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.

The link to the Github in the initial post leads to a dead page. Is this intentional, and is there another way to get the addon?

Thank you so much! I didn't know DCS had one. Also, yes, it's that post.

Okay, so this is the second time creating a post with pictures has deleted all the text that went with it. I actually have to edit it in... why? Anyway, long story short: I'm doing this to learn 3D modeling, eventually try to make this into a Mod, and release the completed models for anyone else who also wants to try and turn it into a mod but maybe doesn't like the modeling aspect. Any recommendations on a solid, free EDM viewer? I need one to reference how other aircraft are modeled. I am using Blender. My current plan is to merge all four pieces (wing, fuselage, fuselage 'spine', tail) into one. Should I do that in a new save and keep the pieces separate or just split the model later on and create separate files after? Any and all advice is welcome, as I don't really know what I'm doing. I'm only posting this again because I posted the original in the wrong part of the forum and I really don't know how to change it or delete it. So this is the second thread I've made with some of these pictures... if you're a mod/admin, please delete the other post in the main mods section. Sorry, and thanks.

I'm looking to create an Avro Arrow model and eventually get it flying in game... I don't know how long it could take, but I could use some help with getting better reference images than I have now. I'd love a straight-on picture of the front. The first group of photos to show my progress is as follows: Progress! So, for some reason, in pictures, the seam between the wings and the "spine" looks perfectly straight/flat, like you could put a long level on it and see no gap between it and the wings. Apparently that's just an optical illusion, as putting a flat triangle wing on an appropriate angle doesn't work in the slightest. Either I follow the contours of the fuselage and curve the wings slightly or get something that can't look like the photos. (It's only super obvious in the picture below because it only bends at 2 points right now.) Is that right, or is my model off that badly? Can someone correct me if so? Thanks. Progress! The wings are still giving me trouble, as they seem to hang lower during flight than they do on the ground... and I'm going to have to compensate or figure out the appropriate hang/angle somehow. I could use still some help with getting workable images or video of the following: landing gear folding, cockpit, weapons bay, weapons bay doors, and weapons. To anyone who can assist, thanks. Oh, right, I've also got some progress with the tail as well... anyone know if the Arrow had RWR? Also, how am I supposed to do damage modelling? Well, I'll try to get it flying in one piece before I make its destruction look good.

I figured out why I had so much trouble with my steering going towards the bow: The wind speed, once it passes 10 knots (+27 ship speed), pushes on the rudder enough to put the nosewheel into the wind once the brakes come off. At 15 (+27 ship speed) knots the effect is almost instant. I always had the ship going into the wind, which is why I didn't notice it sooner. Edit: And yes, that's way too fast. I should have been aiming for 30 knots total, right? Or does the Skyhawk want another windspeed for launch?

The new poll is up for anyone interested. It's at:

That is one of the purposes of 'Maybe'; I'm glad you found it intuitive enough to use. The poll options only have 2 yes answers because the second yes answer reveals something that needs to be changed with other parts of the game for someone to see it as viable. "Yes (once maps are large enough) is not a perfect poll answer, but it nudges closer to 'yes' than 'maybe' because the onus is more on the developer than the customer. The cold war started really close to the end of WWII, so I think "Early Cold War..." covers your desired version. If not, sorry, I thought it did. I intentionally removed current day versions because it would be the only official version of an aircraft to be in that era, and therefore not really make a whole lot of sense. Oh, awesome, thanks. I think I'll leave the option in because it doesn't meaningfully split the vote. I also don't know if I'll mess up the poll by deleting an answer. 1) You would fall into the 'Maybe' category/answer for the poll. I have adjusted the answer to reflect that; thanks for your input. It's probably not the response you wanted, but your request is asking for a second non-committal answer where the onus of the decision lies entirely with the customer (see above in this post for the explanation of why maps being larger gets its own yes answer). Maybe you have a perfect track record of buying every module you said you would buy in the future, but not everyone does. In general, people who say they'll buy a luxury item (not important to everyday living like food, affordable transportation, utilities, shelter, etc.) in the future don't follow up on those words often enough to be a reliable 'Yes'. And since I'm polling lots of people, all of whom neither I nor potential developers know personally, providing an extra 'Maybe' answer in the form of a 'Yes' would only serve to obfuscate the meaningful data. 2) Thanks for telling me, I think I'll leave the option in because it doesn't meaningfully split the vote and obfuscate the data (it's still a no). I also don't know if I'll mess up the poll by deleting an answer, and don't want to risk it.

Yeah, I think that answer is a bit lacking, which sucks. Hopefully in the future. Thanks for providing the link.

A big thank you to Rick50, who responded graciously to my suggestion to improve his poll and encouraged me to make a new thread that hopefully: A) Will be seen as fair by everyone. B) Will inform people who want this module of how many other people there are and what the general consensus might be. C) Will be capable of informing any future developers should they ever care to take a look when they want to research on a potential new module. I admit my hopes for B and C are lofty, especially since I'm a fighter person and would likely not buy this module myself. Rick50 also let me use his question and choices on the variants question.

I was just wishing to even use the preexisting parking places to spawn where I wanted without having to use AI or static objects. As noted in my first picture (I tested by adding one at a time) the jets get added in this order. When playing, the first jet I pick always starts in position 1, but then every spawn after that spawns in position 5, then 6 if 5 is taken at the time. I'd like to spawn my jets in positions 7-12 first. These are all positions that the AI has pathing for/works with, and it works with the a-4 mod as seen in the photo. Though I'm starting to suspect that maybe the jets don't have pathing so much as an algorithm that calculates where each is, how much space it has vs needs, and where it needs to go? I don't know, and it's quite confusing to me why we can't get access to this variable in the mission editor, but I do know that the mission file literally has a ["parking_id"] = "1" automatically on every jet set to the carrier when starting from parking hot or ramp (cold). Things like land bases will have their parking_id actually different from each other (I have a couple of mig-15s in spots automatically assigned 18 and 19 in the same file), so it does seem like these are positions that just need to be accessed from the UI to be useful. Okay, if that's all that would be needed, I have to ask: why aren't we allowed to place jets in the water anyway? I mean, when creating a mission, we want to create working missions, so jets that go sploosh right away would be a minor thing we'd probably take care of and make sure start on deck anyway... I'm certain there's got to be some reason that I don't have the knowledge of, but this all seems like (and I'm not an expert, so I'm probably wrong) minor fixes or changes that could be done fairly quickly to create an even more realistic sim. Or maybe, if possible (and in the future), have the carriers (each one) use its own topical overlay mapping of some kind that we could draw ourselves? Like, the program parses different colour boxes and lines for parking and pathing, with a set amount of colours predetermined by DCS? Then, for each mission, we could change the overlay map and it would just follow it? Bah! I'm probably giving some poor programmer a headache just by typing this. I'll provide a picture just to make the idea clear, anyway (second image). Really though, my wish here is to be able to determine which spot I start in. There are 12 working spots here, so why not let me determine which one in the mission editor? Even if I get a solid 'no' I'd like to know why something that seems so simple can't be done or is so much more work than I might think it is.