virgo47

Seems OK to me. Thanks Flappie. It's not mentioned in the changelog, but I take it anyway.

My first question about QAC would be... why does it load terrain before I even choose one? Why does it take many (tens) of seconds before I can even interact with it? If it needs terrain to continue, ask me first. If it needs era before being useful - ask me first. Ask me quickly. Then do the long stuff. It's surprising nobody thought about these simple UX things... of course, if it's early alpha, OK, but then don't leave the details to some forum post, but add (ALPHA) after the menu option, so it's obvious it's an early experimental phase. I'm probably a bit harsh, but to eat 7G of VRAM and 20+G of RAM + waiting quite long - just to get to the first choices, that seems to be an obvious thing to avoid. And using CW Germany as the default map for that (assuming one has it) is just making the bad case even worse.

That just tells you the trim is neutral - not that this is the right trim for current moment in flight. It's only good when you want to reset trim - that is, to find the neutral position. Some modules even have a trim reset function, which is not always present in the real plane. So it's a kind of "assistant" (or cheat, if someone insists ). Su-25T does not have this action - or at least not available in provided bindings.

What about other Warsaw Pact countries? As far as I know, Czechoslovakia got MiG-29s just before the 1990s started, similarly GDR... so it's a matter of interpretation to some degree, but realistically, MiG-29 was not the backbone of any air force, not even Russian during most of the 1980s. I can only translate the page, but it doesn't seem to firmly suggest there were 600 units in 1985, even generous estimates are more in the 200-300 range. And when it comes to the potential front line, e.g. Germany/Czechoslovakia - we had MiG-23, many 21s as well, and various Su bombers. MiG-29 was a sci-fi for most of the 1980s here.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I assume this will be higher on their priority list than, say, Yak-52, but how high with all the other top-tier ED modules still in the development, that's the question. That said, I'm glad there are many people who like and buy the module. For me, it's a pass, at least for now. Maybe I'll add it later, but right now it would just be a hangar queen - and I've got quite a lot of those already. But the module looks impressive, at least from the video.

I tried F-15C - and there was no problem. There was no problem with Su-25T either. But there was a problem with F/A-18C, F-5C and L-39 (as originally demonstrated). Track is in the attachment, video is here: I was a bit suspicious about video settings, so I halved the quality sliders, but there was no visible difference. However, I enabled max FPS and disabled VSYNC for this one. I tried to recreate the same problem with MiG-15 (non-FC) and TF-51D... no luck. So it's not one plane, but it's not all the planes either. And I'm confuses what the problem is. I hope you are more knowledgable about it than I am. I had a similar problem with the Dover Castle on The Channel map - and I know it's not yours - but again, it is more confusing after today. I couldn't recreate the problem reliably and repeatedly, so it seems to be something with some map models and something else as well. rovaniemi.trk

This is my experience with the latest patch. I'll be away from the game for a few days but later I can add more info such as track, configuration, etc. Oh, and thanks for coming back to me.

Thanks, I encountered it over this Rovaniemi building: These are the coordinates: This seems to be a unique Rovaniemi building. Of course, I'm not 100% sure it's that one causing the FPS drop, but it seems the most probably culprit.

I'm just trying, but it's not making the experience easier from the typical DCS bug reporting perspective. 1) Discord is another platform. 2) It's mixing DCS and MSFS content. 3) There is still no clear bug reporting channel - at least not for newcomers.

I made one more (shorter) video - and with DCS stats. Even though the Afterburner doesn't show anything suspicious on the CPU, DCS stats show clearly that that area is CPU bound. This is not a speciality of Dover castle only, I found similar stuff on other maps and with other buildings - so it seems there is something about some buildings that cause a massive problem. But I don't want to diverge here.

Dear Kola users, what is your experience? Does Orbx regularly respond to bug reports? I was surprised that the Bugs & Problems link leads to "Suggestions for DCS: Kola Map by Orbx" on the external forum, which is annoying (another registration). And bugs are definitely not the same as suggestions - there should be some dedicated subforums for just bugs/problems. And the other subforum link is 404, which seems a bit amateurish - or at least disconnected from our DCS world. I wanted to report low FPS over a particular building model, but I don't see many responses in the bug reports there - or was I just unlucky in my search?

I've encountered the same issue recently. Flying around the castle causes extreme stutters. Track file attached. Video demonstration here: I've got 5060 Ti 16GB in PCIe 3.0, that's true, but the FPS drop is massive compared to the reasonable FPS before. Something fishy is definitely going on there in that spooky castle. One more observation - when the simulation time is slowed down (1/2, 1/4)... the FPS drop is not that massive. It seems like DCS is very quickly loading something or what (wild guess), because the FPS is not caused by the scene itself, but by the fact we pass around very quickly. test-channel-down-dover.trk

MSI Afterburner seems to report pretty good number (most of the time within 10 MB difference, rarely more): However, the total amount of taken VRAM (~7G here) is clearly affected by DCS, whether it is explicitly use by it or not. So even if DCS reports usage way under 8GB, it doesn't guarantee good experience on 8GB card, because what DCS does affects the other usage of the card - even if it is not used by the process itself. It's not quite about the OP problem, but DCS definitely needs more VRAM than it reports. Way more. It's not just "add 2.5GB for other usage" or "it's just the browser and Windows itself" (not quoting anybody here ). On Germany, I have a much bigger difference between the numbers (example picture is not from Germany map).

I hardly ever use The Channel map - but for whatever reason, I bought that one first on some 50% sale. And it was nice to fly around, but it really is small. And I don't have any campaigns for it yet, so... that's why I don't use it. But with it, I could buy Normandy 2.0 (without having the first version at all) for close to nothing (was it 15? I don't remember). That one was a steal, really. Normandy is beautiful, much bigger, and has both London and Paris for fun flying. So I don't say The Channel is bad, but it is the best way to get both for a very good price. Is it an exploit? I don't know. I just wanted the Channel because I saw it in some other low-level-flying videos - but now we have many more good options for that. Syria, Normandy, Marianas, and obviously Germany now... these are all great low-level (and good also from mid-level, unlike AF/IQ). But back to the maps... get both, starting with The Channel and then Normandy for an unbelievable price as well.

Great news, especially the assets - and especially being part of the core game for free. Absolutely fantastic. I have a strangely good vibes about the last couple of DCS updates, quite a lot of bug fixes... maybe because a few fixes important for me were added, but still. I like the updates since the version unification quite a lot, including the cadence, etc. Keep up the good work.