ColinM9991

Thank you for correcting me there, I've been looking for information on 2 v 3 but it's hard to not stumble across the marketing showcases that skip any technical detail.

Only if Frame Generation is switched on, which requires Hardware Accelerated GPU Scheduling. As far as I understand it, you can still use DLSS3 without HAGS but you won't get Frame generation.

Doing it in single-player may be a nice touch but I can't imagine it would be possible or worth the effort in multiplayer with the amount of synchronization that would be required, plus in the end time wouldn't advance any further for you since it's server synchronized. At that point, in singleplayer, all the workflow just becomes 1. You requesting a rearm 2. Rearm beginning 3. Time skip to 1-2+ hours 4. You fly At which point it would be more beneficial to be able to customize the loadout prior to mission start so you can assume that it'll be ready for you to startup.

I don't think you'll ever get an honest answer for that, at this point it is what it is and people can only hope. I'm also running High clouds as, with Ultra, I lose frametime and 15-20FPS, but even on High the quality looks worse now (shimmering, extremely aliased, jagged lines going through clouds) than it has in the past months

Funny thing about ReBAR. I recently discovered it may not work in DCS since Nvidia have set up an allowed-list model whereby specific games will be configured for ReBAR with an Nvidia GPU. To actually enable it for DCS you need to get Nvidia Profile Inspector. See the following thread I don't know if enabling ReBAR in the BIOS creates a placebo effect for the user who expects it to have some benefit, or if ReBAR actually works in DCS at the point of enabling it in the BIOS.

I'd love to see screenshots. The clouds have been a jittery mess for me in these past weeks. Awful aliasing issues around the edges with some jumping.

The inclusion of 2D screenshots is to show it isn't just a discrepancy with VR, however VR suffers the worst due to lack of visibility compared to previous versions - without using VR Spyglass Zoom, or leaning in. I appreciate there's a bit of a mixed message here since some say it is solely a VR issue. The encompassing change is visible in 2D and VR. Even in the above screenshot, with no brightness changes, you can clearly see the ARS (lower left corner) isn't as visible. These pictures were taken via a zoomed in camera. Now imagine how it looks when seated normally with no zoom. The point is, the changelogs make zero mention of this change for the A-10C II and the behaviour is not as it was in 2.7 or previous versions, for the past several years. Therefore this is either an unintended or undocumented change. In any case, it has a detrimental impact on VR gameplay. The DSMS and STAT pages being especially bad. MAV and TGP cursors being difficult to see. It sets an unwanted precedent if we're saying that previous modules can just up and change out of nowhere thus decreasing visibility, where that change is considered a feature or "unreproducible", when many of us have enjoyed playing that module in VR for years.

I agree 100%. The only real solution is for this to be investigated properly. It's potentially a knock on impact of shadows and reflections or changes to how MFDs are rendered which mainly impacts the A-10 due to its font size being naturally weightier. @BIGNEWY @NineLine Any chance of this being reviewed again? There absolutely is a difference between 2.7 & 2.8 which makes these harder to read.

Running W11 since I purchased a 13900KF. My only issues with W11 are user experience based issues such as the right-click context menu being behind another menu. It's just not a very user friendly operating system compared to Windows 7 and 10. Gaming wise, no complaints - performance is fine and I haven't noticed a degradation.

This issue now exists in Stable so the only way to use the A-10C II MFDs, as they were, is to explicitly downgrade to v2.7. DCS_updater.exe update 2.7.18.30765

Got a track replay demonstrating the issue?

Perfect, many thanks.

It looks like @Yurgonis the best person to look to on this topic. See page 2 of this thread. I'll be flying the A-10 this weekend and will gather some tracks if it happens, although I'm afraid they'll be quite long as 1. They'll be from a session, and 2. I don't know the steps to reproduce this isuse other than identifying the signals of the plane going nose down during a flight, as Yurgon pointed out, where the plane then trims back to level flight as you're landing.

Have you been hitting the Christmas sherry?

What Nick said. Anti-aliasing will solve that issue but will come at a cost. This is true of every game.

Is there a guide forshowing people how to do this? Not everyone will have the know-how to perform such a task. Certainly, not everyone will be comfortable messing around with BIOS settings.

Any examples or screenshots? Sounds like you're just running without anti-aliasing.

Ah, that makes sense. The bug in that case was the original inclusion of ripple Thanks for clarifying

The biggest question that has been asked, and what still makes absolutely zero sense, is why this was present in the changelog if it's not actually supported. There was a conscious decision made to not only include that in the changelog but to also push that changelog out following a peer review of the contents (if changelogs are peer reviewed, that is). Maybe it's under the wrong module? This makes it all the more confusing that the players need to send evidence. Some clarification of that changelog entry would definitely be appreciated.

So this is a bug! I've experienced this several times over the past 4 months while flying the 16-2 Red Flag Campaign in NTTR, also in Caucasus at Kutaisi and Syria at Incirlik. At first I considered it to be ground effect but the bubbling is too consistent in that it looks like it's trying to trim to level flight. It is definitely not wake turbulence, as suggested, since in my case I fly alone in singleplayer missions and/or campaigns where I'm the first to land - as is the case with the 16-2 Red Flag campaign.

Because if they released it to Stable then there would be many more threads complaining about the performance and other issues. It is surely a well known fact that many modules release in Open Beta first. It has been that way for god knows how long and these threads pop up every single time. Shouldn't it be a relief that the update has not become Stable yet? It means that ED are actually working on resolving issues introduced with previous patches.

Although it's not an option for everyone, I'm running 2.7 alongside 2.8 as I have very little hope in this bug getting past the preliminary stages of bug reporting. Considering the conversation so far has been focused on user settings, and not the clear difference between 2.7 & 2.8, I'd bet this is one of those cases where a bug becomes a feature.

I've just read that comment. That all looks really good. Thank you for putting your time and dedication in to improving the presentation and readability of the documentation.

I'm a little bit confused by the "cannot reproduce" tag and the fact that we're still talking about this as if it's solely a VR and user graphics issue. It is an issue that affects VR and 2D. It is an issue with DCS in the 2.8 update, it is not an issue with any settings that users have configured that have not changed between both versions. I have already provided comparison photos taken in 2D, not VR but 2D, that show a clear difference between 2.7 & 2.8. To say it again, on my end absolutely nothing was changed in Nvidia/AMD or in-game graphics, aside from the inclusion of the new shadows setting, between my test on 2.7 & 2.8. In case it has already been forgotten, here is the comparison photo that shows a very clear difference in the weight of the text. There has been no editing of this picture other than to include the version. What incentive is there to report bugs if the evidence is just going to be ignored? At this point I cannot understand how the difference in this photo is not being recognized. The reproduction steps are 1. Take a screenshot of the MFDs in 2.7 2. Take a screenshot of the MFDs in 2.8 3. Compare the screenshots 4. Look very closely at the definition of the text.

Wags viewed the thread last night and it is now set to "Investigating". So, fingers crossed that the team is looking at this now. I agree with your sentiment. It is difficult to believe that 4.2 introduced a very different behavior than what is described in 3 & 5.