HoBGoBLiNzx3

Yeah, but DCS doesn't give you the option of running DLSS 2.0 either... That is available on every RTX card I believe. Possibly even the GTX cards.

I 100% agree with that. That's what the thread was for, my point was that it was released because MSFS already released that a year ago...

I don't really mind what they use... they just need to use SOMETHING.

No doubt Skate, I don't think anyone in DCS will be expecting double the frame rate. However, you know exactly the merits of vulkan and multithreading. As I've agreed many times before on your opinions on the matter. DLSS3.0 will however be much better with it than it is without running it in native, with missing or poorly done lods, shadow texture samples are through the roof, the lighting and other methods used make VR a one trick pony but an amazing one.. It's the multicore + vulkan + (what ever features they are now able to add like DLSS3.0, RTX, etc) If DCS gives you the goods, and you can't run it, that's on the buyer. People keep brushing over the simple fact that MSFS is putting all this out in double the time DCS is and the amount of time they claim they have been working on it.. Sure, unless your there working on the project we don't "know" how hard it is to debug all of the errors and get it running smoothly.. buy I can tell you that a whole year of debugging means not enough guys are doing it. If only the rest of us could say, When you need something done, hire more, or better people. Make deadlines, and enforce them. This is why we have a BETA version in the first place. In any other profession that I can think of, this wouldn't fly. Nasa would have 3 more rovers built by the time this <profanity> drops.

That's exactly my point...... If you want to do entire start up procedure you gottas switch seats and do jesters job... So it's practically auto start as it is..

Yeah well you can guess all you want. MSFS sells and you don't even get to blow stuff up.... and cold starts don't mean <profanity>. Most people don't care about starting up the aircraft. I learn all my modules because I'm interested in it. I was much more interested in learning THE REST of the module... not how to turn the Battery, APU, and Idle Throttles.. Half the people who fly only use FC3 jets anyways, and a lot of them have VR. Considering you can get a Quest 2 for around 60 dollars more than TrackIR now... I'd say it's a pretty good portion of the base. Also, we are talking about multicore performance first and foremost which in fact helps everyone..

We aren't supposed to nate other "games" but being that they already released what we have been waiting for and then now just posted this.. I think it's fair that it's shared...

I have used that in the past, maybe I'll give it another go. I hated having to start that cmd window before every time I played though. Would you happen to know WHICH of the files in this mod would cause it? Or a good guess at least? If that passes, this technically should too... atmosphere.hlsl -- Disable atmosphere for things close to camera. Haze bloom.fx -- Disable bloom blurCompute.fx -- Disable bloom Compose.fx -- Removed one GBuffer Compose.hlsl -- Read multi-sampled terrain shadows histogramCompute.fx -- Simplified histogram calculation shadows.hlsl -- Use less samples in shadow mapping Tonemap.fx -- Disable bloom. NVG gain control. Enable dithering to reduce banding. ils151.hlsl -- Mip bias adjustment for sharper text diffuse.hlsl -- Albedo texture supersampling forward_def_ps.hlsl -- Simple transparent object shading (propellers, smoke, etc.) glass.hlsl -- Simplified canopy glass NVD_common.hlsl -- NVG gain control. Size of the NVG scope. Vertical position of the NVG scope NVD_HDR.fx -- NVG gain control. NVG noise strength. NVG noise threshold for "hot" pixels. Vertical position of the NVG scope

Hey Speed, I'm trying to get it to pass IC. I saw you mention something about it a few pages back but there wasn't much of an explanation. Shadow reduction and haze reduction was my main reason for using it but I enjoy using everything in here. What do I need to do to get it to pass IC? Appreciate any help I can get!

It isn't starting the engines that stop people from going through it manually, it's the daunting tasks of aligning HMD's, setting INS, doing bit testing, all the small nuances that you'd prefer not to do if you die 2 mins into a flight... lol and like I said.. multi seat aircraft..like the F-14. That is one particular aircraft I always auto start because of that specific reason. I manually start all the other ones though. I think it should just be part of a overall Full Sim options for the server. Not a specific checkbox. So MP servers can run it how they are.. or you can run sim settings and you don't get any assistance at all, map, atc text, awacs text, chat is disabled, F-10 map all markers are off. Etc.

You keep equating auto start with riffraf. Why is it that you think this? Most taxi take offs happen in PVP servers with hot start. They don't even set their own aircraft up before departure. They are using hot starts, not auto starts... it would be counter intuitive to think this way, or use it as an example for your campaign to control it sever wide. You aren't going to win over anyone in your quest by being disingenuous. I personally wouldn't mind if it was an option. Same as view restriction and loadout restrictions. However, just know that the difference is getting people flying... if you stand in the way of that, there could be detrimental consequences. Especially if the admins aren't in touch with it's player bases... A lot of people fly in groups of friends, or online discord channels, etc, etc. They won't want to stop flying with friends because some prick wanted other people to do a few other clicks before having to start their mission.. I personally auto start a few.. and a few I don't. Example.. Going through the start up procedure for the F-14 without autostart is a pain in the ass because most of it is done in the RIO seat. If you want realism. Switching seats isn't realistic either... And telling jester to do his job is a long winded waste of time, to do it all over again if you get shot down...

You don't think that might have something to do with it's lack of core features that a large number of people have been complaining about for 4 years not being addressed, or at least not in a somewhat reasonable timeline? I think most DCS players, especially VR users, and those with mid tier components, have been pretty patient but I know quite a few that have just given up on the sim, at least until it's figured out. When ED says that multicore support is in the final stages of testing over a year ago, and announced it over 3 years ago, you can't help but feel strung along. If even 3 people are working on this project.. that's how many hours between them since it's been started... or even since it's been advertised at almost complete? That's over 6000 hours in just ONE year... let that sink in.

To be fair, and I do agree with most of what you said as it is almost always true. The person who originally posted it (he posted it in multiple forums) was explaining all of them in detail. I just didn't want to DM him and try and give him some sort of unpaid tasks that most people probably wouldn't ever see. lol. Here is the link to the wiki page (that section is looking for detailed input) There are quite a few options that should be changed and I have no idea why Nvidia has them enabled. As an example. Force P2 State... https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Nvidia_Profile_Inspector

All i know is I used the default global setting and I immediately noticed a difference in depth when it comes to sizing of the objects, tress, mountains. Flying at higher altitude you can absolutely tell the difference in scale. Whatever it does, I don't care. It just looks way better lol. Does anyone know of the other settings in inspector that can have any positive changes? If someone posted a list of each option and their description that would be fantastic, as I couldn't find any details on the specifics of each. If this is too much work, I understand, but it would definitely be a big help in the long run for people who will create profiles and share them.

What are everyone's color values hue/sat/etc +r/g/b?

I keep it on 44. I had it on 46 and it was good there too but after a while it did start feeling a bit small. I find the best way besides matching your stick size and leg size/length is to load on to caucus on start or ramp. Taxi to a cargo jet. They will look way to small.. Remember how big these jets really are. If you were in the cockpit and looked at your wing tips, missiles, and stabilizers just try to imagine exactly how big they would be. For the quest 2 I find anywhere from 42-46 is ideal. 44 being the sweet spot. It takes a bit getting used to if you're used to the smaller scale but once you do you'll notice how much better the MFD's are, checking your 6, and less cockpit switch and control error.

I'll likely keep my Vram untouched and just push the core +60 or so and call it a day. Then I don't have to worry about it. I'd push the core harder but it's on fan only and I can't see a 2060 getting any real noticeable frames that would make a difference. It does smooth out the 90hz on the headset though which is what I was after in the first place. The 120hz was a dream until 5 mins later when it was pushing 120 degrees. lol. I was actually getting better frames with 120hz than anything, and no ghosting, nodda. It's a little off topic but was the reason why I was OC it in the first place.

No I totally agree but It was crashing at splash at +40/+400... When It was easily able to handle +100/+1000. I'm trying to figure out exactly that. WHY is DCS so sensitive to VRAM clocking..

Will definitely look into this. Yeah it is odd.. What is more weird is ED states that not only does OC afterburner cause problems but stock OC cards do too...!

It's known and warned on ED's support page that GPU overclocking can result in crash issues. I previously had a MSI afterburner clock on my RTX2060 it wasn't very high, and I can't remember the actual numbers but... I was OCing my i7-9700K (5hz @ 1.4 -2 I believe) stable, disabled all CPU power saving features. (Runs great) So I decided to stress test my GPU on Kombustor.. I was able to get a stable +140/+1200 clock with no crashes, but decided on a safer clock because of DCS (VR might I add) So I set the clock to +100/+1000. Single player booted instantly, and I was getting smooth 60fps (1.5 @ 90hz) with a 3960ER and 500BR. No SS anywhere. No crashes, No problem!? Except joining MP servers hangs on mission load splash... So I reduced the clock... nothing worked. Not even the smallest of increased clock speed or memory. Leaving me no choice really but to abandon the OC all together... Which is less than ideal, considering the stable nature of the clock, and the quality and performance that was achieved in SP. Now I'm well aware of the CPU load on MP but I'm failing to see the connection between GPU performance and SP/MP performance when it comes to at least clock speeds and memory???????? Can someone explain why this is?... and how to get the a stable OC to not hang/CTD in MP??????

Can we have a section under the server info that displays the TIme/Date/Weather For those who want to find a server that is running supercarrier ops.. high precipitation + low visibility (day or night) + wind readings etc. Thanks!

Using the AFLIR on the F-18 in VR (could be 2d as well not sure) with medium draw distance. Objects such as targets are rendering before their surroundings. Once the draw distance loads the ground in full zoom, you will notice the targets, once you get closer the rest of the terrain will load around it, like trees, buildings, etc. I've ran into this 4 times now. They are kind of hard to make out but you can see they are trucks, and the only thing rendered in the entire area.

There are lots of really cool details DCS could implement from the sound of the launches to the shaking of the aircraft similar to heatblurs F-14, accurately depicting speed, vapor trails at lower altitudes and speeds etc. Just little stuff that adds so much to the experience. Not sure if this has been seen by the devs but it would be a nice touch to authenticity in the smaller details. Not necessarily the highest priority but I'd say you can tell some big differences. That may have to do with the camera work but it seems to be more than that.

Dude IRC existed and was still used in like 2015! lol!!! I actually really liked it during the CS and R6 Rogue Spear days... I hated when mom made you get off the computer cause she had to make a call. You were the coolest if you had TWO phone lines so you didn't have to get off AOL instant messenger.

That is why he clearly said, along with others. That if you're going to create a NEW game in the future. It would likely be ideal to find an current engine such as UE5. People keep using the fact that DCS isn't about "visual fidelity" yet they are playing DCS and not BMS... which by a lot of accounts does things better than DCS in those realms but completely falls short in terms of content, graphics, accessibility for new users, etc. Graphics ARE important. Especially for VR users. That doesn't mean they have to be the MOST important thing in terms of developing their game. That might not even be the most important thing now. Not everything has to be compared to NOW because we aren't talking about now. This is a prime example of what I mean.. A MR/VR cockpit experience that right now may seem unfeasible as a standard but in 15 years this might be at the standard that VR is right now in flight sims... so, being that many features everyone is claiming we will get.. like multicore support and vulkan (wasn't that promised last year?) It's almost q32022... Never the less, MCS was a basic feature in BF3... or any other game around that time.. It's 2022 man. Now I'm really looking forward to when it's released because I enjoy the game and it's content. Be that as it may, that doesn't shield them from criticism, or discussions on future implementations. So it's not far fetched to think about what is happening now.. and throw 15 years of even bigger, more complex tech, at them and expect anything different without massive amounts of people. So most people would come to the conclusion that if you start a new game, on an engine that supports most of these features via plugin (yes all the coding, physics, etc need to be done from scratch, we know this) but it would be a NEW game. Not a port. Don't take this as a cheap jab at ED or their developers. It's hard enough for AAA titles and their engineers to put out a quality product with the resources and money they have at their disposal. DCS does do a fantastic job, but they aren't perfect, nor would they claim to be. This is just the reality of the speed of technological evolution. Can they keep up? Do they have the resources to keep up? I would like to think so, but I would also like to think they would have to go out of house to get some help in a lot of aspects of it because of the shear size of making a modern title let's say in 2030... Games will likely be 500gb's with 12k real time 3D textures with "world scale" technology to import and manipulate. lol look at Falcon 4.0 when it came out. It was what? You needed a 1.8ghz CPU, 512mb or ram, 700mb of storage, and a dx7 graphics card.. DCS pushes over 20GB of VRAM in todays world in some cases... so you do the math.. I don't think DCS will be able to just continue on forever as the same title on the same engine. So don't berate the guy for wanting to have a logical conversation about the future of the game.