Dangerzone

I used the option to display information when running NVCleanstall to update my driver (which has an option to show the information in game). I was choosing preset-K in the inspector, but it's showing as C in DCS.

Thanks for confirming. I was still seeing a different mode showing up in DCS, so I’ll have to go and check it out again. If I still can’t get it, I’ll try the swap method to see if that makes a difference.

I understand that’s needed using the overwrite method, but I thought I read somewhere that the dll didn’t need to be overwritten in DCS bin anymore with the latest nVidia drivers and inspector. That setting the two settings in inspector was all that was needed to force the driver dll over the DCS one. Guess I got that wrong. Maybe I need to try the dll swap method instead.

I tried using nVidia inspector. Set override to true and presser to K in the global section. However it seems DCS still shows that it’s using preset C. Is there something else that needs to be set? I’m under the impression there’s no need to overwrite dll’s or use any other software other than the inspector, so not sure what’s missing.

One thing I'd suggest is re-checking all your external settings. ie: NVIDIA settings - make sure that you still have Ultra performance - Highest plan, etc - and that settings haven't been changed or defaulted during a driver update. ReBar - Make sure these settings are still enabled. (Check with NVIDIA Inspector, and in your BIOS). Confirm XMP profile for your RAM. Core Parking - Make sure that Core parking is still disabled. (Windows updates have a habbit of undoing many of the performance changes that you've made). Windows Game Mode - make sure that's disabled. ...etc IDK how many times I've had performance impact to find out that it was an external setting that had changed or 'reverted' during an update. The fact that this has occurred to other maps indicates that it could potentially be an issue with a setting changed on your system rather than in DCS. Might be something else, but that's where I'd start.

Here's a brief demo on how it works: Information on how to install it is here. Keep in mind - it does require you to have Voice attack first in order to work. Hope this helps.

I hope that ED take your suggestion onboard for an option for Carrier Quals. Especially this - allowing people to go straight from trapping to launching on another CAT, as it's definitely needed. For now, I would just disable the plane directors for the carrier while you do that. It will take you back to the old way of doing things without having to revert to the Forrestal. Have you just tried calling 'Hornet Ball' without worrying about inbound calls. The LSO I think should acknowledge you after that. (I'm not 100% sure if what works for me will work for you (as I use VAICOM and I'm not sure how much is VAICOM, and how much is DCS) - but using VAICOM I've been able to bypass a number of steps or get the AI to trigger into a different state without needing all the conditions to be met). For instance, I'm able to call COMMENCING and PLATFORM with VIACOM in CASE 1 conditions (when the menu isn't available to DCS) - and it will trigger the ATC to go through the CASE 3 landings such as the 8 mile radar contact, approaching glideslope, etc. Things that otherwise have not been possible to do with the standard DCS interface. If I recall correctly - I can call Hornet Ball as well in VAICOM after taking off for CQ, and I'll get the LSO calls. It may be worth trying binding the 'Hornet Ball' option and using that when rounding out. Hopefully this will get the LSO's attention - but if not and it's only working for me because of VAICOM - you may want to consider checking out VAICOM. It certainly adds to the immersion.

You have raised some good points - that it would be good for them to include full tutorials for the carrier. But the supercarrier module is still in Early Access, and things are still being added to it. Given that the procedures have changed (the most recent being with the plane directors, and at a guess - quite possibly ATC procedures being next) - I can understand the decision to wait after all the development changes have been done to avoid the risk of having to re-create tutorials and doubling workload. Starting from scratch with the Early Access AH-64 module - Wag's video's was a staple diet as things progressed. The supercarrier has been out a lot longer now, so there's a lot more options to choose from when it comes to learning, but as you've found - tutorials aren't going to be one at this point in time. As for campaigns, I loved Raven One. I read the book in sync while doing the campaign and found it a fantastic experience - as it made the campaign far more immersive. The campaign does start out with more basic knowledge - but does progress and advance to where you need to know the advanced systems of the FA18 before completion - so it may not be the best one to begin with, but definitely worth keeping an eye out for and something to look forward to. I hope you are able to get past your initial frustrations and find enjoyment in it. I know for me - the SC and navy ops are one of my all time favorite parts of the simulator and gives me great satisfaction!

Aaah - the operating system is doing the old "Make it look like it's fixed the issue... until solution posted the solution on the forum" trick. Been there too many times to count myself before too.

Thanks for the info. But dang - switching over/upgrading motherboard and CPU was something I was kinda hoping to avoid. Sad to hear that the 13900K might be the issue and may not cut it when it comes to using Quadviews. I was kind of hoping that there was a setting or something that I've missed that creates compounding GPU usage. Like using DLAA with Quadviews, or turbo mode, or something. But to go from less than 72 to 90fps by changing to a 9800X3D sounds like the issue may be more hardware and intel isn't going to cut it? When you say you can maintain 90FPS - can you please advise what your settings are? Are you running at native resolution (at least 100% - if not more for the focused region, or do you still need to back off)?

Thanks Calvin!

Hi, After coming across this post I see that Pimax Play 1.29 seems to be the best version currently when it comes to performance. Is it possible to downgrade / roll back after being upgraded, or will this cause problems/complications if the HMD has the firmware updated? Also - if it's possible to downgrade - is there still a link available to this version. The pimax website that I browsed only seems to have the latest version? Cheers DZ

Just wondering if this has been addressed, and if it's been optimized? Also noticed there seems to be 2 settings in Pimax. One for what appears to be Pimax's own Fixed Foviated Rendering, and the other one to what I'm guessing is to use Quadviews External Rendering. i'm trying to find a solution since Germany came out. The challenge I face is using the original Quadviews - I can't maintain 72fps consistently anymore. GPU us running at about 60%. If I turn off FFR - CPU usage goes down significantly, but GPU is up at 98%, and then I start having issues when it peaks and can't maintain 72%. Seems either way I look at it, I'm right on the margin of 'almost' being able to maintain 72fps but just not quite. On method has ample GPU overhead remaining, but I'm CPU bound. The other seems to lighten off the CPU load, but maxes out the GPU. Just wondering what others are doing. I did try Motion Smoothing (or whatever it's called in Pimax) and found it horrendous. Not sure how it's working well for others - but it didn't seem to smoothen out the jerkiness at all. Another solution that I tried was going to 120hz and locking to half frame rate. That does seem to make things smoother for me (less large jerkiness) but the movement/ perceived ghosting is pretty bad. 6 months ago I was able to successfully run Quadviews at 72fps with only the very rare jerkiness, so I don't know if it's the Quadviews software upgrade, or changes in DCS, or something else - but very curious to know which solution others have favored, and if using Quadviews - how are you overcoming the CPU bottlenecking?

If you mean within the mission editor, then Yes. Under one of the menu's in the mission editor is an option to "Save template to file" and "Load template from file", or similar. Use the save template to file option to save one of your maps. You can then import/merge it into another map by opening up the other map, and choosing load template from file, and choosing the template you just saved.

... it was a little bit funny., (Or at least in sync with my sick 'dad joke' kind of humor).

I can AAR quite fine, both boom and drogue. The comment was meant tongue in cheek - hence the two emoji's.

Even just a setting in autoexec.cfg like disablehanger = true would be sweet.

I searched for swell, and wave in titles - but didn't think of 'water state'. But thanks for confirming that I'm not going nutz, and indeed there was a request for this prior.

I woke up this morning realizing my workaround won't work anyway. Because if a player attacks the radar using a HARM - it's going to track for the radiation emitter anyway - not to the building itself, so the idea of invisible and indestructible isn't going to work. Sadly, there seems to be no work around. ED would need to get involved, and do something, either like allowing a unit to be truly 'invisible' - plus placed onto (or in) a static object, or allowing a unit to be placed on the map, and then 'linked' to a static object for the static object to become the actual unit, or have an additional type that matches the look of these new radar buildings as a search radar. Either way - core changes I doubt we're going to see anytime soon sorry. Don't let it get you down though. Work with what we have now. Urga hve done an incredible job - and definitely raised the bar yet again on EA maps.

This needs to be linked with 'indestructible', so no damage occurs if aircraft is indestructable. (To allow for training missions/people practicing). Um... option for 'auto-assist' to autopilot/take over? But more seriously: Painted white lines on the hose would be grouse.

Aaah - I think I get what you're asking for. The static maps radar objects are only static (part of the map) - but you're effectively wanting them to be functional from a players perspective. But being static map objects they are not. So - as a work around, you want to add the SAM site (that you're putting in) radar units to the map at the same (or very closely similar) location so that it emits radiation, and supports the rest of the equipment (aka SAM launchers) - but you don't want the groups radar to be visible because you want the player to see and expect that the static map object is the actual radar dome instead. That makes a lot of sense, and I actually like the idea of using map objects this way. However, unfortunately, no - I can't think of a way to do this natively to a single unit from the mission editor or scripting. As a guess - maybe you could possibly create a texture mod so that the SAM sites radar dish is effectively 'nothing'. But this would require anyone playing to have this mod. Might be a solution if you're doing SP stuff for yourself, but isn't ideal for multiplayer, or if you're wanting a solution. You can do the opposite - remove the static object map and replace with the active group radar in it's location - but as you've mentioned, your swapping the beautiful native scenery with a generic ('ugly' as you call it) replacement. The only other option I can think of is to move the 'ugly' radar to the other side of the hill/complex, and have a trigger so when the player destroys the static unit, it takes out the nearby radar. But that is an ugly workaround really. It's a pity there's no solution to this -because I can definitely see the appeal with using the static map objects like this instead!

Do you want to make them invisible, or remove them completely once the buildings are blown up? If the latter, you can despawn groups, so this could be an option for you. You can use local myGroup = Group.getByName('sam1') Group.destroy(myGroup) add that as a script with a trigger, and it should do the job for you. Reference for this function can be found at: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_func_destroy Alternatively, if you're using the MOOSE FRAMEWORK in your mission you can also use group:Destroy() I believe to remove the units: sam1 = GROUP:FindByName( "sam1" ) sam1:Destroy( true ) ... but this second method will only work if you're using MOOSE in your mission. More information on the MOOSE Group wrapper can be found at: https://flightcontrol-master.github.io/MOOSE_DOCS/Documentation/Wrapper.Group.html

It's possible to land with those very high winds, but you are right - increasing wind to the required values for decent swell creates other complications - and it isn't realistic for the swell to be directly tied to the local winds - which is why I'd love to see an option for the swell to be de-coupled from the wind and be set using a separate parameter. I could have sworn this was in the 'wish list' from years ago - and I've been waiting for it, but I did a quick search and couldn't find one, so guess I was wrong. So I've created a new wish list topic here:

Can I please request for consideration an independent parameter for setting the sea swell in the map editor. Currently the swell is directly coupled with the local wind setting. However IRL, sea swell is not solely a product of local winds. Swells are often generated by distant weather systems, sometimes thousands of kilometers away, and can persist independently of local wind conditions. The current system in DCS, where swell height is directly tied to local wind settings, does not accurately reflect this behavior. I propose adding a separate configuration option for swell height in the map editor, that allows for the decoupling from local wind parameters. When set to 'auto' (default) - it can keep the same logic as now, to make it backwards compatible, but this can be changed to set the swell height to override from the sea parameter. This would allow mission designers to create more realistic and different scenario's for their missions, and hopefully wouldn't be too difficult to implement at a core level. Thanks for consideration. DZ