dariocs

Hi everyone, and happy 2025! I was scripting a mission, trying to get a SEAD group of F/A-18C controlled by the AI to suppress a SAM SA-10 site, using both ADM-141A decoys and AGM-88C HARM missiles, while I was occupied bombing some vehicles out there (yeah, the easy part for me...) When trying different weapon loadouts in the AI SEAD group, I think I found something wrong: if the weapon loadout is mixed (and with that I mean the loadout includes both decoys and HARMS in the same aircraft, regardless of any other weapon) decoys do not behave as expected or the group does not attack the target at all. I have prepared a set of examples (see attached file). Sit down in the spanish F/A-18 and watch the canadian colleagues do the hard job in the following scenarios: Mission 1: Pure decoy loadout / Waypoint orders: attack only with decoys. This works fine: the guys launch the decoys in the target direction. Mission 2: Mixed loadout (HARMs & decoys) / Waypoint orders: attack only with decoys. This does not work: the F/A-18s do not perform any attack at all, and continue with the flight plan to the next waypoint. Mission 3: Mixed loadout (HARMs & decoys) / Waypoint orders: attack with auto weapon choice. The F/A-18s attack the target, but they launch both decoys and HARMs at the same time (therefore the decoys arrive terribly late to the show). Mission 4: Mixed loadout (HARMs & decoys) / Waypoint orders: attack only with HARMs. This works fine, only HARMs are launched. Mission 5: Pure HARM loadout / Waypoint orders: attack only with HARMs. This works fine, although some planes release all their missiles while others keep a couple onboard (I guess this must be right depending on the target). Mission 6: Pure HARM loadout / Waypoint orders: auto weapon choice. This works fine, although some planes release all their missiles while others keep a couple onboard (I guess this must be right depending on the target). From my humble point of view, the right behaviour should be: When having a mixed loadout, and when instructed to launch decoys, the AI should launch the decoys at the target instead of doing nothing. When having a mixed loadout, and when not specifying the weapon of choice (AUTO) the AI should launch the decoys at the target first, and then launch the HARM missiles later, so they could arrive more or less at the same time at the target (maybe some expert can provide more options here, but it is clear that launching everything at the same time is a nice way to waste the decoys). Hope you can try it as well and shed some light. It will be wonderful to be proven wrong, but I think this is a classic bug Thanks in advance! Decoy_tests.zip

True, but I forgot to mention both are Intel (i7 13700K and i9 14900K). In my humble opinion, the i9 with a similar Lasso configuration should behave the same or better than my i7, never worse. You are right anyway by saying that each configuration has its own issues. But I think some better guidance on this kind of aspects would be very welcome, particularly after patches.

Hello, A friend and I have observed in the main DCS log that DCS detects Process Lasso running in the background: 2024-12-28 11:11:28.856 WARNING APP (Main): ProcessLasso is running We both have been using Process Lasso to run DCS as we got noticeable performance improvements. I am still getting those improvements, but my friend (with a more powerful machine) has stopped using Lasso, as DCS was not running smooth for him after the latest updates. I guess something has improved or changed in DCS' CPU core management, and I also wonder if that warning in the DCS log points in that direction. Can Process Lasso impact DCS' performance negatively after the latest updates? My friend's case suggests that. The DCS log also classifies cores in terms of efficiency and class, indicating sets for each use (common, render, I/O): 2024-12-28 11:11:26.166 INFO EDCORE (Main): all CPU cores have the same efficiency class 1 2024-12-28 11:11:26.166 INFO EDCORE (Main): all CPU cores have the same performance class 1 2024-12-28 11:11:26.166 INFO EDCORE (Main): common cores: {6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15} 2024-12-28 11:11:26.166 INFO EDCORE (Main): render cores: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} 2024-12-28 11:11:26.166 INFO EDCORE (Main): IO cores: {} (Note that not all of my cores are visible here, as I was running Process Lasso to create affinities for DCS) Some guidance and details on these aspects from the ED staff would be highly appreciated, as we have not found many details in the release notes of the latest updates. It could help us players a lot when optimizing our systems. Thanks in advance!

I know what it takes. I am an aerospace engineer, so I have gotten well into the performance equations in the past. That is exactly the main reason I want it automated: it could get better than simple hand calculations, which I find it a bit boring to do it myself. But anyway, it is just a personal preferente. Just an idea.

I understand your point, but many people prefer to fly and shoot instead of spending time planning. This is a hardcore sim with an already steep learning curve, and spare time is limited in your adulthood. Leave the decision to ED, it is just a proposal. And you can always do the maths on your own if you prefer.

True, but even back in the Cold War they planned missions with computers Anyway, you can always do it manually if you like and have the necessary inputs! The equations involved are not a big deal if you simplify enough.

Hello flyers. Apologies if this question has already been raised, I looked for it but I did not find it. When creating a mission, it would be really useful to have a performance calculator integrated for each unit, based on the defined waypoints, actions, altitudes, payloads and speeds. E.g., if I want to attack a target and get back to base following a certain path, I could roughly know the amount of fuel required. Or I could get a maximum range circle given a certain amount of fuel, payload and initial position. I could also get maximum endurance or loitering time (useful for an AWACS or tanker, for instance). Making rough maths for this by oneself is not unaffordable, but if automated like this, more parameters could be introduced, giving a more precise result. Cheers!

Thanks for the info. So if we still need to have QVFR installed as a third-party software, I guess we also still need to fine-tune the QVFR in the old way, right? (i.e., editing the configuration file or using the QuadViews Companion utility) I hope QVFR will be fully integrated into DCS at some point. P.D. edit: It would be great to have some kind of info in the release notes everytime a new functionality is available... Stupid things like what it does and what it requires

OK, I see. Indeed, there are separate settings for the crew. This is such a comprehensive sim... Thanks for the tip!

Thanks for replying. Yes, I am aware: I don't use zoom when playing in VR, just when I play on a regular 2D screen. That's when the issue appears, and only in the WSO cockpit.

Hello! Just starting with the very basics on the F-4: mapping controls Although I usually play in VR, I sometimes play also in 2D. When mapping the "Zoom view" control to one of my HOTAS secondary axes, I find it works in the pilot cockpit, but not in the WSO seat. The PoV setting works fine in both cockpits. Any reason for this? I haven't found a separate zoom control anywhere. Thanks!