ColinM9991

Bumping this as the most recent newsletter talks about howthe User Files section is often overlooked. Thank you to those that have also contributed in recent months. To be honest, I completely forgot I made this request over the years. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/eae6d1cc1970bf3ea19f2b42bc98e121/ Part of the reason why it is overlooked might be because it's not a very user-friendly experience. Investing some time in revamping the journey and improving the functionality might attract more users to it, but revamping the journey is well outside of the scope of this request. Implementing a straight forward "Last Updated" date, that describes when the file was most recently updated, would be a great quality of life improvement as it means content creators don't have to add a new comment to inform users and those users don't have to check the comments or description to see if there has been an update.

If anything, the winning photo does show that simple is best. One of the rules was indeed that photos shouldn't be post-processed, while many submissions were post-processed through photo editing software. I'll tell you what wasn't edited in anyway though - my submission: It's a fix I tell you, a fix! Congrats to the winning pics. That thread does have some great screenshots.

Readability of the A-10 MFCDs declined when SRGB space was enabled some years back. Chizh confirmed at the time that it was part of the MFD refresh to make things look better. I don't yet own the Chinook so I can't dig into the LUA files for the displays, but I wonder if this is also an SRGB thing. Anybody here that owns the Chinook can test this theory by using Visual Studio Code to do a global find all on any LUA in the Chinook directory (maybe see if there's a Cockpit/Scripts directory in the Chinook install path). The text you're looking for should be 'srgb' or 'input_space_SRGB'. If it exists, change it to false and see if that improves readability - though this will be at the cost of the Integrity Check preventing you from joining servers. Does anybody have a picture of what the MFDs currently look like to demonstrate the problem? Please do ping me if that is indeed the case as I'm now curious.

I don't think an exclusive offering like this will help anyone as it creates a further disconnect. There is the age old debate that only the community members/players seem to have around Steam vs Standalone. The reality is if ED didn't want to use Steam then they wouldn't use Steam, but they've voiced many times that they are happy with Steam and Standalone. With that said, it's not the worst idea I've seen in terms of Steam/Standalone. Some people genuinely go out of their way to down-talk one or the other as if it actually impacts them in some way. A mate of mine has stopped playing DCS as his 3090 is unable to handle the Apache in VR without being a stuttering mess. I'd imagine it's the same with the Chinook. Either the higher requirements are genuine or it's the result of unoptimized texturing which should hopefully be ironed out in due course as BN says above.

That's quite an error. Maybe communicating next time will be beneficial as it will give people a heads up and would also serve as a sanity check for yourselves. I'd imagine we'll have to wait for the next update. Hopefully ED can expedite that, but it's understandable if they don't and prefer to wait for their natural update cycle depending on when this change is backed out.

Thanks for restoring it. I appreciate that point, I certainly don't expect to win - I simply wanted to post a light-humoured image. I'll not clutter up this thread any further, apologies for the spam.

Edit: Picture has been restored now - thank you

Name: ColinM9991

This is great news, thank you for sharing that. Many thanks also to @mbucchia for his efforts in documenting and detailing the issue as well as providing the workaround that demonstrated the benefits of quad views over the past year. I believe this has helped to get the driving force of the community behind this ask, since people then saw massive improvements to their sessions. This isn't for the sake of having a whinge but to really try to inspire a small change. There are some really talented people in the DCS community (I'm not one of them). It's a shame to see people become frustrated with the bug reporting process when it's as detailed and articulated as mbucchia's report. I wish there was some time spent retrospectively looking at how to improve bug triaging and prioritisation for things such as this. I completely understand that the development team have other priorities. There are many of us who actively work in development teams as developers, testers etc so we're well aware of that. We're also aware that it's important for teams to take feedback and improve processes - anybody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. There needs to be an improvement around how bugs are prioritised and subsequently pulled in to be worked on - particularly in this case where a lot of the legwork has already been done by somebody like mbucchia. It shouldn't take a year to get to this point of having a resolution to a long standing implementation issue. Nonetheless, it's great that a fix is on the way. It's clear that the collective minds at ED have really focused on this over the past week and the result is a net positive for the players.

Still the same as of Friday (patch day). I still haven't really played DCS since this occurred, as it's one of many in a long line of recurring issues that impact visibility or gameplay, but I tend to test every few patches.

Further to what Raven suggested above, I'd also have a look here

Somebody also suggested this on Reddit. It makes sense - I'm wondering if there's a way for the launcher to cache the state for a period of time while exposing functionality on the launcher UI to refresh that state in an event where a user purchases a new module and needs to update their available modules. Once so many days have passed, from the point of that state being cached, the launcher can synchronize against the auth service again to keep up to date.

Is there a single thread anywhere for giving feedback on the launcher? I'll post it here for now. This first cut of the launcher is off to a great start. There are 2-3 minor points I have that should hopefully improve the user experience. 1. Use an accordion in the Settings page so that Graphics and VR settings can be moved to tabs. The page is quite busy at the moment. 2. Add an "X" button to the top right.This is where I'd imagine most users would expect such an action to be. 3. It takes around 17 seconds for the launcher to appear from the point of starting it. The initial startup performance should be investigated for any potential areas of improvement and optimization.

I've cross-posted this in the dev Q&A thread to see if it's something they're aware of. At the very least, it may put it on their radar.

Hi, Apologies for imposing myself here. Have the developers previously seen this bug regarding the OpenXR standard in DCS-MT?

I'm sorry if you see it as only being about wording or interpretation when it's actually about the implication that ED are happy to mislead customers with inaccurate statements of functionality that isn't yet implemented. They're not key features, they're roadmap items.

That's interesting to say the least. It makes it all the more misleading. The combination of most and realistic make it pretty clear cut in my eyes, that could only mean one thing. If EDs interpretation of that phrase is contrary to what the phrase actually means then maybe it's worth creating a wiki or guide that users can read to translate product listing descriptions to what they actually mean.

This was mainly to give an example at how the product listing page is misleading, inaccurate and at odds with EDs statements, such as this one. It does work, but it's certainly not the most realistic imaginable. Only when these have been implemented should the listing page actually call out that it's the most realistic model imaginable

Absolutely - 100% definitely isn't possible given the subject matter. Though that's no reason for the damage model, as an example, to be lacking. The damage model is called out in this thread and is listed on the product page as being realistic, so that's a prime example to lean on.

That's interesting given the F-16 product page says

Sorry, that's very passive aggressive But it is speculation based on what I've read elsehwere.

I love that everybody's instinct is to jump straight to intentional sabotage as the one and only possibility, rather than there being a multitude of possibilities. Anyway, this is speculation and what I've read elsewhere, but speculation is that an SSL cert expired. The cert is used for encryption or binarizing files. I am repeatedly mentioning the phrase "speculation" because this is indeed speculation, though I'd say it's more plausible than half the nonsense some of you are coming out with.

It'd be too time consuming for devs to engage directly with reporters given how many reports are raised and how little time the devs will have. Even at work, I won't engage directly with a customer until it's clear the triage process is failing and issues are being miscommunicated. At that point it's easier for me to engage with the customer, understand the issue and then work to resolve. Last time I raised a bug I found it was far easier to pose my question in this thread which is a Developer Q&A that the developers actively respond to -

I appreciate this is a month old, but are you using lens inserts?

No offense mate, but the first paragraph contradicts the second. If you do feel you're being taken advantage of then you could refrain from preordering. The transparency of this FAQ is great, albeit worrying that we're this far down the road and there's no real understanding on what features are expected to ship in due time. The benefits and requirements are usually something that'll be assessed, by a product team, as part of the inception work and that step either hasn't happened or hasn't yet been communicated to the CMs and the rest of us.