, what works, what kinda works but doesn't really, etc. Thanks. I think you're right - you have to turn off core isolation memory integrity completely. I'll update my original post.

dcs.log is just a text file - you could try right-clicking and choosing 'send to zip' and then uploading the .zip file maybe?