ColinM9991

Спасибо большое

I'll check those out. Admittedly, I haven't played DCS since this change as I was in the middle of an A-10C campaign and the support received as well as the issue were both very disheartening. Fingers crossed that the developers are able to make some adjustments as a trade-off just to find some balance in between these two opposite ends of overexposed to hard readability.

Chizh has kindly provided an answer on why sRGB was enabled in 2.8. It was indeed an intentional change because the text was overexposed with sRGB disabled. This is true, the text has clearly been overexposed for years. I've asked, using shoddy Google Translate, if it's possible to increase the font thickness for the smaller bits of text just to make them a bit more readable.

Спасибо за объяснение. Можно ли увеличить толщину шрифта? Текст очень трудно читать в VR в 2.7 а в 2.8

Кто-нибудь?

Still waiting. I'm sure ED will have some accountability one day by making clear whether this is an intentional change or not. No time to investigate and fix this one line problem but plenty of time to introduce it.

This has happened time and time again with preorders on popular modules, releases of popular modules etc. They'll never take this feedback on board. Scaling costs money and there'll certainly be no appetite for spending more money, as little as it costs for droplets, on splitting the auth API out. Nonetheless, great to see Sinai released. In reading some thoughts in various Discords, it apparently has some great performance in VR while also looking great.

It's probably because they've never actually looked at spotting properly. Recently a mod was released that proved ED's argument to be wrong. Now, after a decade, they're potentially going to look at it.

Извините, я использую Google Translate. Бессмысленно спрашивать об этом на англоязычных форумах. Почему вы добавили SRGB в MFCD A-10CII в DCS 2.8?

Excellent, this is great news. Thank you

The IC is checksum based and uses the contents of the file as they are in the default, unchanged version. Any changes to the file will change the checksum, which in turn fails the integrity check. Obviously @BIGNEWYhas muted or is ignoring this thread. If any other community managers, staff or testers see this thread then please do reach out - as long as you are, no offense, a bit more open minded to the idea of there being an issue here and that it's not just a one sided investigation. I will be happy to work through reproducing the issue and demonstrating the knock-on impact of this change when playing VR.

In fairness, it wasn't in the DCS Updater thread until I mentioned it back in 2021. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/94816-guide-info-dcs-updater-usage-version-numbers-module-ids/?do=findComment&comment=4683068 Even then, it's mostly you & me that have mentioned the switch on these forums, and there's no --help command that would pop-up a UI to show the available commands.

@BIGNEWYstill no update...

Or, you know, just leave users decide how to bind their controls without yet another work around. The point isn't to remove the convenience of having them pre-assigned to the OSB keys of an MFCD. It's to remove the restriction that forces them to be locked so they can only be mapped to the MFCD OSB keys. It really doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. That's exactly how joysticks and throttles work. They are pre-mapped for your convenience, you can remap as you see fit.

Still there. null @BIGNEWY - yet again, is there any chance one of the following two things could happen? This be acknowledged as an intentional change and covered in a changelog This be acknowledged as a bug that's causing a degradation in visibility and readability of the MFCDs. Are either of those two really that difficult?

Thank you for confirming as I haven't actually tested this on MP since I mainly do SP. It's been 6 months now since this issue, introduced by a single line of code, was first raised. I'm hopeful we'll get an answer at some point within the next decade, though I won't hold my breath. @NineLine@BIGNEWY

@BIGNEWYIt has been a little over 2 months now since last said you'd mention it to the devs. Has it been mentioned? Have they given any indication as to why SRGB was enabled, on the MFCDs, in 2.8? Surely that's no more than a 2 minute conversation to ask and for them to say "It was added because of X".

What do you mean by this? What buttons are locked? This is typical and likely how it'll be for the next 7 years. It's not like ED to fix an issue that could be addressed in seconds. Even when the community provides evidence as to something being an issue that they introduced.

If you use OvGME, this should make it a bit easier to patch

What does this mean?

Still there in 2.8.3.37854.1, and so the cycle continues.

Issue and line of code are still present in the latest patch, still no official statement from ED as to whether this is an intentional change that remains to be undocumented in the changelogs.

This message struck me. I feel for you, it's quite a tough position to be in. FWIW, I have had issues with some of your campaigns in the past but that's never been as a result of your actions or mission design. The issues stemmed from the poor wingman and general AI in DCS.

I asked BN in Discord whether there had been any updates in relation to this issue. Rather frustratingly, there are no updates and the dev team haven't been asked as to why the input_space_SRGB line of code was added to the page.lua file, as I mention above. As I figured when I first raised this issue, I think it's just going to be a manual fix for the years to come. For anybody interested I have attached an OvGME compatible repository to patch over the LUA file thus disabling SRGB. MFCD_Fix.zip

Is this EDs official stance then? Rhetorical question, to be clear, as I know the answer is no. How long more are we going to blabber on about Steam vs anti-Steam? Also, Valve's rate isn't a flat 30%. It's 30%, 25% and 20% based on the value of total sales. If ED had an issue with the take then they're are absolutely within their rights to remove DCS from Steam. They have already said there is no intention of doing this. Additionally, Valve aren't clawing at the money. They're providing an entire ecosystem to the publishers and developers to market their game, distribute it as well as support modding. It's up to ED to take advantage of this. They don't, because any modding support needs to be agnostic. Come on people, get a grip. Two systems can coexist without you having to shove your opinion down everybody's throat.