79Au

No it's not, at least not part of the combat simulation. It's eye candy effect BS. Some people seem to forget that we sit in front of some kind of monitor and the lighting conditions aren't always optimal, and it's not always possible to choose the right sitting direction.

I should really try to dig it up because to me it was quite a shocker but apparently it didn't make it into a reddit drama post haha.

A pipedream because couple months ago we were told they haven't even started working on improved basket physics.

There should be a new skill level to represent less disciplined insurgents shooting from the hip or being intoxicated. (Yes that's a thing) Overall we need more survivability to make interesting and realistic COIN missions. Right now the infantry are little human mini-shilkas that swat everything out of the sky they see. Aimbot + no recoil. Same for MGs on vehicles. AI Apache armed with 30mm attacks 2 technicals with dishkas... Apache got shot down 4 out of 5 times.

DDR4 also uses 1.2-1.35 for the most part. I just saw his default voltage was 1.1 so I assumed DDR5 could be a bit more sensitive since the voltages tend to decrease over the generations of DDR RAM.

and maybe turn off "XMP DDR5 auto booster" too, if possible, but I'm not sure how it's supposed to work on this particular motherboard/BIOS Dude I didn't notice there's two boost options until now, and I'm confusing the names of the booster settings, this stuff is driving me nuts haha

In your test you used the incorrect boost profiles. The reason it worked is you chose a profile that was below the spec of your RAM kit and the voltage went from 1.1 (in your first post) to 1.25. Of course, you could go with these "incorrect" settings but I'd recommend to set DDR5 XMP booster to disabled and set the correct setting "Extreme Memory Profile X.M.P." to XMP 1 like I described in the "answer/solution post"

FYI I edited my post^^ a couple times, and man I wish they would stop adding these weird booster crap options. It's confusing and those who know what they're doing (the overclockers) won't use it anyways, they'd enter the values in manual mode. Most of the time, the autoboost stuff will apply way too much voltage, it's some kind of brute force overclocking. It's no coincidence that your "boost profiles" go from 1.25 to 1.45V. The latter is pretty high even for DDR4 standards. (DDR4 1.2-1.35V "default")

Huh, looks like I was right. Picture #8 in your last post shows the correct XMP dropdown/list/setting. (="Extreme Memory Profile X.M.P." it's below the booster setting) Set this to XMP 1 or XMP 2 and your memory will run at the advertized speed. (set xmp booster to disabled) I wouldn't use any "auto boost" or xmp boost stuff in general. Every motherboard manufacturer offers these "marketing bs" auto overclocking or tuning options, under different names, and sometimes it's hard to tell if it's that, or if it's a legit setting like automatic clock speeds for CPU. We don't want to interfere or use manual clock speeds for CPUs nowadays. (Just as example) edit (pic#6) I don't think you're supposed to mess with the memory multiplier/speeds, that's for "manual mode", if you don't want to use the profile. On my system i could not find the "xmp" setting right away so I just punched in clock speed, timings and voltage manually until I found out on AMD systems they call XMP DOCP or something.

Yeah I also think the XMP boost is really an unnecessary "boost" feature that overrides/replaces the actual XMP profile and it should be left "disabled".

I think he's just in the wrong dropdown. The correct XMP profile is stored inside the RAM, not in BIOS. It looks like it's some kind of generic settings as backup or idk. OP needs to find the actual XMP profile that comes with the memory. BIOS update most likely won't help. (And I wouldn't recommend it) to be clear, any XMP compatible motherboard should be able to read out the profile inside the RAM sticks, no matter what BIOS version. The profiles we see in picture# 2 are most likely "fake" or "generic" and stored on the motherboard. I don't think a BIOS update will magically add that one specific kingston XMP profile OP needs. (That's not how XMP is supposed to work, it kinda defeats the purpose of it) It's already there, we just can't find it. There should only be one or two profiles, from the same manufacturer, in the actual profile list. It wouldn't surprise me if "XMP boost" is some kind of fancy overclocker feature, maybe a set of additional profiles in case the user doesn't want to use the actual, real, correct original XMP profile that's inside the memory, for whatever reason.

Haha, I'm a bit out of the loop, especially when it comes to DDR5, but what I noticed right away, there shouldn't be so many XMP profiles, there should only be one or two, the ones that are stored inside you memory kit. (on picture #2) To me it looks like it's a seletion of generic profiles for different chip manufacturers. Weird, maybe that's some kind of feature. Now, the line below the selected item/drop down menu says "Extreme Memory Profile(X.M.P.)", maybe that's where the correct profiles appear. I can't see exactly what memory kit you're using. There should be some kind of product number but it doesn't seem to appear in any of the pictures. My G skill memory would be called something like "F4-3600C17D-32GTZR". You need to identify your RAM kit and google it, and compare/set the values accordingly. I'd look it up and see what the specifications are. The last number of the XMP profile name in picture #2 seems to be the voltage, I wasn't sure if voltage is part of the profile but it seems like it is. So it should adjust the voltage automatically when selecting a profile. I see that your current DRAM voltage is 1.1, it's significantly lower than the numbers in the generic profile names. The "generic" xmp profiles in picture #2 use 1.25V to 1.45V, but don't use these profiles, sounds kinda sporty and 1.45 could damage your sticks over time. Motherboard manufacturers tend to include potentially harmful "overclocking" settings and profiles that shouldn't be used in a 24/7 setup. edit n: What you could try right now is to raise DRAM voltage from 1.1 to 1.2, and see if it's stable, But without the specifications of your memory it's a (safe) gamble. It could be a 1.25 kit, or maybe even a 1.45 kit, but without confirmation I wouldn't go past 1.2 or 1.3V max.

No I disagree. "Force them" seriously?! Players should choose for themselves how they want to play the game. In my opinion this should be part of the server or squadron rules. I'm sure there's tons of squadrons who aim for total realism. But you can't force all players to obey to IRL rules, some prefer a more liberal approach to flight simming.

Yeah make sure the memory gets enough votage. Check if BIOS/profile settings match the specifications of the memory. If the memory won't run at correct voltage and speed/timings, you could A) send it back as defective/unstable, or B) (that's what I did if I remember correctly), to manually increase the voltage a bit (0.05V-0.1V) and maybe you get "lucky". edit Yes that's how "it works" these days. Unless you manually acivate the XMP profiles, the memory will run at a much lower speed. But yeah on a prebuilt machine it should be set up before the PC leaves the factory. edit2 But don't confuse internal clock and effective/"marketing" clock speeds, some monitoring tools read the "true" I/O clock which is half the advertised marketing value that takes DDR into account. A 3600 kit will show up as 1800MHz in CPU-Z for example.

Huh. I also have a GTX 1080 and 5800X CPU. But the problem is, the 7900XTX is more than twice as expensive, so we still get the same fps/$ as in 2017... Yawn. I'm not an eye candy guy. F4.0 has better SAMs, better ATC, better AI, dynamic campaign, and it runs on a Pentium III 1GHz and 64MB GPU. (No, we don't need a nasa computer or multithreading™ before the DCS core can be improved)

Having a default "new file" name in the save box is standard in any software, new projects appear as "new project" or "untitled" or whatever, exactly because of the problem OP described. People who aren't aware of this DCS problem are unlikely to double check the name in the save box. Sometimes depending on the names or naming conventions people use, file names look almost identical. ("2022-11-28 PG freeroam" and "2022-11-26 PG freeroam" for example). People simply don't expect to overwrite anything existing, when they save their freshly created "New Mission.miz" for the first time. And the "confirm overwrite" box appears every time we move the ME map, so most people got used to hitting Yes over and over again, it appears all the time. If people get distracted while saving the new mission, they're going to think "oh I already entered a name" and hit "Yes overwrite" because they're used to it. Boom, previous mission is gone. Or when they see the warning message they think there's just an old "New Mission" file somewhere they don't need anymore. Putting an existing file name as the default name when saving recently created "New Mission.miz" is... sabotage!

Maybe they could use the gunner skill slider from the huey module?

No, you don't need a physical launchbar in a video game. I think OP means just the game logic and keybinds. Adding some kind of frankenstein carrier capability would increase sales in the beginning, isn't that what early access is all about?

Meanwhile there are thousands of weird agricultural roads/trails all over the map... What were they thinking.

It would be cool if every airport had its own probability for bird strikes, but yeah it's "Digital COMBAT Simulator", not "airport wildlife manager 2022" In my opinion there's plenty of bugs and stuff missing in the core of the game, like missing SAMs and the broken SCUD launcher. Or they could make vehicles that spawn infantry under certain circumstances, if a convoy is attacked for example. (edit: with animations and doors opening)

Dee-eee-ecent! That's incredible. Driving a ship in DCS from 1st person is a dream come true. Thank you!

Another issue is, guns without fire control systems should have reduced accuracy at the beginning. That would greatly increase the survivability and warn players that they're taking fire before it's too late. ATM it's hard to make counter insurgency scenarios because 4 or 5 insurgents are enough to make it impossible to fly over a village without getting shot down instantly. We need more realistic, excited, allahuakbar-yelling insurgents who just spray the sky and make you feel uncomfortable. Make the dispersion super high so it becomes impossible for them to hit a target beyond short range (~300m) unless they get lucky. (on rookie)

Haha no, not at all. I'm glad there are helicopters in my hangar that aren't stuffed with these silly computers. Huey 4 life homie. B-)

My observations: - The bomb starts at just 250 knots TAS, which is rather slow. The bomb actually accelerates after the drop. (Which would mean there shouldn't be an energy problem per se if the CCRP math is correct, but I can't tell which mode OP's in or if they're in range) For reference, the default impact velocity of a JDAM is 700fps or 415 knots. I don't have the A-10, but it seems realistic that A-10s are indeed dropping LGBs at around 250-300 kn TAS. But, in my experience (F-18), below ~400 TAS guided munitions begin to struggle maintaining their intended flight path at the terminal stage. (in DCS of course, don't know about IRL. LGB, JDAM, HARM, SLAM etc., if released manually with too much optimism) - It looks like the bomb loses the laser spot for a second and drops the nose. (Aims behind intended target) Then it picks it up again and tries to pull up, and that's where the sluggishness appears that I mentioned above. It looks like it's stalling. - The plane is very low (and slow), maybe that leaves little room for error and the short "hiccup" after drop was enough to make the bomb stall. - An LGB travelling at a good velocity will impact on an almost straight trajectory. This guy here is dragging it out, much more than the movement of the target justifies. To me it's plausible that the weird trajectory is due to the increase in fin authority as the bomb accelerates. (but it was too late/too slow at release) Just a couple thoughts, I don't fly the hawg and never dropped LGB's below 500 TAS at that altitude I've seen a couple reports about LGBs and other weapons missing their allocated impact point (x/y game coordinates), which shouldn't happen in a game, but here it's difficult to rule out velocity/fin authority issues.

Adjusting the brightness of the IFLOS should be part of the airboss station, in my opinion. But I don't know how the real thing works. ED talked about controlling carrier lighting, but SC is definitely on the back burner, despite being still in EA.