Dangerzone

In regards to things operating differently in track replay - I'd suggest you're suffering from the same issue that we suffer from with VAICOM. DCS does not record any external inputs (DCS BIOS, etc) into the track file. As such, when recording track files, you'll need to not use external peripherals, or any mods (by mods, I'm including DCS BIOS, Helios, and VAICOM that integrates with DCS via hooks) to command your aircraft (or coms, etc) - and use only 'vanilla' DCS options such as bound joystick controls, keyboard, or mouse. Given what Fakum says above with mods being an issue at present with FCR returns, it might be worth redoing another new track file with Helios (and other mods) disabled and see if you get the same problems, or if this resolves the issue. If you get the same problems, at least you'd get a replayable track file that replicates what you have.

Are you able to post more information please. The server log file would be a great place to start. Cheers DZ

If you want to manually roll back you can do the following: Visit the ED Changelog website to get a reference for the version number you want. Stable and Open beta below:https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/stable/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/ Open up a command line prompt, and navigate to your DCS install's BIN directory. type in DCS_Updater.exe update <version>@<releasetype> version is the version number you wish to roll back to. Release type is either @openbeta or @release (for open beta or stable respectively). Make sure that the version number and release type matches! ie: DCS_updater.exe update 2.8.7.42718@release or DCS_updater.exe update 2.8.8.43704@openbeta Or as mentioned above, you can use Skatezilla's DCS Updater to do it through a GUI.

You can use other apps as the authenticator. If WinAuth is one that works on the PC. It'll give you the same numbers as a genuine google authenticator, without having to have a 'google app'. There are tonnes of 3rd party 2FA authenticators available for your phone that you can use in place of the Google Authenticator as well. They use the same algorithm as the google authenticator, so DCS/your account won't know the difference. Handy if you want to remain 'de-googled' but still need the authenticator.

I guess it makes sense that the FA18 is boring for some, in the same way that DCS is boring for others and they prefer to play an arcade flight game instead for their quick fix. The FA18 is just a tool, an aircraft. It's what you do with it that will decide whether it's boring or not. Join a server on a mission night, with a pre-flight briefing, human ATC/GCI, and other players, to do a carrier takeoff, formation flying to AAR, and then on to the IP to strike targets while dodging AAA, or other unknowns, followed by a flight home for each flight to trap back on the air carrier and those 2+hrs seem to fly by (excuse the pun), and it's anything but boring. In comparison look at Jane's Longbow 2. The map, the features, the graphics, the lack of full fidelity, etc pale into insignificance what we have now with the full fidelity cockpits, but I dare say more than a few virtual pilots here have spent a lot of time in years gone by and have fond memories of that game. It's more about what you do with the tools that you have than the tool itself at times. If it's boring, I'd say it's either more about your particular focus/goals, or that you're just not using what DCS and Multiplayer can give you to it's full advantage. But if you have another plane that gives you far more satisfaction, that's fantastic. DCS is no longer "Black Shark" with one aircraft.

Yes there is. I've come across this before - I just can't think of the name off the top of my head, but there was some sort of AI-Balancer that would remove planes (or maybe tell them to go land) when human players joined in. If I recall correctly I think it was even capable to respawn in a replacement AI plane in a position where a human player had just quit the server if it was mid-air. I just can't think of what it was called, but maybe someone else here knows what I'm talking about (more than I do ) and will be able to point you in the right direction. Edit: Oh - it's part of MOOSE. Might be worth checking this out:

I've been wanting this for the Huey too. Would be good to make available to all helicopters. Flying low through a town, and then hearing a call from the back seat "RPG! RPG!" would definitely add to the immersion.

A rudder assist feature would assist more than just you. There are plenty of people without rudder pedals, or similar that this would give more access to for flight. Whether this will be considered or not is yet to be seen. The KA50 may be a better choice for you as far as helicopters are concerned, as it's less demanding on rudder input. I have no idea what the flight characteristics of the upcoming CH-47 are like, but that may be easier on the rudders as well for you. Someone else may be able to chime in as to whether rudder assist is either available, or might be an option in an upcoming release. In regards to the AAR assist function, there are many requests that have been asked for this. As Tank50us says, it doesn't take long for someone to jump on and say "I can do it so naturally everyone else should be able to do it/forced to practice until they can do it like I had to". Regardless of the back and forths / pro's and con's, in the end ED have responded previous stating that this is one thing that they are not interested in considering and won't be happening. At the risk of being the bearer of bad news, it's better to know the truth even if it's not what you want to hear, than give false expectations.

2024 Jan 2024? Last year the trailer had "Made with DLSS". Would be cool if we saw this year's say "Made with Vulkan".

Skateziller update has it built in. In all seriousness - I think getting that Skatezilla utility will be your friend. Even me (who does everything in command prompts normally and has no issues with manual execution of instructions), still uses SkateZilla for launching DCS. It's an all-in-one impressive toolkit. I think it will help you out here. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/134493-the-dcs-updater-launcher-gui-utility-version-20-2023

It might be worth doing a repair on your DCS install, and getting it to remove any non-DCS files too. (This would probably get rid of the .dll that you changed in the process, which might have a good chance of getting things sorted out for you). Also, do you have skatezilla's updater / launcher? That allows you to launch DCS with VR on or Off, and choose a number of other things in the process without having to fiddle with command line parameters, etc.

Respectfully before reading further, can I please ask if you're in the camp of "What's the point of Stable Release, we only need Open Beta", can you please refrain from posting such, as this will just derail the intention of this post. It's not that your opinion doesn't matter, but that the context of this discussion is based on the minority who appreciate Public Beta's vs Stable, and looking for answers that accommodate this mindset. (There's plenty of other topics that relate to that debate where this can be discussed or favor Open Beta users). Dear ED, Our preference has been to use Stable Release and Open Beta as you have intended; Open Beta for testing the new features, and reporting back or working through bugs, and then Stable for release for online servers. Even after you have changed your official recommendation for multiplayers to use Open Beta, we have still appreciated your ongoing stances made in this forum that "Open Beta is for testing, Stable is the Release" and desired to practice multiplayer designing on that basis. I'm aware this goes against the majority of what people do, and that's OK. I've never felt the need to follow the pack, nor to convince the pack to change their minds. Having options is good too. In the past there's been plenty of people who prefer/appreciate stable release out there still to warrant having Stable Release servers. The worst normally meant is having to wait 3 or 4 weeks for the new shiny toys (or try and test them out in Open Beta to learn the new features). Where stability was preferred over instant access - this has worked well. It has also meant more stability and less server maintenance/debugging, as well as supporting the smaller group of players that prefer stable release too. However, changes in release cycles this year has this no longer being a viable option anymore. It seems that the time between a big feature (aka, new module released, or significant enhancement) released on Open Beta vs Stable is increasing to that of Months now instead of weeks. (I note that there has only been 3 stable releases this year, averaging just under 4 months between stable releases). In comparison, if I look at an average over the 4 years prior, I notice the average was over 10 per year. Waiting ~4 months for a long awaited feature is hard, but if that's how long it takes for DCS to become stable, then so be it. However, compounding this issue now is pressure to switch to Open Beta, not to get access to the new features, but to get access to the new 'fixes' as soon as possible, because Stable was released with bugs that aren't fixed until the next OB patch or two. As for now, (even from the perspective of a stubborn minded "Stable Release" user), using Stable is no longer a viable option as users who are wanting stability need to update to the next Open Beta to get patch fixes. (It feels as though Stable Release is being released, not because it's Stable, but because "We're now moving onto the next big change, so that's as good as it's going to get". This leaves us switching to Open Beta to get bug fixes). This post is not to bash ED. I'm sure that ED are choosing releases in what they believe is the best release cycle with their current development roadmap that I'm either not aware of, or haven't considered. I'm being candid with the hope to serve three purposes: The first to give transparent and informative feedback as to how a server administrator who's wanting to use Beta vs Stable in the way you intend is struggling, with the hope that this may be given more consideration in your next planning/roadmap staff meeting. The second is to ask a question: Is what we have seen this year the new approach for ED now? Or is this a temporary change (due MT and DLSS?) and will we be seeing a return to builds being more finished before being released to stable, along with a more frequent stable release cycle at the start of next year as we have seen in years gone by? (I appreciate with Vulkan on the Horizon too, that this change we've seen this year may be ongoing - and if so - that's OK... as what we really need is transparency and guidance, so we have the right information to base decisions on how to handle this moving forward). The last purpose is to ask for help or guidance from ED in this. I'm aware that numerous administrators are closed beta testers, so they basically get some of their "Beta" vs "Release" testing difference through that, but for the others who aren't closed beta testers, do you have any recommendations on how to handle the current situation? (Apart from just joining the Open Beta server hosters and give up on the desire for more stability, along with time to test new features before release)? Thank you for the hard work that you continue to pour into DCS. I'm sure that these have been difficult times as large changes have been made to the underlying code set foundation. I look forward to your response and working with you for making the best decisions moving forward for hosting MP servers for those focusing more on Stability. Respectfully, with Thanks, DZ

UH1H v2 like the KA50 or A10 upgrade (or another variant of the UH-1) would both be an instant-by for me! It's the one aircraft I love booting up DCS for in VR - even for just 10 mins to go for a short flight.

A few things that have caused issues for me in the past that might be worth you checking out: Windows updates deciding to update when I don't want them to. Microsoft Edge. (Wish I could remove the darn thing completely from Windows!) Seems if it is open or running in the background I have issues with DCS, including DCS freezing if I task switch out, or performance issues otherwise when running single player. (This has happend on 2 different computers / installs for me, so I know it's not a once off), although some others don't have issues - I'd definitely make sure that it's turned off. CPU Parking (Wasn't an issue in the past, but I had stutters in 2D with DCS where disabling CPU parking appeared to resolve them). To add to this, any power saving features - disable the lot. In nVidia, in Windows Power management settings, in the BIOS. Antivirus software scanning files that DCS loads/runs. (Try excluding the whole DCS Install and saved games directories and see if there's a difference). Sometimes it's a shader/caching issue. It will stutter as I fly over new terrain, but if I restart and fly over the same terrain a second time, the issue goes away. This normally only happens after DCS updates, but also rarely. Some MP servers have scheduled tasks that run every x seconds, and this can cause spikes at times. Easy to eliminate this as being a cause - if you have the issues in a 'instant action' non-MP, then that's not the cause. This is just a small list off the cuff - there's numerous threads that will add to other possibilities but could be a starting point for you.

You raise a resounding point with me. When I first started with DCS a friend suggested it to me. I hesitated at the cost of the FA18 (there were no trials back then), but decided that I could afford one aircraft, and would do some flying with him. It was on a very modest rig, in 2D and I wasn't going to spend a cent more on it. Had I have been told how much money I would have sunk into DCS (and supporting peripherals) back then, I probably would have walked away in disbelief. At the risk of projecting my experience, I would still say that ED knows that attracting new players is key, and a number of these are not going to spend money on big hardware (even if they can afford it) until they get to have a taste and get hooked on their modest hardware first. And I see that they are working towards that. OpenXR on top even more. MT, DLSS, Vulkan. I dare say they have also only started on the benefits of MT. MT has been introduced, and there's probably going to be more things taking advantage of it as the future goes on. While I could understand some of the OP's points - I don't get the issues he's having with his current setup. Something tells me that his system is not optimized and there's numerous tweaks (outside of DCS) that could be done, or that his expectations are too high compared to the average VR user.

Originally I disagreed with your original post, but after reading through your explanations, I think I have a greater understanding/appreciation for where you're coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand your concern is 'performance creep' (or lack thereof) with subsequent versions of DCS - that as each new version is released, there is a decrease in performance even when you don't turn on, or aren't interested in the new features? If so, I have shared the same concerns. I would tweak with settings, lower them, and for a while I was able to work, but then with another update, I found DCS crossing that line of the visuals in VR being unenjoyable due to stutters, and I'd have to try and find if there was anything else I could squeeze to get past the jaggies. At the very end of almost walking way, OpenXR came out, and that made an epic improvement for me. Lower FPS, but yet a smoother experience. Even so, the 'performance creep' kept coming with updates. I got to a stage where I was forced to upgrade from my 2080S because I kept on getting stutters that I couldn't seem to resolve. Strangely, others on less hardware seemed to be happy even running better settings than I. I had low clouds, no shadows, no grass, no MSAA, very low settings, there wasn't much more I could see I could do. So yes - I have shared the same concerns. However there are two things I have to note to be fair with this. The first is that maybe I gave in too soon. Shortly after upgrading my rig, DLSS came out. DCS made a huge step forward, and I suspect with this, I would have had similar performance to what I saw before in 2.7. I also note that Vulkan is also being developed, and hope that this will have just as much of a leap (if not more) than DLSS. So I think that ED are focusing on dealing with the root causes. However, what do you do with the other 150 developers that aren't working in this area, and it's not their area? They of course are going to continue working in their respected areas and bring more features to DCS. So it's worth recognising that just because other features are being released, it doesn't mean that ED aren't working as fast and hard as they can on Vulkan or MT either. It's not a matter of throwing all ~200 dev's at performance and the problem will be fixed quicker. There's only so many who can work on the problem. It's also worth noting that other things like Tas's optimized shaders can also help. So this does prove that there is definitely more that ED could do in order to optimize performance in DCS as it is now. But again, it's important to be fair and note that they have been focused in MT, DLSS, and Vulkan, so it's not like they're doing nothing at the same time. My main concern, which I think might be a factor with your experience, is the Stability of Releases at the moment: MT still has it's bugs, as does the issues with DLSS it appears. The latest stable release in my humble opinion was a bad release while there are still some significant issues that are yet to be addressed. While I personally would love to see ED prioritize a little more getting DCS more stable before releasing to SR and before adding new features that will require more debugging, I sadly understand why they don't. It seems as though there's a rush to get the new features out that stable releases of late haven't really been bedded down as much as I would like. Almost as like "oh - that's good enough, we want to hurry up and focus on the next feature because the community is waiting" instead of "hold on - we need to finalise these issues first before releasing stable and moving on". However, while I have these concerns, I can see that the majority of the community doesn't share this. New features are more important than stability. How can I say this? Because actions speak louder than words, and the majority of the community have chosen to be open beta users. As a result, and as much as I hate it, I can see it makes sense for ED to lessen the priority of stability with stable release because the vast majority of the community show that they are more keen for new features by their actions, than they are for stability. The communities actions speak louder than their words, and ED is just responding to the majority of the communities wishes. Which leaves me just having accept it, and either work with it, or find something else to do.

I love the UH-1. Had some awesome fun in it. DCS's future is looking bright for the UH-1 too from what I can gather in MP. With the C130 & Chinook on the way, I have high hopes that there are going to be a wider variety of tasks on various multiplayer servers that will further enhance the experience, plus the opportunity for more flying in the UH-1 as well. Like Ricktoberfest - I sometimes after work just spin up DCS just for a 10 min flight in the UH-1. I've found it a pleasant way to unwind the day. There's few other aircraft that give me such satisfaction for such short flights. Of course, that is in VR - which is so immersive in the UH-1

Out of interest, when you create the track file, can you try replaying a copy of that track file (not the original, as replaying it can corrupt or alter it) via DCS in Single Thread mode and see if they show for you. It may help to narrow down if the issue is with MT or not.

I've just come across this over the weekend. Casmos has a youtube video for it. For those that aren't in the know and do game master roles, this might be worth checking out. The have a discord channel at https://discord.gg/WxwtSnDk (I am not affiliated with this in anyway - just saw that there's been no discussion of it here, so just letting people know about it). The funniest part... it's due for public release in 2 weeks. (No trademark - legit 2 weeks). That cracked me up. But this is something I think will be a game changer for many multiplayer server administrators!

This may certainly be the case, but TBH - I've wondered about winwing (I haven't purchased anything from them... yet) - but the customer service correspondence gives me the chills. Most people have no issues with their purchased product, therefore only experience a portion of the whole companies experiences. Then there's the odd product that will come through where mistakes have been made. (Leads not connected, poor packaging, damage, etc). I can understand mistakes, I make a few of them myself, and provided they're easilly sorted, I'm OK with them. I also have no problems if instructed opening up the item (shouldn't have to... no - but I get that if it's not difficult and it's far easier than dealing with postage back and forth, etc - it's a viable options). I understand that even with some good quality products the odd lemon can get through QC and get out there. But one thing that really scares me is the run-around customer support, where it's like talking to a wall, and not getting questions answered, or where you feel like they're deliberately trying to hinder the conversation so you'll give up and will go away. Another thing I'm not entirely convinced about is the $10 value on the return, which sounds dodgy, and not something I'd expect from a more reputable company. When I ship expensive goods, I like to insure them, and it's a bit hard to do so when undervaluing the product. I would have thought that if an item was marked as 'returning defective item', or 'replacement item' that custom charges aren't a thing as it's a back and forth issue in that case. Is this not so? Even though I don't have winwing products, I'm grateful a company exists that is willing to make these peripherals. I just hope that they're able to grow and learn quickly from their mistakes, and cull out poor customer service staff and replace with people who can offer better service that will reflect better on their public image, and give their customers a better experience.

Not for me. SRS still excels in comparison for my needs. Especially as it allows for 3rd party access. Lack of options for LotATC users, OverlordBOT, STTS, and able to stream/push 3rd party audio / mp3 files into it externally, mean that the inbuilt functionality for me would be a huge step backwards. Depending on what ED do in the future things may change of course, but for now, I'm exclusively SRS because of the enhancements / additional functionality that it provides.

What does this mean for the future of DCS and VR? Does it mean we're going to lose things like Quad Views Foveated, Varjo Foveated , OpenXR tools, etc as either DCS continues to be developed or Windows continues to make changes? I've relied a heap on OpenXR and OXRTK to get me by with DCS in the past when I first delved into VR and SteamVR performance was tanked. Recently I've been toying with the idea of upgrading from a HP Reverb to possibly an Aero, but if the features currently available may be unavailable soon, I'm going to have to have second thoughts on my investments. VR is the only way for me now to play DCS. Years of VR has spoiled me to a point where I honestly don't think I could go back to 2D, and it was obvious to me that OpenXR literally saved DCS and VR for me at a time when I was close to walking away with the issues I was having. Matt has done everyone (including ED) an incredible service!

In regards to the Aero, what's the "Aero problem" that was discussed in the latest Wags video. (I haven't watched the video, but IIRC in a summary it was mentioned that a question was raised regarding a "Vairo Aero fix", and WAGS apparently says they don't have the headset and the company can't afford to buy every piece of hardware. Is there something about the Vairo Aero that DCS doesn't like / doesn't work with properly?

Wow? That seem to come across from nothing to escalating quickly? Context might help a little? FWIW (without knowing the context) some servers use discord as a means for quality management. Some servers run auto-kick for banned players based on their discord GUID. It has zero to do with coms in game. In order to fly on those servers, a discord account is required. In that case I get the "I don't want to install discord or have another app" to join a server, and that's fully your prerogative. But it's also the right of server operators and mission designers to run their servers the way they see fit and if this helps control 'pests' and helps the server operators out, and their community, it's not a big price to pay to help. But again, it's your decision. There's plenty of servers that don't require that there too. FWIW - in game I much prefer SRS coms too. Discord for general life chit chat / mission planning, but ingame, I'm a SRS fan too. But context really would be a bit helpful in understanding "what the heck" for us who are going blissfully through a quiet meadow as we browse the forums with nothing but the sound of a gentle breeze, and the birds chirping, and all of a sudden hear someone yell "No - I'm not joining your discord" out of the blue, and then walk away leaving us scratching our heads.

You can have as many installs of DCS as you like. You don't need to purchase another license or use another account. The only criteria is only one instance of DCS can be ran at a time (excludes dedicated servers, which I think the concurrent amount per account is 5 IIRC, but that's irrelevent to what you're wanting to do). Most Open Beta testers (who use open beta for beta testing) like myself do this. Many closed beta testers could have 3 or 4 local copies installed for their various testing. ED allows for this. To have this: Copy your DCS Install path to a second location. Open up that directory and locate the file called dcs_variant.txt (if it doesn't exist create it). Make the text in here something like OPENBETA. (What this does is tells DCS when it's launched from this location to use the "saved games\DCS.OpenBeta" folder for settings instead of the "saved games\DCS" folder. Note: This is optional, however I find it good practice not to share the same saved games configuration folders between builds and to keep them seperate. You can however copy all the folders and files from one to another to save you resetting up all your bindings on the second install). Open up a command line parameter and navigate to the second install that you've created, into the BIN directory. execute the command "dcs_updater update @openbeta". This will force DCS to update this copy to the open beta. Alternatively, if you want that copy to be the stable version, I believe the command is "dcs_updater update @release" Or alternatively, just use It's a GUI way of handling multiple DCS installs.