virgo47

I'm puzzled about this thing for CH-47F: Added. Ground detent position for the Thrust Cont Lever. And I'm not alone, obviously (the comment is from after the update): I know what it does when it's checked in Special Options (appearing as ugly GROUND_DETENT). I investigated, why my Ng "needles" settle ~63 instead of 50-55. Only when I press AND HOLD a keybind for "Ground Detent override - pressing" it goes down to normal values. So my laymen observation is, that it disables/offsets the lower range of the thrust lever, but I have no idea how it should work because the manual doesn't say anything about it (at least not when I search in text). If there is a ground detent, is it so coarse that I can't just pull the lever gently above it? Does it always jump to ~63 on Ng indicator? Also, if it is a detent, shouldn't there be more than just a single hold-n-press binding for it?

EDIT: I forgot to point out this uses bash from Git for Windows, it's not a cmd command. No, that command merely detects the missions that have SnapViews anywhere in the mission (but that will likely be under Config/View). In most case the whole Config folder from inside the *.miz file can go away (my experience, of course, somebody more qualified can clarify or point out exceptions). Don't do this for the missions in the DCS installation directory - instead, copy the mission into your Missions (under Saved Games), fix it there and leave the default one be. It would be overridden by the next update anyway. So just play your fixed mission instead of the one from the training.

It seems this was remedied to some degree. I don't have all modules, but the current output from the command above is much shorter: F-16C/Missions/Training/Lesson 20 - AGM-65 Maverick.miz M-2000C/Missions/Training/M2K Training 04 FINAL ILS.miz Su-25A/Missions/Campaigns/CWW-Outro.miz I'm not sure about F-16C and M-2000C, whether the missions were updated, if I don't own the plane and just trialled it in the past. They seem to be as the date on the F-16C mission is 2025-03-19, so it's quite up to date. In any case, it's much better - as for P-51D, it's actually fixed. Maybe the command above can be run occasionally as some part of testing process by someone having all the modules: for i in */Missions/*/*.miz; do unzip -l "$i" | grep -iq SnapViews.lua && echo $i ; done BTW: this uses bash from Windows Git, not cmd. In any case, I thank you for the fixes.

Check the mission file (it's just a zip with a different extension), there may be "baked-in" views under Config/View/SnapViews.lua. Just remove the Config/View folder and the missions will be OK. This often happens in community misions, but even some ED's missions are/were broken this way:

I don't doubt there is a problem. I'm just saying that a screenshot is not enough. Let's say the bug goes like this - this is a hypothetical scenario: I have the following snapviews (file attached to the post). I load the following mission (attached in the post). NOTES: The mission is a minimal mission for practical reproduction - that is, a single Player-skill plane, if that is enough to replicate the issue. If it's not plane-specific, use a free Su-25T or TF-51D. Of course, if it's only with some plane or some map, use those. I do this and this in a mission. (Trackfile is included in the post.) I leave the mission and check my snapviews and see that the modification date was updated. I can also see the differences (tools like diff or WinMerge). And again, the modified file is attached to the post. Now somebody can try it and say "yeah, I see it now" - or, sometimes frustratingly, but happens as well - "sorry, it works on my end". And the process can follow one way or the other. This described scenario, with all the necessary config files provided, is important even if it's not the only one where it happens for you. That's OK. The important stuff is that someone else can confirm or not, and then the hunt can continue, e.g. what are your other options, etc. Screenshots and videos are welcome additions, but not enough. Does the process make sense?

ED will not show signs of life without a reproducible use case. I said previously - there were bugs related to views, some were fixed, but there may still be more. But this thread so far was more confusing than evidence based. It's not like nobody believes there are bugs, but always try to make it easy for the guys to reproduce. Provide tracks, configs, videos, evidence. I can't test any Corsair mission as I don't have the bird, yet I wanted to help originally with other missions you provided, but these were wrong missions (baked-in views) and your replay was "but what about"... It's jsut very difficult to help in such a case. Make the case clear, I know it's sometimes really hard, but it's close to impossible to reproduce anything based on anecdotes. These things can even be different bugs caused by different things, just manifesting in a similar manner. ED will not waste time on a report as vague as this one. They have many more quality reports and then they have their priorities as well, so even totally obvious proven bugs are not fixed for many years. Is it Marians WWII related? Is it F-16C training mission related? Is it Corsair related (is it even ED's problem in that case)? Hunt down a concrete case and document it well.

Cargo. Internal cargo support added for UH-1H, Mi-8 and Mi-24P What exactly does this mean? Is it related to this thread?

How did you get to those missions? Are these your missions? Because all the missions have baked-in views, so yes, they will NOT WORK as expected: I started DCS, opened the Mission Editor, created a new Marianas mission, put MiG-15 there, skill Player, saved. No baked in views. Something must have happened to put them there. Try to do this minimal mission and look into the miz file. Mine looks like this: As you can see, no Config subdir there. I'd like to help you, or at least say "I don't know how to, problem is somewhere else", but you have to stop complaining about the mission with baked-in views. They will NOT work with your snap views. As I said above, first things first, be SURE the mission does NOT have baked-in views. Otherwise, we're wasting everybody's time - yours included. Then we can figure out what else is wrong. E.g. how did the config/views appeared there. Or if it's not there, what else doesn't work. Right now we haven't moved from square one. Always follow the evidence. Otherwise things get confusing.

Just a question about the asset packs - is it just models or also AI? Or is it somehow limited by some "core AI"? Because my sense of immersion is much more destroyed when I see a bunch of army guys tackling a very difficult problem called "a fence" or even "going around a building", acting like idiots, really. In that moment, I just don't care whether they are a modern or WWII unit. Sure, DCS planes also have bugs, often unattended for a decade, but at least they are the core experience. Too much stuff is deemed not important for years - even in planes - but when it comes to tech packs, it's another level. NS430 having no radio (although prominently mentioned on the shop page), CA is more of a gimmick with many quality issues, so maybe that's why my perception of anything beyond aircraft and maps (although... maps are also getting complicated) is a bit stained. Don't worry, I'll likely buy it, but pardon my Stockholm syndrome. There is a reason for it.

VRAM is OK unless it suddenly is not. The problem is that with the very same mission, you can get various results with various aircraft. E.g. these are my numbers for UH-1H on Germany map: The helo is actually hot, and with another CH-47F in view. And this is the number with a cold CH-47F after the game finally loaded all the cockpit stuff: This is a brutal difference. So think about that as well. That said, faster memory (nVidia 5xxx wins here) and faster PCIe bus (depends on the MB)... and also PCIe lanes (depends, often AMD has more in the same price range) - this all affects your experience when you run out of VRAM. But the best thing is not to, if possible.

This is an interesting idea. No "free", but "included" somehow. It's not quite the same but much better for some users. And yes, I understand that many other users don't have problems with a separate pack. Of course, there is hard to say whether this would promote some additional sales of those modules... and some modules are 3rd party, so there are some complications. But it's a nice model.

I haven't seen the price tag and assumed $30... which will likely be $15 during sales, true that. Not a big deal. Or maybe even less with WWII pack. The story with the giveway is interesting. Maybe people got shy. Happy flying to you as well.

OK, probably multiple things are going on here, so it's hard to say what exactly is wrong: Corsair-Complete-02.miz is clean, no baked-in views there. The other mission has Config dir inside it, it can be completely removed (Config/View overrides your views): This happens when the mission is "prepared" in the mission editor. That is Flight / Prepare Mission (Ctrl+M). Fly Mission alone does not do this and is safe to use. What happens with the Corsair in the clean mission, I have no idea. I didn't understand the story related to your screenshots of the View folder, not sure what happens when and what gets wrong. So, first step is to be always sure that the mission doesn't have baked-in views. With that, any other troubleshooting leads nowhere and just confuses you. Let's compare only clean missions. But with the "clean" mission, I have no idea what is going on.

Perhaps "fragment" would be a better word. And the whole community is actually a set of many communities (and often just individuals ) with different views. Sorry to tire you with this. I actually own WW2 pack and the other two tech-packs, but that doesn't change my view on the asset packs. Of course, in single-player it doesn't really matter, you either buy it or not, you have it or not, there is no other implication, except for campaigns and perhaps community missions. I understand there is a lot of effort put into those assets and at least it's a big logical group of assets. I can also imagine a developer micro-selling micro things, so this is still better.

Assets Packs are "necessary evil", although I'm not sure about necessary. In any case it splits the community when it comes to MP server access and adds another barrier for entry when it comes to a new theater, e.g. when buying a campaign... But that's part of DCS. GOOD NEWS are those new modules on trial. That's a great news! I love trial program and most modules I've bought were after a trial. (Not all trials turned to purchases, of course.) Trial is a great bonus. Sometimes it's also a great distraction from a routine.

Just to be absolutely sure - what works and what does not? Because there was a problem with the default zoom (the zoom after the mission starts, that is the zoom for the default view). This is just another problem, although it has been fixed in the meantime... Can you at least tell us what is happening with your Saved Games\<DCS>\Config\View\SnapViews.lua file? Does it change when you notice the unexpected behavior? That is - back it up and then compare it (use some kind of diff tool). Also, does it happen with any other plane? Does it happen on any other map with the same plane? This may be plane-related. In SW anything is possible, so it may be even map-related, but I doubt this one. To hunt it down, you have to go analytical.

Are you sure it is resetting - or is it actually not right in particular missions? Because missions can be done in such a way they remember snap-views. It is mostly unintended, but it's easy to create such missions, and even some ED's missions for their modules had these snap-views baked in. That is... create your mission with just a plane and try it. Does it use your snap views? If so, then they are not lost, just overridden by the other mission.

Sometimes I think that if the module makers left some of the "simpler" stuff to a few selected community members, these would be able to: fix missions for them (faster than the module maker would), add missing bindings options, or even add stuff to the manual. And everybody would be happy. Of course, everything would still need to be approved, which is SOME work, but it's often much easier to just approve "looks good to me" stuff than to do it - or even start doing it, especially when the core members are overloaded.

This... NS430 clearly does not have the feature that is mentioned in the description. Not a small one. More like half of the reason to buy it. As for L-39, I'd welcome a newer version, but I don't see that coming anytime soon.

Depending on what you wanna see (details), don't even think about 8GB VRAM. Also, will you plug it into PCIe v3, 4 or 5? If you have an older PCIe 3.0, 5060 would be further throttled when loading textures and stuff from RAM to VRAM as it uses only 8 lanes. But having enough VRAM is better. That does not mean that 3060 12GB is a better option here, it really is slower in the end because of raw performance, not to mention support for newer DLSS, etc. I upgraded from 3060 to 5060 Ti 16GB and it was nearly double the performance. (And yes, I have regularly allocated more than 8GB of VRAM, depending on the mission.) So 3060 vs 5060 8GB... I'd choose none, really. Perhaps if you'd massively lower your texture quality - but what's he point then? As for the memory consumption, just check my video comparing map in otherwise empty mission (timestamp goes right to the VRAM usage): Hope that helps you making the right decision.

In the meantime, I discovered a problem with another object on the Kola map - and the reason why I mention it is that it seems to depend also on the plane type, which is really strange. I tried the Dover castle with some other planes and it was quite difficult to reliably replicate the results. The suspicion is that it may be CPU bound because of intense collision detection, but it's just a hunch.

I wasn't around when Caucasus 2.0 dropped, but from what I've heard it was originally more detailed but not performant enough, and some buildings were removed - those are all the blurry patches on the map surface that look like low-res satellite image. Perhaps they could at least add some of those buildings back? It would make the map look better. Even in some training mission, "a water tower on your left" (or something similar) is mentioned, and there in nothing there. Those patches look really ugly.

Today I wanted to push myself a bit with a high-performance plane I'm not that familiar with. Sure, there is 5 m/s wind from 270, but still, I'm quite satisfied with my first landing without running over the runway (barely):

I haven't checked MSAA, however, it'd be funny, because I have a feeling that DLSS now ghosts much more. And the radar scan line in F/A-18C is not anti-aliased, it looks more like unaliased+ghosted (but this may be the effect of May 21 upgrade that mentions DLSS, I haven't played F/A-18C for a while). But it's not just this in particular, F2/F3 views also show more ghosting. It's difficult for a common user to track and compare these changes in this kind of technologies - and it may even be impossible if it somehow differs from GPU to GPU.

Ah, Steam, that's it. It's not available in DCS Shop (and I tested logged-out of the shop as well), that confused me.