Gunfreak

I've tied it all, nothing works. The open xr failures are just because I didn't run the game in VR for the log This is how the game ran 2 weeks ago This is how it runs now Some random script file doesn't do that, especially since that scrip file was there 2 weeks ago when the game ran fine It's the patch from ED that broke the game.

This is what my DCS is like now. This is what my system does while DCS mission is running This is how it runs in 2D This is the exact same mission, I flew a couple of weeks ago, this is in VR. The No changes to the mission at all. It went from running perfect to being completely unplayable. No other games are affected.

But i don't see very high CPU temperatures. When i start a mission. Once i hit play. My CPU runs at like 30-40% no major increase in heat as i can see. And my GPU is idling at 30C.

Can ED add the previous DCS version to steam as a selectable option. I can not play the game at all as it is now, and since I don't know when a fix for the performance bug will come, if ED could add the previous version to steam(like with the 2.5 version) then I could revert back and actually play the game.

It would be cool. It's a lot of work making it by hand. And also often the track doesn't work. And you'll find your aircraft shooti at air. But should be 65% speed. 50% is too slow. My most watched video(by a huge margin) is a 10 minute long Gun cam montage. But i used another sim for that.

Ah. Ok. Then there is hope. I was afraid I very unique problem. And would be left behind if that more common bug was fixed. So I guess I'll just have to wait. Have others reported FPS as low as 5? I've seen other report big fps drops. But haven't seen talk about sub 10 fps.

One thing is CPU load. But why would that cause my GPU to idle? It's literally sitting at 10-20% usage and 30C so just idling. Not engaged at all .

That's what the AI always says. This is not some minor performance bug, it has broken the game. my GPU is idle during gameplay. We aren't talking 10 or even 20 FPS drop, we are talking 120+ FPS drop. It's broken.

dcs.log

Finally tested the game today. Patch completely broke my game. Missions i used to get 70+ fps in vr and 120 fps in 2d now has 5-9fps. CPU bound with just 30%CPU usage and next to no use of GPU at all. I've done all the basic stuff and more exotic stuff to fix it. But it's completely broken.

Updated drivers no help. Did integrity check on steam, 4 files was redownloaded no help. Reset settings in Nvidia control panel no help. Went into bios to make sure the game couldn't use integrated GPU. No help. No other games are affected, 3D mark gives the same score as last week. I did notice that when DCS loads to the main menu, it takes 2-3 seconds for Multiplayer to become available, this has usually been instantaneous. If this is related i do not know. Mission editor works perfectly. And it seems DCS uses more GPU in menus. But once the mission starts. My GPU goes down to 5-15% and has a temperature of 30-40C, so not working at all in the game

Tried to play today for the first time after the update, I get 5-10FPS and I'm CPU bound with 30% CPU power. Before the update I had this mission running smooth at 70FPS in VR and 120 in flat. Now I have 9 FPS in flat and 5 in VR. I've done the basic delete meta shader, fxo, I have no mods installed, never had mods installed on this install ever. It seems it uses very little of any GPU power All other games work exactly as they should an always have. I'm now verifying the installation in steam and updating the NVidia driver, don't know what else to do

So no F4E in the mission generator if you set SEAD and cold war 47 to 70 or 71 to 91? Does this mission generator use the over strict time restriction from the regular mission editor? Which is quite useless in regular mission editor, but even more useless in the mission generator. Don't find the F4 even in 71 to 91 in ground attack?

Then that is good news. No more DLSS swapping

But they've updated to DLSS 310.2.1.0 not DLSS4?

Right now there is no suppression effect. But if you would add to the trigger that bullets, bombs, rockets hitting the ground could activate a trigger (like hold fire for set amount of seconds) then we could simulate strafing etc giving a suppression effect.

Same way you would defeat a MiG23 or other BVR capable aircraft in DCS with an F16 armed with a Sidewinder.

I didn't say irrelevant. I said the main Soviet fighter until the mid 80(85-87) would be the MiG23. Which it was. None of the links given over support his claim. None say that 600 was made by 85. That 800 29s had been made by the 1990 gived zero support for the 29 being the main soviet fighter in 85-87. I've found no source that list all soviet aviation regiments and what they used during the 80s. I've found a few random regiment. Some had MiG29s by 86 or 88. Some didn't get them until 90. I do find many that still use the 23. I also find that Poland and East Germany didn't get their own 29s until 88 and 89. And then less than 30 each. I also find that some 500 were in operation with the soviet airforce in 1990. Which again is fine. But 1990 isn't mid 80s. And the Soviet airforce still had 1500 23s in service at this point.(granted many of those in fighter bomber configuration) The whole point is. If you are doing a scenario set in 83-85. The MiG29 would not be the main soviet fighter(they were still converting older 23s to MLD specs in 85) and Poland and East Germany didn't have any until the late 80s. Saying well it entered service in this and this date. Therefore there would be 500 operational ones within a year or two. Don't sound realistic. Churning stuff out of a factory is the easy part. Training pilots and crew, adding logistics can take far longer. The 29 suffering from a lot of technical faults. With something like 65% readiness in the mid 80s but up tp 90% by the end of the 80s.

And yet the MiG23 was the main soviet fighter untill the mid 80. In 1990 the soviet union had 1500 Mg23s in service. The first units to get operational MiG29s was the guard units who got them around 85. While Warsaw Pack countries like East Germany and Poland only got them in 87-89 period and then only in small numbers (less than 30 each) So no the MiG29 would not be extremely common for most of the 80s. One thing is making the thing itself. The other is making the logistics needed for them. Training pilots and ground crew. Same would go for the R73 too. Having a million on them in storage isn't as them being combat ready. Old stocks wouldn't just be thrown away. In the west AIM-9M and even Ls would be used long into the 9s and beyond. Sure if the soviet planned a major ww3 thing. They would try and get their best missiles to the front line. But the 1980s wasn't exactly the high point of soviet military might.

But how prevalent would it be? By the end of the cold war. There was plenty of R73s. But given how stuff usually work for military stuff. It can take a while before they actually reach units. And then you'd often get stuff like half a squadron having the new stuff. Or aircraft flying 1 new missiles and the rest holder stuff. Given it was in use from 84. How many Warsaw Pact MiG29 units would have the R73s in 85, 87 or 88. Even MIG29 itself wasn't that common untill the middle of the 80s. With the 23 still being the main front line fighter untill mid 80s. None of that matter you just fly the 29 in some generic 80s Cold War server. But if you are doing a realistic ealy 80s scenario. There shouldn't be any R73 at all. And not that many 29s either. And even in 85/86 I would think the R60M would be more common on the 29. And then it's advantage in dogfighting vs the F16 wouldn't be there at all. And not vs M2000 either. And far from a certain victory vs the F15A either. Now in a 88-90 Scenario the 29 would be a bit of a beast in the merge.

I've been harping on that all warbird engines in all modern fight sims seems to be way too sensitive to surive real life and death between young men. And doesn't seem to match any first hand accounts I've read. And I've read quite a few. But I'm not gonna go on yet another long rant. I still don't understand how an engine can overrev when I pull the RPM back. If I pull the RPM back to 2000rpm. In a dive abd the needle never goes over 2000. How can i overrev it? Yet it the only excuse I can find for my engine dying within 30 seconds after diving after a 190.

I'm honestly now sure how a constant speed prop cam over rev at all. Especially in an engine known to be indestructible. Yet the P47 engine is the most delicate engine on any warbird in DCS. I haven't tested much in a whiile but some 7-8 months ago. I would break the engine in 10 second dives from 30k feet diving after a 190. It happened if I ran at max WEP with water on. And happened if I throttled back. A few seconds in a dive and the engine broke. I even had it happen at low altitude shallow dives from bombing. Dividing 20-30 degrees from 12 000 feet to 3000 feet. Would break it some 6-8 months back(this I didn't experience last time I flew the P47 a month or so back.)

Steam does pre-order all the time. Sometimes with 1-2 years advance before the release. It's ED/DCS that somehow can't get it to work on steam. They could before. But now they can't.

Can't you do something so simple as 100% is what it is now. But let you move the thing past 100% to 125% or what the full load would be. The default when placing a p47 would be 100% and then you can choose to put it over 100%

Apparently not.