MadKreator

Helios new version released this morning vs1.6.55. The ka-50 patch issue was fixed, might be worth the update and a profile re-install to see if the issues were linked somehow.

after 2.8 there was/is a glitch in helios related to the ka-50 device_init.lua. Almost as if something within that Lua script got moved/ renamed or changed slightly. It wouldn't allow the patches to install correctly unless that specific patch for the ka-50 was omitted. Not sure how or why any of this is the way it is, but something caused a freak out in Helios. Not sure if BlufinBima has got it sorted out yet. Could be fixed in the next helios release. Might be related to this issue somehow. Most definitely sounds like ED made a behind the scene change and Helios needs to be updated accordingly.

100% agree. I use helios, which it a litter of exports to a touchscreen, and I use an 32:9 monitor. In dcs on widescreens, hud lines and mfd displays are fat fuzzy lines, literally unusable on some aircraft without modifying the lua files to thin the lines/ graphics/ text down. My only “mods” are things to make the game function correctly, that I really shouldn’t have to do if widescreen was better supported natively. None of these are cheats by any stretch, no different than anyone with a full blown sim-pit. A lot of us would really like to see ED get a more improvised system in place for IC. And for some users, integrate a little better support for multi-screens/ wides and exports. I totally agree with weapon mods, changing physics, unlimited everything hacks and all that. Real cheaters can suck it. Maybe once the Multicore crunch eases up, even one team member could probably hash out a lot of these things fairly easily.. maybe its not so easy, i don’t really know, not my job. But a few QOL improvements wouldn’t be a bad thing

I believe the real one has a built in INS/GPS system of sorts, just like the aircraft uses for navigation, or maybe tied into the aircraft’s ins/ gps system, which would need to be aligned as the aircraft is being aligned, I would assume. But I’m sure in the game, due to some limitations some things have to be simplified here and there. Basically copying the overall function but maybe not calculating everything exactly how the real one does. Good question though! I’d be curious to hear from someone who really knows how one works.

Or at least have the world fov/ view zoom save when you use RAlt+NumPad0 to save your adjusted default view.

Ahh man Hoggit enabled pure scripts? That was my go-to for MP. That’s a shame, I will opt to keep helios and my exports. It’d be cool if there way a way for ED to be able to separate parts of the IC system. Another member explained how it works once and it seems to be a more universal system of checks, and not able to have it just look for/exclude specific things. Maybe someday in the future. I’m all for anti-cheating of course, but failing checks for multi-displays/ exporting thats built into the game seems a bit ridiculous. Oh well their servers, their choice, not the end of the world.

The percentages were just a wild guess lol no data to support my numbers at all. Point was that us widescreen pancakers are most likely the smallest percentage, but nonetheless, still a relevant player base. I may be a bit biased in that thought

These days ,ultra-wides and multi-monitors are far more prevalent. I’d love to see some updating to better support these. The little things like aircraft HUD’s that are nice, crisp and clear on a 16:9 screen but on a 21:9 or 32:9 are fat fuzzy lines and texts. Affects mfd’s as well. The harrier and f5e are pretty much un-useable without editing the scripts for them. F-16 is pretty bad, f-18 isn’t terrible but still needs refined in the lua files. The a-10c is actually a texture file for the hud so you can’’t edit it in normal lua script. Also the kneeboard size is very out of place. I use a 32:9 main screen and a 16:9 screen for helios ( even previous to having the helios screen) the kneeboard is gigantic and half off the screen when you pull it up. I know you can re-size with the mouse but It seems so odd to me that every other graphic in the game scales great to a widescreen except, HUD’s, mfd’s and the kneeboard. I also notice some odd things like if I go to alt-f1 Hud only view, on the a-10 I get gigantic mfd’s overlayed on half of the main screen. Some aircraft work fine, some show random things on screen in hud only view. I know VR is probably, what, 30% of dcs users, and I’d guess 80% of pancake users are on standard and single screens, so us weird ultrawide and multi monitor people are most likely a small majority, but it would still be nice to not have to have go in and modify files to get the game looking right. Although its not a tough thing to do, if I wasn’t computer savvy and installed dcs and bought , say the harrier or f-5 to start out, I would have probably just uninstalled the game and requested a refund and moved on. Morning thoughts.

Seems to be up to the 3rd party. Razbam updated the SA map lighting support with the 2.8 release , same time PG got its update.

I’ve never been big on night missions, but the new lighting is really adding that something extra! Team is doing a great job! My biggest complaint before was airport lighting, but now its much easier to navigate around them and locate them from a distance. Still a little tough to see the taxiway exits from the runways but its much better than it used to be! I do feel like the moon at times , and stars could pop a little more, maybe someday. Overall it’s looking very good. Very welcomed upgrades!

I don’t vr very much but with my quest 2 pushed to basically it’s max and leaving dcs setting the same as my pancake mode, with clouds on ultra I feel like the shimmering is worse. Fired it up the other day, getting smooth fps and all but it seemed like the longer I played the shimmering of not only clouds, but everything, was bad. To the point, where I couldn’t stand looking at it anymore. In pancake the clouds looks amazing, sometimes a little too much like a stack of cotton balls, but I don’t see any artifacts in them, but in vr(at least mine) they are very much an annoyance lol

I’ve never even used the ACP lol I always just use the controls to the left off the UFC( cant recall the correct name off hand) after selecting a weapon using osb keys.

I ended up mapping mine to regular push buttons to just toggle, that way it will turn on, then when turned off it goes to reset automatically. Same with alt/hold. It really screams at you when you don’t turn alt/hold off before afc too its an odd system for sure compared to other jets.

Just ran into this on my quest 2. Haven’t tried vr since 2.8.. odd thing is on mine if I’m in f2 view the stick functions normally, but as soon as its back in the cockpit, the stick starts re-centering.. Ill turn off controllers, or try un-mapping the axis on the vr controller sticks.

LOL Same here…she doesn’t question, I don’t question. Then again this is the cheaper of my hobbies

I wholeheartedly agree! Any major overhauls to graphics and AI at this stage would probably bring the game to a screeching halt on most systems. As the logic and graphic systems get streamlined and refined, then will be the time to implement more demanding Ai, physics, graphics. More and more pc power will always be needed on the high end. Hopefully in the future todays high settings in dcs will be tomorrows lows, but with much better performance for the diverse range of pc’s around. Btw @SharpeXB you’re pc specs have me a little envious. You’re basically forcing my hand to upgrade at this point. My wife will understand

After reading a lot of posts from people with various knowledge levels on this, I took away that initially the split will be in two, separating logic and graphical into separate threads. This will pave the way to implement Vulkan which will handle the graphical side in full , without relying on the cpu to send that info and have it all processing at the same time ( something to that effect). Also allowing graphics/ rendering to be scaled up greatly when Vulkan is handling it in full. This leaves more room for the cpu/ logic side off things to be branched out into more threads to better streamline its workings. I got the impression that the actual cpu core usage is a function of windows divvying up the load based on need/ workload. The engine will be allowed to use multiple cores but that will be determined by windows based on each persons system in particular and its needs for throughput… maybe I’m not quite 100% right on that, but thats what I gathered in a nutshell. Either way, even though the first release may not be the full blown masterpiece of coding some were hoping for , to me it seems like a very big, very relevant step to achieving the final goal. If the initial split is what’s needed to let Vulkan come into play and it reduces some bottlenecks, then hopefully the logic side can/will be broken down into further threads, flight dynamics, unit movement, missle, bomb, bullet trajectory, radar logic, communications, weather etc. I’m no software engineer, so reading the technicals about it by those who do understand it on a coding level and its complexities, puts me in mind-blown mode. But from a casual dummies POV, it seems like it will be a very good step in the direction we are striving for. SkateZilla made a great analogy about separating these is like adding another lane to a road, each with its own off-ramps. As vulkan is implemented, it will create multiple off-ramps on the graphical side, allowing traffic to flow better. Separating the logical side into further threads essentially adds more off-ramps to the lane of the highway, letting its traffic flow more smoothly to the cpu, in a more organized manner without getting backed up. Maybe the initial split is what is really needed to bring the Dynamic Campaign to a useable level as well. They did say the most performance will be gained on larger missions.. a dynamic campaign is about as large and logic intensive as it gets right? One can only hope

F-5, p-47, all of the fc3 modules, Normandy map, channel map, and about 15 campaigns I’ve never even started lol a-10/av8b are my most flow, f-16 right after.. sadly my trusty dusty f-18 hasn’t seen any action in the last couple years other than a free flight here and there.

Liberation 6 also has a couple dynamic campaigns for it Although both are carrier based until you progress a ways, and start taking airfields. That does kind of suck if you want to do some a-10 or f-16 work without flying 450 miles one way from falklands to the mainland. Been fun with the harrier though.

Been playing liberation 6 on SA map and performance seems better to me. Really enjoying the map and updated lighting. Performance seems fine on my end up high or down low. Granted I cap my fps at 60 so Helios runs nice and smooth. Even at that, before the Nov update I’d notice the fps changes and stutters and hiccups much more frequently. Got them a time or two on a couple flights but only for a few seconds. Its heading the right way for sure. Keep up the good work @Raz_Specter!

I’ve seen many an uproar on here even regarding MT/Vulkan/DC with just a very prospective release date. Even an announced module will ruffle peoples feathers if even a year is hinted at. I totally understand why things are kept quiet. It might be frustrating to some of us, sometimes, but all for good reason in the grand scheme.

I was just throwing out random examples, no offense meant , I will edit the previous statement.

A lot of us like to complain about things the we think should be done a certain way, myself included. But the vast majority of us have no idea how any of this software stuff actually works, myself most definitely included! I see AI do dumb dumb stuff, and whine about it. Then @NineLine points out of why some things are the way they are, most of which I haven’t considered because I don’t know what involved. I’ve never considered the old FM of the AI to have anything to do with how they act, nor do I have any idea how any of that works. I try not to sound disgruntled in my posts because I am not, if any ever come off that way, i do apologize. The ED team does do a great job of updating DCS whether its what any of us want at the moment or not. What may seem agonizingly slow to me, may be leaps and bounds from a devs perspective. As @Exorcet pointed out, other AAA games are a total ripoff in comparison to DCS, if you think of it in long term engament. Think of COD, Every year( about) a new one is released which really isn’t much more than a re-skinned version of its predecessor, yet you pay $70-100 each time and in that year between is usually spent just getting everything in the game to work, all while pumping out micro transactions for skins and useless trinkets. ( can you imagine paying $20 per livery for each aircraft in DCS) Then the previous rendition is all but abandoned. DCS you could buy one module for $70 and literally never have to spend another penny on it, yet ED still keeps pumping out updates, free maps, engine upgrades and users still make a LOT of mods and content, which ED very graciously allows, all for nothing. If that’s not standing behind your product and supporting the community, I don’t know what is. @draconus commented earlier on this post to me “ Should've made report and upload a track to help devs actually do something about it.“ and I thought about that. Straight to the point and 100% correct. Having a mouthful of something to say on a forum, doesn’t help the ED or DCS in any way. Correctly presenting a bug or any odd things happening in the proper format, no matter how insignificant it may seem, is literally the only way we can all help to make progress. We should all be thankful that @NineLine, @BIGNEWY, @Flappie, @SkateZilla and others do respond to us. I’d love to see other big studios actually engage with their community on a day to day basis the way the ED team does. -edited Nuff said, afternoon rant over. Time to hit the skies before picking kiddos up from school!

I do read them and see what they do, it doesn’t go un-noticed and I definitely do appreciate what they do. Everyone has their wants and there’s no way ED can satisfy everyone, I get that. I was just playing devils advocate in my own post. I see and understand both sides equally. I’m very pro-DCS, I do enjoy it 99% of the time, bugs or no bugs. To me though, I don’t see where improved dogfighting takes precedence over the basics. Why have a wingman that can now maneuver correctly and possibly out smart a human in a dogfight, but cant land, or they eject as soon as fuel hits bingo, even if only a few miles from base. Different people all want different experiences and thats okay. To each his own. 100%. All in all the steps are heading in the right direction!