SomethingAncient

With all due respect, the FOV doesn't seem that different in my opinion. Besides, for calm waters, the waves seem too big, anyways. Thus, I thought it was the contrast of wave size to ship that made it feel slow. I think smaller amplitude or a finer amplitude might be more realistic anyway. May I ask why you think it's FOV? Are you a pilot who flies at least 300kph over a large body of water that can tell me that slower speed feeling in game is normal? Do you know of a FOV that feels more realistic? Honest questions, I'm not meaning to make fun of you, I want the knowledge and I don't have a way to verify IRL that kind of experience other than the roller coaster rides I've been on that go slower and feel faster. I prefer faster, and if that's not realistic, that's fine, I'll take the slower feeling. But if it's not, I'd like to see the in-game experience made more realistic. You know, if it's that, then waves that move according to wind direction would be awesome. I always set up my practice map with the carrier going into the wind, and it still feels slow. draconus has me questioning whether it should feel like it does in game or as we see in the video. All I know is I want realistic, and I want a faster feeling, and this video makes me think faster is realistic. But I guess I'd need input from an actual fighter pilot on how the speed feels in game to know for sure?

To start with, one of the updates came alongside an open beta update, and you need to run at least that version of the open beta for the latest 2.xx A-4e release (and vice-versa, if I'm not mistaken). Second, it's a miracle you're running this game on an HD6670. The minimum requirement for 2.8 (which is the current stable build now), from the website page, is an "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 / AMD R9 280X". (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/stable/) Third, the official models use official source code that isn't available to modders, and that means they don't need to use workarounds. The A-4e, being nearly as good as an official module, probably needs better than minimum specs because it uses some workarounds that aren't as efficient, and that's assuming it also isn't just because a modding team isn't as 'on top' of keeping code perfectly efficient. Quite frankly, I think DCS ought to already have it's minimum specs at a GTX 780 and Sandybridge (2nd gen) i3 CPU, and drop the AMD FX requirements as AMD doesn't have anything in that performance range (they have way better or worse). Keep in mind, everyone is begging ED to become multi-threaded, so I suspect, along with the necessary engine overhaul required to do this, the new minimum specs might be something like a 4th gen i3 and a GTX 970 equivalent with at least 4GB VRAM. Just a guess, I don't actually know.

This video (Flight Simulator vs Real Life | F/A-18 Carrier Landing MAX GRAPHICS by BravoSix) compares the two, and I'm wondering if something like slightly reducing the amplitude of the seas in-game would make the approach in-game feel more like the approach in real life. That, or maybe add more white crests and increase the animation speed if the water is supposed to be more harsh? A wake would also be a thing... but really, just making the water feel faster and more realistic would be nice and maybe not too hard to implement? Just some suggestions and something I'd like to see happen if possible.

I was flying with a friend and his AV-8B was often outperforming me in the Su-33. Both of us were about equally loaded. Looking at the specs, there's no way I should have to use afterburner to beat him at mil power. The aircraft felt sluggish before but I thought it was just me, but once I had a known aircraft to compare it to live, I realized something is really off here. I'd appreciate if someone could see why this is.

I see. Too bad, I think it would help a lot of people if the game only loaded what the server/session needed. I mean, there's already a compatibility check so maybe it wouldn't be too difficult to implement. I'm not going to disagree with you for those players. I just know that I don't want to change my page file size before and after I play DCS because Windows does like to abuse it and slow my system for everything else.

Yeah, 16GB. It's usually good for up to 14 players without any hitching. I do plan to upgrade, but that won't be until January at the earliest. What I didn't realize, thanks to draconus answering in the bug thread I created, was that DCS was successfully quitting after only 15 seconds and that the rest was just page file doing... something. Which makes it a Windows issue until I fill in the other RAM 2 slots, alas.

Going line by line: 1) The mods I have installed are not used in any of the servers I use. They shouldn't ever load in. If they do, perhaps I need to make a new wish list post asking for a more discerning loader? 2) This seems like a bad thing to do with Windows. I intentionally reduced page file size from stock because Windows was abusing it and slowing everything down. On a Linux distro with better garbage collection and less memory leakage, I could see this working. 3) Huh... so it's Windows crappy page file management that's eating up all that time. Whilst that doesn't fix my issue, it does explain it. Thanks. 4) True, I want to add more RAM but am not in a good position to do so at the moment. I'm looking at January at the earliest based on my finances.

Every time I quit a session, whether a server or single player, my HDD spends 3-5 minutes in full activity, and I have trouble doing anything else. I thought it was just the way the game ran, which is why I made a wish list post, but apparently it's mostly me. I've loaded the DCS and SRS logs, because those are the things running, and occasionally killing SRS improves my game stability quite a bit (but that's before I quit). My specs are as follows: -Ryzen 3300X (stock clocks) -AMD R9 390X (MSI 'Gaming' version) -16GB Crucial (2 sticks) @3600MHz -HDD Digital Western 2GB I make sure not to have any background programs running and have exceptions set for my antivirus. DCS-SRS-InGameRadio.log DCS-SRS-GameGUI.log DCS-SimpleRadioStandalone.log dcs.log

Alright, will do; thanks.

It literally prevents me from loading much else for 5 minutes after quitting a session. My point about the SSD is secondary to the issue of "I can't load up another game several minutes after I quit DCS."

I don't know exactly where to put this, but for some reason my HDD is used just as much when quitting as when I load in. Why does my HDD need to (seemingly) receive that much information upon quitting? Can this please be addressed to make quitting to the menu or desktop faster? I'd be concerned about the life of an SSD if this game needed to write several GB of data every time I quit a session or exit a server.

I have a question that will alter the modeling I do: Should I try to model the original weapons bay and weapons, or invent the weapons bay upgrade it was going to receive almost immediately once production was slated before it was cancelled? The original had, iirc (I will do research again on this to confirm when I get there), 2 internal Canadian designed nuclear warhead missiles (because nuclear could make up for the poor targeting it had, not a strategic weapon of any kind; I'm not even sure I'd call it tactical). The replacement was going to be 3 Hughes AIM-4 Falcons because the missiles worked better, were guaranteed to be produced and supported over the life of the airframe, and were smaller. I also just googled "American missile development" and got modern results by mistake so, if you happen to be the guy who puts people on lists: Hello and please have a nice day. Anyway, I will do the research to make sure I get the right number and type of missiles for the Avro Arrow regardless of which one I model. I'm asking because I consider both valid, but am not sure if I'd be crossing some historicity taboo by creating an Arrow with the armament it was going to get a few years later... and to be honest, I also think it would make some of the modding easier for myself or whomever downloads the models to try their own hand at it. I may model both, but in the event I create one and then get a life, which weapons bay would be the most desirable one as a potential player?

Ah, so that's what happened. So glad it's a version difference that caused carrier launches to damage the carrier, the TACAN and ILS to not work, and different flight handling (reverted to a SFM possibly?). Downloading update now. Thank you to those who keep working on this mod!

Ah, thanks.

Anyone know why my PC had to restart? I didn't think DCS World ran at the kernel level and, quite frankly, I'd like to know what needed this to be done.