Rewis.C

I agree especially about the allowing MP without the assets like the super carrier where you can't use it but you can play in the server. I'm not sure how you'd pull it off without making the pack useless to buy for everyone but mission makers. It's definitely something to think about.

You could have just said take it somewhere else. You don't know my experience or what I'm capable of judging. Everything you just said was an attack and unhelpful to anyone. I'll stay off your thread unless someone speaks to me. If you mind that, well to bad.

Interesting.

Understood. Like I said I was making a point more then anything. I appreciate the responses but I'll keep it as on topic as possible and I understand the g effects being a universal thing ATM makes that a less than easy fix. I'll lay all of that out when I actual do a test again. I know the airframe can take 9+Gs I'm taking about the pilot on average taking more Gs in an f16 than any other planes because of it's almost vertical laid back seating. This has been a talked about feature in the f16 for as long as I've been able to remember helping it's pilots take more G load. 9Gs was the magic number that I've heard and read about for decades. Maybe I'm wrong I'll do my research and we can both be more enlightened. But yes I'll stop derailing the thread.

I was commenting on the appropriate performance, specifically. While it's not a bug it's still relevant. A 8.3G limit on a airframe that should pull 9Gs sounds pretty specific and relevant to me. I was also making a point about the community, not reporting a bug. I also pointed out that I was going to do very specific testing instead of bringing up things I wasn't sure about. I had a question and an opinion relevant to this topic. My question was not answered and my opinion is what it is. I was also corrected on a point I was totally wrong about. I'm glad I was. That was relevant to me and to the person who corrected me, thank you. @Tholozor I'll have video, written documentation, tacview files, client and server track files(for what little good they do) and my issue was not as much about bugs but as how long it took for the 16 to get anywhere. I'm stating my concern and if that isn't enough for someone to at least listen and not jump down my throat basically telling me to report a specific bug or shut up is why not much gets reported. I will report bugs as best I can and provide as much information as possible. I've talked to pilots of multiple variants of the f16. I've had long conversations with them and hundreds of people in the community and pilots of multiple real variants of DCS aircraft. I was in a position to listen to them in the past as a former leader and owner of a substantial DCS community. I'll also find what documentation I can and site it for any report I do. I'm sure that no one here will disrupt that the DCS version of the f16 is far from the dogfighter that real world fighter pilots compare every other fighter to. This kind of thing is why I left that community. Telling people RTFM and other useless crap when you could just listen and be open to their experiences. Maybe say something other than report specific bugs or shut up, In not so many words, but it's what you're saying. That's disrespectful and drives people away when it's tolerated. That's why I operate an invite only, closed server now. Just a few people who don't drive me bonkers. Anyway I'm not here to attack anyone or argue about things. I was just stating my opinion. I even thanked the whole ED team for their hard work and what they have created. I'm so appreciative I've given them at least a couple thousand dollars for that work. All on the ED web store too. I'm not giving Steam %30 of my money when ED did the work. I have unfortunately bought about 10-15 modules on steam as gifts in the past. Everyone always wanted steam for some reason. Ok I'm now rambling quite a bit but as the hurricane is still going on I'm sitting here on my phone with nothing to do. Thanks for listening, those of you that read all of this. Lol

I appreciate a link to a way to report bugs. Unfortunately, I was more in tune with the problems associated with the 16 back when I ran the 162nd's servers. Also, I am not slamming the 64 or 15 at all. I understand where they currently are and why. The 16 on the other hand is nice to fly but, for instance, you can only pull 8.3Gs before backing out, last I checked. Every aircraft has/had the same 8.3Gs thing, once again, last I checked. It specifically should pull 9Gs with a seasoned pilot due to its seating etcetera. It's also not living up to the performance it's known for, in my opinion, and the last time I checked. Everything could be different in beta. The aircraft specifically has improved but it seems like the timing is way off. I understand that I bought into an early access module. I bought into about 30 of them including maps, packs, etcetera. The 16 is the only player module I felt was almost stalled. Don't get me started on the supercarrier... I have flown it recently but mainly to play with the HARMs and HARM pod. But where's the TFR and a slew of other systems that are happening way faster on other modules? I enjoyed the HARM pod though and other improvements. So it's not a total loss and also I stay on stable because I like to know my DCS and its bugs so I can be as effective as I can in the environment. So some things may be different but I'm pretty sure what I've mentioned is still as I said. Hay maybe it's way better in beta now. I have no clue there. I'll be giving it and a lot more a full shakedown soon but I'll be on stable not beta so... I don't know how it'll help. Hell, I may go over to beta just for that. I'm getting started next week but the time it would take me to go through everything thoroughly will be weeks of work. I have a controlled environment where we push DCS's capabilities to the limit. I have a server running a mission with hundreds of simultaneous active units. AI SAMs, convoys, CAP, CAS, and Civil Flights, It's also variable in the selection and number of said units. It's MOOSE scripting whatever that's worth. The code adds thousands of permutations of the mission from a single mission file. I'm doing this on a normal, unmodified install. I will be using that environment online to do sweeping tests. I'm also going to run a series of controlled tests with very specific situations. This will include fully AI-controlled, PVE, and PVP situations. I'll also run most, if not all of the tests the MT and without, online and offline. You can thank @Vodka Meister for the mission file I'm using although it has been slightly modified over time by me and heavily modified for this test. He made the best missions I ever played. Thinking about that, I do appreciate all of the hard work from you guys but you have to realize some of us put dozens or even hundreds of hours a month into making these things work and testing them, fixing all the issues, and working around bugs every update and we don't get paid anything, maybe not even gratitude. We pay you and the ED staff who get mad at us for trying to help. To be fair after all the time that's gone by all I remember is all my posts being deleted and getting an I'll ban you if you post that again for posting something about the 18 I couldn't find anywhere in the forum. That's about the time I stopped trying to help. I'm here again to try again because this is my last hoorah. Either we can get some things done or, well I'm getting tired of the work needed to not enjoy DCS. (joke) The day I got the Black Shark from Direct 2 Drive was the day I stopped playing any other flight sim. No more Combat Flight, Falcon 4.0/BSM, MFS, Xplane, and I'm sure a few more I've forgotten. It was and still is awesome what you guys have built, but It can all fall in an instant. Listen to people and keep them informed and everyone will have a better time. I will be on here posting results next week but in the meantime I have a huge hurricane bearing down on me, a lot of work to do in the days after and I'm going to get some playtime in. I will be around here and there until Monday which, time hopefully my testing will start. I still have a lot of work to figure out my path through all of it but I will be writing a plan during the storm. I should be in a good spot to ride it out here in South Ga. but I'm sure I'll lose power and internet before it's over. You guys who are also in the path keep safe and get out of the way if you can.

To use a old saying about 12GA Shotguns. If it chambers, it shoots. Basically, if you can strap it on and light it off it should be in there at some capacity on every module. 64/Stinger hint hint. I can custom restrict munitions in so many ways in the editor even by era so why not make it a choice for mission builders? I'd say ED's job is to get the weapons systems real-world accurate performance-wise, complete, and plentiful in variety with the tools to implement them as the mission maker sees fit. That's my opinion on what weapons should go where. Easy.

How does force correlating work in this case? It works great on the A-10 2. I've played with it on the 16 but never really got it down. I just don't want to spend my time on a module that's constantly being messed with and broken in new ways. That said, the 64 and 15E are the ones I've wanted the whole time, and they're really in the same boat but I hope to a lesser degree. They are still pretty early but missing a boatload of stuff. The 16 is inexcusable. I would fly the 16 over almost every other module if it were somewhat not bugged and incomplete as it is. It's a mess and it's been almost four years since I bought it. What am I getting for my money? Something that is just broken and never fixed after four years. It's really bad but it's the truth.

I was having issues with the multithreading executable causing freezing etc.. but some people I know are getting better performance with it. Are you guys using that or the normal .exe?

I'm submitting this to possibly help improve DCS. After the most recent stable update (2.8.7.42718), I started having my whole system lag when starting the multithreading executable with about a 50/50 chance of it occurring. If it doesn't lag up it runs great. Using the standard executable produces much more stable results. I also run a dedicated server on my machine. After the latest stable update (2.8.7.42718) using the multithreading executable, we all get lag spikes and freezes in mission. The freezes are occurring between every 2-10 minutes and last for about 2-3 seconds. The lag is frame drops when certain actions are taken, changing MFD pages, master modes, etc., and general random frame drops. We no longer have any issues after I went back to the normal executable. I tried combinations of running the server and client with or without multithreading. My client seems to run well without multithreading but when multithreading doesn't lag my whole PC it runs 4-8 FPS higher. As far as I can tell the server is the same minus the frame drops. I've included my system info and the latest DCS logs from my client and server. Sys info.txt dcs.log server log.log

More RAM works better but that's not always an option. I have a friend who has a 60ish GB page file so he can play DCS. I don't know why it's that bad for him but it's not nearly that bad for me. It only uses about 40GB total unless I edit a mission and then play the mission. My RAM usage spikes to about 100GB in total. Pagefile is Windows using your storage media as RAM. I run an 800MB page file and lots of RAM. Windows needs 800MB to not go crazy sometimes and also for error logging. That makes your whole PC snappier.

I've seen AKs take out engines and a few 20mm rounds decimate it in 2.7. I haven't had any experience on 2.8 yet but I'm sure one strela will ruin your day almost every time.

Guys with AKs can bring you down. Until they fix the damage model I'd pass.

What program are you using to see those statistics?

The CBUs are missing targets more then they are hitting. They not longer perform anything like the real ones or like they did in the past.