RPY Variable
-
Posts
349 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RPY Variable
-
-
About 90% of DCS players focus on SP, with only around 10% in MP. It's unclear how many MP players have sessions longer than 2 to 5 hours. I estimate I fall within the ±3% range of DCS players, and if this issue is VR-related, it may be even smaller. I've faced hundreds of disconnects over the years, but this is my first time raising it here. And many times, evident bugs have gone unaddressed for months. So I don't know about the forum exploding with fury.
Also, I have three friends with whom, like 4 times a year, we all got spare time at the same time and we play together. It's almost certain one of us will lose connection. Since I'm the only one of the four of us using this forum, I find the activity here not representative of the game's overall state. We all four of us play VR, and I'm starting to think this might be VR related.
The one friend in the United States (no 180ms ping), is the one with whom I play with most often, and he has the same exact problem.
Anyway, I'm going to try a repair, to see about the textures error. I saw it several times, but the log always has many errors, so I thought it was another normal error, thanks for the tip.
-
23 minutes ago, rob10 said:
From a quick look at your log, you have a PILE of model/texture errors. Are you using a bunch of custom liveries? I would try removing them and doing a slow repair on your DCS because you seem to have file issues.
Also, you're consistently getting a 183 ms ping which is pretty high and could be contributing to your disconnects/connection issues. That's an internet issue on your end, not a DCS issue.
No mods that I know of. I'm not a mod person.
The 183ms ping is because I play from Argentina; I've been playing since Black Shark 1, and it was never a problem (years ago). I can play other games (like Arma 3) with a 200 ping for basically unlimited time without disconnecting.
A friend in the USA also experiences regular disconnections from servers. And I constantly hear in SRS "Did the server crash or is it me?"
I don't want to be mean, but no one can assert with a straight face that DCS is a stable game to play in multiplayer.
I understand that it's an extremely complicated simulator, with a lot of third-party content, aircraft, combined arms, and the codes that are implemented on the servers. But there comes a point where it doesn't even make sense to sit down and do all the VR setup and dedicate a few hours to this if you're going to get disconnected of the server with a 50% certainty (being kind).
-
2024-12-30 03:16:25.240 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Session was closed with ERR_CONNECT_FAILED: Can't connect.
2024-12-30 03:16:25.252 INFO VISUALIZER (12240): Stopped collection of statistic.
2024-12-30 02:46:27.000 ERROR_ONCE ():
Please, somebody fix this. It's been like this for years! 8 out of 10 times I use DCS, my play ends in a server disconnect. It is basically unusable. Some day I have no problem, but most of the days, multiple disconnects. It’s crucial that you resolve this. It takes a long time to start the plane, align everything, configure it, and fly to the combat zone, and most of the time it disconnects. It’s unbearable. This has been going on for years. Please fix this. It makes no sense to undertake a flight when you’re constantly worried about getting disconnected. Any other game, I can play for hours with no problem. -
Still no fix to this. It makes the freeze option kind of useless.
-
10 hours ago, Flappie said:
@RPY Variable I cannot show a simple screenshot to devs. They need DCS tracks. Thank you.
It happened on contention server, so I won't upload a 3-hour-long log file.
Nevertheless, it's a long-standing problem (multiple years). It doesn't seem to me that it's a matter of "trying to replicate"... anyone who flies the ka-50 and tries to shoot it at an airborne target knows what I'm talking about.I know that the ideal would be to set up the scenario in the editor, replicate it perfectly, save the log and upload it. But I have the VR chair apart from the pc, to me, it's a whole issue... I solved it easier. I don't fly it anymore.
I clarify that I do not want to be rude to you, I understand that you put the best predisposition for the reports, but I confess, my hope for a solution is zero. So I don't have the desire to invest much time other than a screen and say I saw this. -
4 Vikhr's to A-10 (2 shots of 2 salvos)... kept flying like nothing, not even smoke... Head on, like 5km.. he was flying directly to me, then he fire a sidewinder and I blew up.
-
If I could join a multiplayer server directly from the launcher it would be great... not need to connect the VR headset and then open DCS, put on the headset just to see if servers up, or full, etc... but without that functionality, it is just adding a step more. I thought that was the main feature of a launcher.
-
1
-
-
please
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, draconus said:
Simulation, physics, realism - we come to DCS for that, remember?
It takes time (training!) to learn to how to talk to Jester but you'll be way more successful if you learn the radar operation (and its limitations) in the first place. If Jester menu or changing seats no longer work for you then human RIO is your last bet. Otherwise 2-crew aircraft are maybe not for you.
1) It is not necessarily more realistic, for example, to move the radar axis from the front than via jester menu, it is the same, only more cumbersome.
2) That I make this proposal does not mean that it cannot or does not know how to be effective, or that I need to "learn the radar operation", or whether two crew aircraft are or are not for me. You don't know how many hours I have in F14 and suffering with Jester, or flying RIO. A little pedantic attitude for my taste.
This other proposal, which was very simple, and any rational being will totally agree, has not yet been modified. I'm not complaining that they didn't modify it, because they don't have to. The thing is that since they won't let me move the radar axis from the front, at least, consider correcting this. It is to improve Jester by only changing 4 values in the code.And now that I see the post, you also showed up to teach classes, with an air of superiority that seems to characterize you. In that thread, in this thread, and in other two threads. You never fail.
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, draconus said:
It's being requested from time to time and it seems incredibly hard to fix.
Just make a special option "turn off iceman AI"...This AI dictatorship, which doesn't even let me touch a button from the front, or at least pointing the radar, is the main reason why it didn't even cross my mind to buy the F-4... And I love that plane, but I already suffer from this logic with the f14. I'm going crazy moving my head everywhere to point the radar with no luck and ending up having to use PAL because I'm already merged, o running away because I fail to point the radar via jester menu. And if I go to the rear pit, the things I mention above happens.
That purism doesn't make sense. I don't see the justification why I can go RIO seat and move the radar height, but Troy burns if I do it from the front. Pointing radar from the pilot seat saves me the pain of having to go backwards, and prevent iceman from changeling my entire flight parameter. What is so serious about pressing a button from the pilot seat vs. saying "jester, press that button". It doesn't make sense, and the worst thing is that it's more complicated.
-
1
-
-
When you go to the rear pit he ALWAYS does the wrong thing!.
Case a) If you are full afterburner trying to gain speed and jump to the rear pit, he shuts down afb... waits multiple seconds and then, maybe, he turns the afb again maybe not.
Case b) You are in mil power, low fuel, you jump to the rear pit he turns the afterburner... then you ask him to slow down, and he opens the air brake as if you just realize there is a speed-camera in front of you.
It's impossible to jump to the rear pit if he is going to mess sup all your speed tactic.
Solution
a) Just make him not touch the throttle unless he is asked to make some change, or AOA is more than X amount.
b) When you jump to rear pit, and afterburner is on, let it on, unless you ask him to slow down. And if you jump to the rear pit with the afterburner off, do not turn it on unless you ask him to speed up.
-
On 5/7/2024 at 4:06 AM, Flappie said:
I've just tried lauching some Iglas at an AI Hornet. It often takes two missiles, sometimes just one if shot from behind. If you have a track which shows something worse, please bring it in.
Ka-50 Igla vs AI Hornet_2 hits_v1.trk 143.25 kB · 0 downloads Ka-50 Igla vs AI Hornet_2 hits_v2.trk 124.6 kB · 3 downloads Ka-50 Igla vs AI Hornet_2 hits_v3.trk 125.12 kB · 3 downloads
Two missiles hits is almost a unicorn... "it often takes two missile". This is a missile, not a machine gun. It should be -> It often takes one missile, not the other way around. And we are talking about a hornet, a small aircraft, that it cannot have the engines closer together than it has them, it should be one of the mos fragile airframes of all.
-
9 hours ago, Nealius said:
Having been personally hit by Iglas in both the F-16 and F/A-18 multiple times, I don't see an issue with the small warhead modeling. In the majority of cases I'm damaged enough to require ejection within a few minutes after being hit; usually fuel leak. I suspect this is an issue with AI damage modeling moreso than it is with the Igla itself.
A pretty effective "small warhead". And I'm talking 100% pvp no AI.
I get that it may not be a 100% effective. But having to shoot twice every time it doesn't map with reality. In most of the cases, you need to impact twice to shot and F-18... an F-14 will most likely survive. A-10 will certainly continue flying. The chance of taking down an aircraft with one Igla hit is +- 20%, which in my opinion, 20% should be more close to the chance of flying away, they are made of papier mache.
A HE 20mm projectile weights +- 130 grams, and Igla warhead (which is more sophisticated) weights 9 times more... If Igla had the damaging power of 9 HE impacts, we would not be having this discussion. I know that it is not an apples to apples comparison, but argumentatively it is much more valid and closer to reality than "I think it is well modeled."
-
https://streamable.com/5aft7v
Shot 2 Igla's to an F-14, and he went happily back home. Today I must have shoot and hit 10 different aircraft with at least 2 Iglas. I was only able to get kills for 5.
Maybe one went down with only one Igla only (F-18) out of 12 "encounters".
+-80% of the cases are like this F-18 screenshots. Hit, debris, and the aircraft continue.
I get that the missile if not an apocalyptic weapon, but it is design to shot down military aerial crafts. I get that in real life maybe 10%, 20%, 30% or 40% of the cases it doesn't shoot down an aircraft, but I doubt that 90% it doesn't manage to down and aircraft..
Add to this that you need like 4 Vikhr to shot down an AH-64 if you hit it from the front and in my ka-50 I go down with one hellfire.
v2.9.4.53990-
1
-
-
I just remember I made a post about this problem in 2019, 5 years ago. I hope by next time... 2029/2030 we have a working gbu-24... I don't want to be that "that guy" but come on man, it can't be that difficult.
It is the most capable A/G weapon of the F-14, F-16, F-18 (in 80's 90's scenarios) it should have some priority.-
6
-
-
This ruined all my DCS sessions this weekend. Is lost hours in multiplayer trying to figure out why mavericks would aim with a 45° deviation. This "feature" which is a pin in the ass while is working fine (not that I don't want it to be realistic, just a description), but adding a bug to that... men. Plus now I need to turn off the TGP and then turn it on again after rearm, wait for it... really inconvenient.
I found this post in bug report F-16 forum this morning on my phone, trying to find if there was a bug of some kind with boresight. But if I hadn't looked this morning, I would still not know what the problem was, because the post was moved. Believe it or not, this post is useful for users, because we can be aware of the state of the module when we search for possible bugs. The bug report forum work not only for reports but for user knowledge of current bugs.
And adding to the subject. Shouldn’t the BSGT label on the MFD be always showing? (like in the F-16 manuals available). It is really cumbersome the need to be tracking something in order for the BRGT label to appear. There is really no need for that logically, because you are just telling a microprocessor "save this value as center", so that get me thinking, does it work like this in reality? I get it that, while flying, you may want to do it like that, but there is no reason for it while on the ground. Again, every image of a AGM-65 MFD page that you'll find in a manual is showing the BSGT lable, like as if you can boresight anytime. -
AH-64 both cases, don't know if it is related. It's a dot, then the dot disappears, then it appears as an attenuated billboard but at 90° or a different kind of dot, way to attenuate. (we are talking pixels here), and finally it appears as a 3d model.
-
Helicopters disappear when you get close, usually when you are about to strafe them, and when you are way too close, they repair. Happened multiple times.
This was in Syria-> Contention server.
https://streamable.com/k84h8d -
-
This bomb should fly almost horizontal when dropped at speed. In DCS it is just a normal GBU with a slightly attenuated parabolic trajectory. If you want to have a more or less decent distance you need to drop, let's say, mach 1.2 35.000, and it almost goes on a 45° dive to the target, which goes against the essence of this bomb. In DCS it has a glide ratio of 2.5 or less, which is ridiculously low if you compare it with this video and common sense.
Note that the bomb drops like a normal bomb, then the autopilot kicks gliding with a much more shallow angle. Int not going to make a CFD study of the bomb, but 2/2.5glide ratio (, when dropped at 500kn, seems way too low.-
3
-
-
1) The effect seems to be too sudden. Today I black out on almost all merges.
https://streamable.com/2vgohk
2) From changelog: "This is most useful AFTER performing a G warmup (4 to 5 G for 90-degrees, and then the same maneuver back in the other direction)." Why 90° in one direction, and then 90° in the other direction??? I find it kind of arcade. Like if matter which side you are pulling, there is no difference for the body. For example, G-Force centrifuges only rotate in one direction. In my opinion it should be, X amount of G's X amount of time and that's it. -
13 hours ago, Panny said:
That is utter speculation and there is no substance to that statement. I'd look forward to your evidence that HB would do such a thing beyond your interpretation.
I actually think the release of the F-4 will make the F1 even more popular. Currently there isn't a directly comparable 3rd gen aircraft to the F1 in DCS, with the CE being a mid70s vintage. The F-4E that we get is early 70s, and aside from being a more complex two seater, have similar capabilities. I suspect people will jump in to the F-4 and become naturally interested in trying other aircraft, and most particularly the likes of the F1 and future MiG-23. Principally because the Mirage and Phantom complement each other in terms of gameplay - not compete. The presence of both serve to greatly enrich the Cold War gameplay potential DCS has.
I am talking about the reason for the hasty announcement of the F-4 and you are talking about the effects that the launch of the F-4 will have on the sales of the F-1. They are two different things. Beyond that I don't agree either since it is like saying that the Toyota Corolla does not compete for sales against the Honda Civic.
-
2 hours ago, Bozon said:
Had I known that the Phantom will be delayed so much, I would have bought it already. I figured two complex planes (for me, I’m a warbirds guy) will be too much to learn in parallel. F1 is definitely on my list now, and the moment I’ll be ready for another jet module, this is going to be it.
That is precisely why they announced the F-4 just when Aerges was about to release the F-1. With the promise that the F-4 would be available before the end of the year. In this way, they induce several people not buy the F-1 and wait for the F-4... in the end, the wait turned out to be more than two years, but they achieved their goal. These are the rules of the market, but a very unhappy move if you ask me.
-
Be aware that if you let go your joystick and inf RCTRL+ENTER the axis is not center almost perfectly, the autopilot won't engage. You'll need to recalibrate your joystick.
Instant blackout
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
I think it’s because you "need to warm up." After you've completed a couple of maneuvers, the blackout effect is almost always present; however, if you are not "warmed up," the blackout effect can be sudden. What I find problematic is that the warm-up must be done by pulling G's to one side and then to the opposite side, as if the body can differentiate which side you’re pulling G's, which it cannot. This makes it very difficult to warm up when you’re only pulling G's in one direction during the first maneuver. It doesn’t make sense. It’s as if the human centrifuge machines used for pilot training needed to rotate to one side and then to the other.