Dangerzone

LUA is like some salespeople. Very happy to share information they know, and what they don't know, very quick to make something up to sound just as confident. As Fisherman82 mentioned, it's good at living in fantasy land. "Oh - there should be a function that does this, so I'll just imagine that the function exists, and will script accordingly". Where it is great for coding is stuff like "Where is my error". Copy-paste, and that extra parenthesis that you've missed, etc - it picks it up real quick.

Is it really a cop out? I'm open to a better suggestion if you think it's a cop out. Please explain how can ED get a real "Beta" version to the public to test on their servers, scripts, and missions to identify issues prior to going live before actual release besides having a dedicated 'Open Beta' and "Stable' release?

No problems here with releasing BETA updates on a Friday. Production releases are definitely better for earlier in the week for sure. Newy has made it clear that this is a BETA release. Sure - people are running OB as their main version, but that's on them, not ED. Vanuatu. (And before anyone thinks I'm joking, the question is what timezone is it going to be released in on the 19th. Often a release on the 19th can be the 20th for countries ahead of GMT time, such as NZ, Japan, Australia, etc).

We do not. Edit (A day later). I can't believe I missed the opportunity to say '2 weeks'.

I doubt it. DCE will give a dynamic map in the sense that what you do from mission to mission will impact the way the war is going (whether the front line is advancing, or retreating, how many supplies you have to work with, etc), but I strongly doubt it will effect how individual groups behave during engagements. The two seem to be very different beasts. Don't get me wrong. DCE will be a very much appreciated change to DCS, and will create variety of it's own, and more 'purpose' to what players do besides just go bomb stuff. There will be consequences to bad actions, and rewards for good actions, and I'm very much looking forward to that. But I've seen the difference having a few Tac Commanders in Combined Arms on the opposite side can make vs the normal AI which really isn't much more than cannon fodder. Targets that can be told to move, or have some ability to shoot back if you're within their range, but little else. (I'm talking ground units here - air units are a different story). Maybe with the advance of AI who knows, there could be some ability in their down the track to have AI do what human players do with CA but I think we'd be at least a decade off that being implemented too.

Enhanced AI - especially with ground units. With helicopters playing a greater role (and more to come), the standard AI is too predictable and boring. I created a 'work around' script so that groups won't just 'move a little' and then sit there to be plucked off, but will either charge the position of the attacker, or otherwise try to outflank. It has created more of a challenge and improved experience for some, but as soon as people realise the logic, it's easy to overcome or exploit still and is basic in nature. Having had a few players in 'Tac Command' slots on the other side on a server with combined arms has given me an experience of just how good DCS could be. Sneak attacks, retreat and reengaging at optimal times, sneaking ground forces around buildings, etc. I don't expect AI to be upgraded. This is a flight simulator sandbox after all, and an Dynamic Campaign Engine is needed before any of this. But if you asked what I wish for. That would be it.

Have you ever spent time with real devs? I reckon the conversation went like this: D1: We need to model the hooks D2: Why... D1: Coz... there's an aircraft carrier in DCS D2: Aaah. Of course. Dev's like to have fun too, and I bet more than one during their development had some fun seeing if they could nail a landing on the aircraft carrier. Sure... being 'authentic' was probably in that list too.... somewhere. As for voices - I would love for DCS to have the ability to have 4 or 5 different voices for each call, and that it's random based on each session, just so there was a bit of variety, but I appreciate as far as priorities go, this would be so low it wouldn't see the light of day.

Motion Reprojection user here too. Normally locked in at 45fps, and it's smooth. Can be blury/ghosting when looking out at 90 degrees while flying slow to the ground, but that's the price we pay unfortunately. Much better than it used to be though. That plus starting off with conservative settings until things are working smooth, and then upping those settings. This helps to make sure there's not something 'very' wrong in the system such as an individual / particular setting that could cause quality issues. Search here and you should be able to find other threads that go through the whole tweaking for VR including the NVIDIA profile settings, BIOS settings and windows settings.

Another thing worth noting is that SRS also allows for external API's. I fly on servers that use RJ's OverlordBot, so we can do things like call bogey dope over the radio (with our voice), and have a voice response back from overlord bot with the response. Seriously, if you've never used overlord bot, you're missing out. SRS also allows other external sounds to play, so you can have radio stations that you can tune into during flight to listen to, or anything else you can think of. For instance, using MOOSE you can also have text to voice, so you can dynamically have responses come in over the radio that the script feeds in as text. This can be handy for things such as ATIS, etc. From what I understand DCS's own coms does not allow API access / external input, and from what I can gather, there's no plans to open it up to allow for it either. As such, I haven't even tried the internal voice feature. It's never really made sense to me why DCS has implemented it considering that there's already a solution available that's got more functionality than ED even plan on allowing with their own.

No, I think what he's suggesting is that the render resolution should be kept at the native (as you have it now), but that DLSS will super-sample from there and give a crisper image. This sounds encouraging. I have in the past punched the PD up all the way to see the difference, and indeed the picture is far clearer in my VR. In some ways it doesn't make sense - seems that if the headset can only pump 2160x2160 then there should be no additional clarity as it can only do those pixels, but the tests show otherwise - the image really jumps out in the VR. Obviously running PD at 2.0 also means that my frames are about 3FPS, so it's not usable - but it was interesting to see the 'what if' scenario. So from what I'm understanding by WN's post is that DLSS will allow me to achieve something similar to this without any extra load on the GPU, as I can keep the PD to 1.0 as it currently is, but DLSS will effectively do some super sampling for me. I'm hopeful that not only will this increase the sharpness, but also reduce the shimmering at the same time. There's talk here about DLAA as well. It sounds like it's a newer form of AA that is better than MSAA and with less overhead, so it may also mean that not only do we get a sharper image with less aliasing as well, but we may have some extra overhead on the GPU to be able to increase another graphic setting and maintain the current GPU workload (if my understanding of all this is correct).

Glad to hear I could be of help and you've got a suitable solution. Enjoy your trials! (Which reminds me, it's about time I teased myself with something else).

Rotten! I thought I missed a release of Half-Life 3 there for a second when I read your post! Joke all you want, but don't include Half Life 3 - it's too soon (still)!

Not to mention reduce the sun's reflections from other aircraft in the sky - which is kind of handy to see as a pilot.

While it maybe realistic, so is rearming in a matter of a minute, isn't it? How long does it actually take to refuel the F-15E? If you're sitting around for 15 minutes waiting for each refuel, then I can see how this request could be justified. If it's just another minute or so than what the Hornet takes, then maybe not though?

On the contrary - eaves dropping in on the radio call I had myself laughing out loud! (Won't say more here as I don't want to spoiler for anyone who hasn't played the campaign or read the book)

Just one for the next time the forum dev's decide to tinker with the forum a little more, but as someone who glances through the 'Latest activity', it would be nice to have the ability to choose to ignore individual topics/threads so they don't keep reshowing if that's not too difficult to add please.

I thought it just uses UDP to reduce TCP usage Or is that RAM to reduce ROM usage?

From the latest newsletter: I'm on the edge of my seat with this one wondering... Will this allow us to dynamically spawn FARPS in game and have new slots automatically available at the new FARPs? The dream of mine has been for players to be able to cart crates (like they do with CTLD), but build a FARP which gives them a new spawn point dynamically in a perpetual campaign. Will this new feature using warehousing allow us to achieve this?

Are you replaying the track file from your own DCS choosing 'Save Track' after flying, or are you obtaining the saved track file from the dedicated server's save directory? (Are you self-hosting the dedicated server)?

Sweet and thanks.. Can't blame a bloke for trying. I realise for decades now (ever since I was no longer a kid), Christmas has lost it's edge when it comes to "what's coming'. I haven't really had that sort of excitement until I started getting involved with DCS. You guys have brought back my childhood experiences. (And yes, I was one of those kids that would go and lift and shake his present to try and figure out what it was).

Thanks for the clarification. But can't you let something slip, just something little as to what we might expect? 2.9 seems like a significant version increment.

Here's my stab in the dark: Vulcan - Unlikely - I would have thought Vulcan would be a significant version such as 3.0. DLSS - Hopeful. I say this because I recall the 2023 & Beyond video mentioned "Made with DLSS". So I'm really hoping that this (and some other GPU enhancements) will be here, even if not Vulkan. But then I'm reminded that some other & Beyond video's had some units that we didn't see at all that following year, so don't know. I know it's been a focus. Supercarrier - Likely. I think in a recent thread there were requests and concerns about the supercarrier and upcoming features of more deck personelle. IIRC - BigNewy said to wait and see what was released in 2.9, so my guess is that it's very likely we're going to see something new hear. Briefing room and elevators maybe, or maybe something else? CH-47 Chinook - Likely. Oh, this would be amazing, but I'm joking. I think this is Unlikely, but my ever-ending hope goes "Maybe ED don't want to give discounts for this one and will bypass the pre-order sale and release it directly". My pragmatic logic then hits me around the head until I'm nearly knocked out and says "Don't be stupid". Plus, Wags hasn't released any video's, and that would go against their SOP. C130 Herc . Same wishful hoping as the CH-47 Chinook that there would be a surprise announcement, but all things tell me the F4 is probably coming first. But, unlike the CH-47 which is ED's pet project, we have nothing to go by on how the C130 company operates. Maybe they do things differently to others and it will just be a sudden "Here it is - Christmas in September". F4 - Not Yet - but I think it might be close to release. Maybe 2.9 has things that the F4 requires before release and as soon as 2.9 goes out we'll see pre-orders available? That's my guess. There's possibly a push to have it released for Christmas, so I could hazard a guess that maybe 2.9 may have something to do with it's features. Dynamic Campaign Engine / Mission Enhancements - Maybe? This would be sweet. There was a video of Wag's back quite some time ago that appeared to leak an additional 'menu option' in it that may have been related to the Dynamic Campaign Engine. However it's gone very quiet since. Being more realistic - I'm really hoping if we don't get the DCE, that we at least get some features that would be working it's way towards the DCE that we can use now. My desire to spawn FARPS in dynamically wherever the players may build them, and have dynamic spawn points being able to be created through script on the fly has been a dream. However there's been no chatter of this, nor DCE, so I think this might go back to my pragmatic consciousness taking another batman-slap at my hopeful face. Weather - Hopeful. There's been no hints here like DLSS or SC, but it's been a while since I think we've seen any updates with the weather system. Thunderstorms would be fantastic to have - as would different weather over different parts of the map, such as a weather front coming through, or similar. Return to more regular Stable Release cycles - Unlikely. What I'm suspicious of regarding our observations with fewer SR and OB releases is maybe ED throwing their hands up in the air, and going "if our customers don't understand the difference between BETA vs a Stable release, and treat Beta expectations as Stable with Stable expectations - then if we can't beat them, we'll join them. And... they've just changed their logic so that OPEN BETA's release cycle is held back until more bugs have been fixed frist. They then maybe release a handful of stable releases for the "Very Stable". Thus Open Beta has become the equivalent of what Stable used to be, and Stable has become less of a release with the hope for it to be more stable than before. Full Globe / Earth - Unlikely. I see this is as been a 3.0 major release, or if not, a 4.0 release. However - there may be more pressure on with this. In the past there was a handful of terrains available and I think the majority of multiplayer users probably owned most if not all. (After all, it was only NTTP and Persia). With the significant increase in more MAPS, sales could be waning due to too many selections, and groups going "Well, less than half is willing to buy <xxx> map, so there's no point creating a mission for it". Having full earth would mean that us server mission creators could create these, and go "everyone can play". Those with the map get nice pretties, and those without can fly it with bland scenery. The simple fact that those missions would be up may encourage more people to fork out $'s for those new terrains. Hidden Easter Egg for Christmas. -Possibly. (Or maybe it's already been there and I missed it last Christmas)? What else could there be to make it significant enough to call it a more major 2.9 release?

While I imagine that this is a lot more work than other requests, it would be nice to do hand signals to other pilots in multiplayer. I just fear that it is probably a very complex and time consuming thing to achieve. It's not just the animation (such as a salute), but it would also need to take into account: The direction the pilot is facing. (Is he looking left, right, forward, or up (everyone is thinking topgun here )), and animations would need to be done for the different directions. The different kind of hand signals. Don't get me wrong - I would love to see this. As someone who flies VR with mates in close formation, I love seeing just the head movements to know where people are looking. Adding hand gestures to this would be great, but let's consider maybe something basic: Hand gestures that allow for left and right only (x2) Hand gestures that include Thumbs Up (yes) Thumbs Now (no) Closed Fist (Tight formation) Open Hand Wave (Spread Out) Hand Chop (Separate) Finger Circle (Turn around) Palm Down (descend) Palm Up (ascend) Fist Bump (agreement, excitement, splash) Pointing to self (Follow me / take lead) We're talking 10 signals x 2 directions = 20 different animations that would need to be done (compare this to how long it took to get the one currently done for salute). And then we have this replicated in each aircraft. As much as I'd love to see these (and more), I think that it would take way too much work to implement, for the few people that would appreciate it. Plus, the can of worms would open up as I'm sure there's other hand signals that have been missed that others would say "We need this too"... As a result, while I +1 this request, I also can accept that this may be something that would be very low on ED's radar.

Great news BigNewy. Glad to hear that they've managed to find something.

That's probably because you've launched a second instance of the same installation/program. I'm talking about launching a dedicated server install (will be a separate directory, and separate configuration) to the game copy that you're talking about. It doesn't launch the GUI interface. It's not something that I've done (or done in a while), but I do recall seeing it discussed in the past. Just keep in mind, I'm talking about a dedicated server install, and not using another normal DCS install for the second instance.