dlder

Sweet, ty!! Btw.: I've posted my Tacview here; what you can't see is the wingman 3 getting destroyed when taxiing out of the hangar, as I've already corrected that. But you can see that even with ARM missiles, the A-4E don't attack the SAMs and get shot down. But another issue presented itself while viewing the Tacview file: the enemy MiG-21 didn't attack us -> they just returned to their respective airports!? I've attacked one of the MiGs escorting the A-50, and I thought it very weird that it didn't move or defend while I closed the distance. I had my radar on, so it should've seen me and react. Cheers mate!

Well, even equipped with ARM the A-4E didn't manage to shoot even missile, destroy even 1 SAM... Yep, that's the one... Should I upload a track file or wouldn't the mission file be better in this case? Scheibenkleister... is this the forum for the Full Fidelity F-5E? 'cause I'm using the "FC4" ("F-5E_FC" or "F-5E-3_FC") DCSWorld\Mods\aircraft\F-5E_FC\Missions\Single\F-5E FC Caucasus - AWACS.miz

I've played the mission and in flight a message popped up saying the SEAD flight was unable to knock out the SAMs and I should return to base. In TacView I saw that they didn't fire any missiles... Loading the mission in the ME revealed, that both SEAD flights had no ARMs loaded. Problem #2 my 3rd Wingman was positioned in the hangar of the static F-4 and pretty much destroyed itself trying to Taxi out of the hangar. Repositioning the jet to a "free" hangar resolves that problem.

DCS 2.9.14 I don't need to update my mod, because the missile lua hasn't changed. Which is weird, because apparently ED made some changes to the Aim-120 ? There shouldn't be any other place for missile specific data, so I do wonder if it wasn't pushed in this update and coming may at a later date?

Well, you can use DLSS 4 - meaning the new DLL. True. But as soon as you use the new Transformer model you will loose performance. That's not only my finding, but also from tech review sites (trustworthy ones, not Youtuber clickbait shills). Why would that be any different in DCS? And about the better quality: at least FlightSimGuy cannot comment on that. If you play on downgraded graphic settings, you cannot say anything definitive at all. Then again: I made no claim, that the quality doesn't change. Me personally haven't seen any difference to a newer DLSS 3 dll then the one supplied by DCS + changing the Preset from the default C to F. As far as FG goes: as long as ED doesn't implement it, you can force it however you like. FG or MFG have to be supported in-engine! And that is currently not the case. ED is looking into it, but again: this feature is only usable on FPS > 60 and MFG will need refresh rates > 120Hz. Or else [M]FG will make the game look and feel way worse. So, if you're like me and maxing graphical quality, and you barely reach 60 FPS, then I'm doubtful FG will help...

Yeah, I've seen his videos. And although I really like his content, he's quite honestly a bit "overenthusiastic", if you know what I mean^^ Also, he doesn't show any comparison, just says "it's game changing and amazing" and what not. Well... it's not. At least not yet. At least not at that performance level. You can read any review: the new transformer model DOES cost performance vs. the older GN model and although it can be better at times (reducing flickering), a lot of times you just can't tell (like in blind tests). And it can also introduce graphical errors (with shadows for instance). All that is to say: it's not so clear as "VR Flight Sim Guy" makes it out to be! -> also: yes, you can lower your VR (pixel density) and graphics settings, but what's the point, really? Why have a good-looking SIM and a high-resolution HMD (Crystal, not the Quest3, lol) and then play with <profanity>ty graphics? (as a side note: this video didn't cover J vs. K preset and also, you don't need to use "MT" folder any longer. It's always multi-threaded now and there is no special MT folder / branch anymore. It's deprecated and will be removed soon (I was told).

Yes, a few lines in the aim9 lua were changed; mod is updated. Has anyone tried version "b" of the default missiles? The one were you don't load the modified Aim-9L, but the actual Aim9X missile? Did anyone find any difference performance wise? Because it's really hard to tell and 1 datapoint (me^^) isn't enough Cheers!

My system: i7-13700KF RTX 4090 (566.36) Pimax Crystal Win11 latest I've added my old Benchmark track file. Looks even better then before, now that there is fog on the ground in Georgia! (-> I should add: I'm only running the track file for about 120 seconds. Right where I turn into the enemy fleet, about 10km from WP2) 2D, all settings max, 3440x1440, DLSS Quality VR, same settings as 2D, visibility only ultra Pimax: Lighthouse, 120 Hz, EyeTracking, Render 1.0, w/o Pimax Quadviews, w/ Central Rendering, Balanced, w/o Smart Smoothing, w/o Lock Half Framerate, w/ Hidden Area Mask Conclusio I haven't tried the newest DLSS 4 dll too much; there were stability issues with the beta-dll resulting in crashes, so I can't say if that is still the case. Is DLSS v4 with the new Transformer model better looking? I can't tell. At least not with just this (semi-dark) benchmark scene. DLSS 3 (with preset F) and 4 (Preset K) are looking better then the default 3.7.0 with preset C though! But seeing as there is a 5 - 10 FPS performance hit with DLSS 4, I wouldn't recommend it; only with VR HMDs with lower resolution where you have more headroom fps-wise to use this supposedly better DLSS version. Another thing to note here: as much as I'd love DLSS3 FrameGeneration or DLSS4 MultiFrameGeneration, it is unusable with such low FPS. One would need about double the raw performance to be able to use FG or MFG... Benchmark.zip

Thanks I'll check to see if I have to update for 2.9.13 asap

I know that radar missiles (at least on the F-15C) have to be "known" by the avionics to work properly. At least that's what I came away with testing the 120D back in the day A LOT! That's why I don't add missiles, but only exchange missiles that are already usable by this jet. But, is this also true for the Aim-9X ? That is the question... For that reason, I've released a "beta" version of 1.08b, in which I didn't exchange the 9L with the 9X code, but used the original 9X itself and put that missile on my launchers. I've tried it and for me: So, I'd ask you to try the 1.08b yourself and reply, what you think: are both missiles the same or is my previous 9L/9X better Cheers!

Sorry to necro such an old thread, but I too was struggling quite a bit; I only use the Mission Planer to change the loadout to my liking (for me, Cluster Bombs are useless^^), but I never look at the map and unit location. Don't wanna cheat, right? But in this campaign, I did do that and saw, that you only get to know the position of a few select units. The "dangerous" ones, like Manpads and SAMs seem to be hidden AND random, so every time you start the mission it'll be different. Also, they do a rather complex point system. You start with 50 - at least in this mission - and if a group of friendlies is lost, you loose points and if too many die, you fail the mission. Thinking about that, I should try that. Would be interesting to see which mission you get after that, if any. And for destroying groups of enemies (not units though!), you get points. Like one tank group is worth 15pts. AAA is 5 or something... everything has points attached to it. I've never seen anything as complex as this in DCS. For instance, I got shot down and had 75 points, so I "completed" the mission and went from 3.3 to 4.3. And I know I should just roll with it, but I really would like to actually complete the mission, but unfortunately the AI Wingman is rather useless with all the anti-air and in the end, I too get shot down. Manpad, effin helicopter, Shilka or a lucky AAA position^^. This is for sure the toughest campaign I've played to date! @NineLine Congrats to ED, this is some massive and awesome work you've done for this campaign. A precursors to a really dynamic campaign. It'll be interesting, how many more hours I need, until I manage to finish even the 1st mission

Updated the Aim-120 lua to DCS 2.9.12.5336

Updated the Aim-9 lua to DCS 2.9.11.4686

Yes; it seems just exchanging the DLL - which now forced the E preset - will do the trick. AutoExposure and Profile-F ... I didn't see any difference, though I'll keep a lookout. BUT: even with the default DLSS version, there isn't much ghosting anymore imho. I mean, a year ago, when I flew the Mustang, it was BAD, like really bad. So either I'm somewhat used to it by now or it's no longer a big issue.

Ok, so, I wanted to finally try this fix in VR and... I can't see the "HUD" info in VR, but also no longer in 2D!? That means I no longer know what exactly I'm working with. The logfile only lists what is set via the config file, but not the actual game data. My bad... I can see the info in 2D but not in VR; neither inside the HMD, nor in the 2D mirror (which eye doesn't matter either).

Quick update: DCS 2.9.10 "default" Preset: C DLSS version: 3.7.0 fatbin HDR NGX Resolution: 2296x960 -> 3440x1440 Autoexposure: Off Just exchange DLSS.dll Preset: E DLSS version: 3.8.10

Just came across this; shame on me for not getting to know this trick sooner. Anyhow, whilst reading through the INI, there are a couple of things I wanted to ask you about; maybe someone knows this: it seems to me that "OverrideAutoExposure" could also be quite helpful or the only setting that's needed? The linked video looks promising at least! I AM gonna try this myself too, but was wondering what you are seeing in DCS? if one uses a newer DLSS version - as most of you apparently do, did you force sharpening via the nvCPL ? (nvidia control panel) Because it says "DLSS v2.5.1 and later versions removed sharpening from DLSS (use sharpening available in NV control panel instead)" -> or does that only apply to the "OverrideSharpening" and the "ingame sharpening" setting still applies? Well, I guess that's all for now. Hopefully I can give this a go soon. Would be awesome to play DCS without the ghosting artifacts

Yep; that's the strategic and tactical side from it. But even if we'd had those coordination capabilities ingame, doing that in the ME... well, that would be a whole different ball game.

It would be really cool if you could make this campaign compatible with the Flaming-Cliffs version of these jets! Easiest would probably be straight copy and just exchange the Jet-IDs. Or you could maybe make it able for the player to choose (like setting the planes to Client), but I don't know if that would mess with triggers and such. I mean, it could be done by anyone personally, but not since all campaigns are encrypted... so no one can change a thing, which is both a blessing and a curse^^ Thanks!

So, after analyzing a lot of hwinfo logs: no pagefile is ever in use (as it should be, as long as RAM is available). But rarely the GPU memory (24 GB! What?) seems to fill up, causing a crash. This usually only happens when switching modules and maps, without quitting DCS. -> for me, this looks like a buffer overflow issue of the game. Old cached data isn't removed from the GPU Ram (fast enough). I mean, if this happens with a 4090, this should be a huge issue for smaller cards, one might think? Or is it, that this is so much memory, that the game says: Ah, it's fine, enough memory here!

Using Pimax Offical OpenXR + their weirdly named "Pimax Central Priority Rendering" (when will Pimax get someone that speaks English to go over the text and the tooltips!?). No more issues since then!

No worries, thanks for your reply! Yeah, I still know, as I'm still testing the issue and no, while using Mbuchia QuadViews, I've turned both Pimax settings off. I've also reported the problems regarding Pimax-QuadViews to Pimax support. For now though, we are still in the "have-you-tried-turning-it-off-and-on-again" phase (meaning bull<profanity> answers from support. I hope my ticket will get pushed to the higher tech support soon). edit: but I gotta say, now that I no longer use the unfortunately old Mbucchia Pimax-OpenXR runtime and -QuadViews, I have no problems with the game anylonger. So I guess it really is true what the developer posted himself: to no longer use his tools

That's the idea. Would be absolute bonkers if possible in DCS

Well, as my logs show: pagefile is never in use. Sure, I gotta check with Syria too, then I can be certain. Hm, yeah, tried that. Waited quite some time too. I'll give it another go if it crashes again.

I will from now on start DCS with hwinfo64 in logging mode to get to the bottom of this. I do have some more info because of the first 2 logs: I currently have the i7-14700, that means 8 pCores / 16 pThreads + 12 eCores/Threads and all threads will be used by the game! But for whatever reason, the eCores more then the pCores, except for the 1 main thread, which for me is running on pCores 4, Thread 0 Yes, the GPU memory will get filled up until..., well, its full. But that's by design, right? After loading the game, about 15 GB of GPU Mem are used. This will gradually fill to 22.9 - 23.7 GB of the 24 GB available. So, if the game erroneously fills up over this point, then that would point to a potential ingame problem of not removing old data from the video memory (if the game really would need more RAM, because of my chosen settings, it would fill up pretty much when loading a mission -> this happens when playing No Man's Sky in VR with the Pimax Crystal without DLSS, so I know what that looks like^^). What I do see though, that in the 2 gameplay sessions I logged, is that the Physical Memory (RAM) is used 46-59% (of 64 GB). That's no where near overfilling. -> that's also, why the page file isn't used at all, just as it should be! BUT: what does get filled up pretty high is the Virtual Memory: the 1st session isn't that wild, Vmem sits at up to 71%. But on the 2nd session, this reached a whooping 94%! It is rather easy to circumvent any such memory overflows, if one exits the game every few hours or at least, when changing the map. What I remember, Syria especially needs a lot of RAM, so I'm gonna play around that map next time and see what the numbers are then.