Buzz313th

Usually you would be vectored to the initial approach fix via ATC, given a altitude to maintain and then cleared to intercept the localizer, then after established, cleared for the ILS. If no ATC, you would fly the published ILS approach. Since neither of these really exist in DCS, you would either take the one vector the AI ATC gives you to the FAF (Final approach fix) and then turn inbound to runway heading for the localizer course to the ILS where you would intercept both the Localizer and Glideslope. The only really wanky thing about DCS though, is that the Vector that the AI gives you for the FAF also gives you a altitude clearance to "Runway Pattern Altitude", which is way too low and lower than the MSA or the typical glideslope intercept altitude you would normally get at the Final Approach Fix. Since there are no Approach charts for any of the ILS's included with DCS, you either have to find one, or calculate minimum safe altitude from terrain on your way to the FAF. Edit.. I was wrong and edited my post.. It appears some of the maps for DCS have included approach charts... If the maps you have installed in DCS have them, they would be on the kneeboard and or in the "kneeboard" folder for the addon. Below is an ILS/LOC approach for Nellis Runway 21. I found it in my kneeboard folder. If you look at the chart you will see there are fixes that can be established with Rnav or ground based nav aids. If you follow the approach, it will deliver you to the IAP, then the FAF for localizer and glideslope intercept with altitude limits that will guarantee terrain clearance. It's kind of a disservice that at the least DCS doesn't really offer a safe vector to do a precision approach, considering all the attention to detail in the other areas of the sim.

That was one of the first things I tried, didn't see a difference to be honest. Although, I have not tried changing the cockpit display res and then forcing a shader recompile. The Kneeboard map resolution looked normal until a certain point. Dunno if I changed something in system settings or was it 2.9 MT.. Later today when I get home I'll give some of these a try to see if they work.

I just did a slow repair a few days ago, but never did a cleanup. What is the purpose of renaming the "DCS" folder in "SavedGames". My guess is so that DCS generates a new clean folder?

I can understand why ED will be standardizing MT and dropping ST. The future of DCS development lies with improved performance.

The bug appears and disappears on my end like clockwork. I am able to reproduce by following my op. If you guys are still having problems reproducing, please reach out and I can help. A couple more tidbits of info to hopefully help you guys find this... When the bug is active, or in other words, when the maverick crosshairs are not there and should be, a successful maverick lock shows the crosshairs and the FOV markers. Once the maverick is fired and the display steps to the next missile, the crosshairs are gone again. So this is obviously not just a shader or graphics only issue. There is code that is causing this bug to manifest itself or fix itself.

DCS 2.9 Open Beta 12900k RTX4080 64gigs ram Quest 3 Open XR Forced under shortcut running at 4800x2600 No Mods Cleaned install 5 minutes prior to this post Re-install of F16 5 minutes prior to post Summary: I do not have maverick crosshairs, nor FOV markers on the maverick wpn display unless I... Set cockpit displays to 512 or greater and turn on MSA at 2x or greater and restart DCS after erasing all shader files. Once I do that, I get crosshairs. As soon as I turn off MSA and set cockpit displays to 256, then the next mission the maverick WPN display is bugged again with no crosshairs or FOV markers. I am not in a position to to leave MSA on, or cockpit display resolution to anything greater than 256. In VR under the resolution I have chosen, I gain nothing from a higher cockpit display resolution and actually lose quite a bit of performance with induced stuttering if I raise it above 256. I also gain nothing by enabling MSA as it just causes distant objects to become less sharp and blurry with a loss of performance through induced stutters. I have searched the forums for this issue and have found numerous posts dating back to 2020 describing the same exact issue I am facing. The solution that the forum users have discovered, is to turn on MSA and raise cockpit display resolutions then recompile shaders. What if the user chooses not to use MSA and chooses to run cockpit displays at a res of 256, then they are stuck with this bug, not acceptable IMHO. Can ED please find the time to look in to this issue and have a go at fixing it? The problem will persist unless effort is made. Past posts that have referenced this bug .... Thank you. Cheers dcs.log MaverickWPNDisplayNoXhairs.trk

Also something I should note. The only pages in the kneeboard that are low res for me are just the pages that were generated from the F10 map automatically. The rest of the pages, like the airport, approach charts and Facility directory pages are normal resolution. So maybe it's the autogeneration process when the pages are rendered that is a bit screwy. Should I report this as a bug?

Here ya go..

I did, but went back to no AA and no scaling. Still the kneeboard is low res. I'm in VR and on 2.9 btw.

Nice Name... Are you playing on a Hard Drive Or SSD? Just gonna leave this here cause it's a cute troll...

I remember my map segments on the kneeboard used to be higher res? I don't know which setting I changed, but the resolution is much lower, to the point where I can't read the waypoint numbers. Anyone know what changes the resolution on these maps? Could it be "Cockpit Display Resolution"? Thanks

@James DeSouza I agree with you that the system is not showing realistic visibility. My 1st post on this thread mentioned that the limits to seeing different size aircraft are much shorter. We are on the same page, I was just commenting on your ability to see the smallest dot that I find hard to spot.

That made me laugh.. This is the only definition I know of... see1 /sē/ verb 1. perceive with the eyes; discern visually.

Question to all following this thread... At the maximum distance where you see the spotting dot, is it black or dark grey? Or is it slightly color blended with the background, or partially transparent? For me, on a flat screen at 2556x1440 when I first notice the dot, it is a black or dark grey pixel that is quickly becoming opaque from transparent. Then it remains a black or dark grey dot until the model renders in at around ~3-10 miles depending on the size of the model. In VR on a Q3 running 4800x2600, I see the same, only the black dot is much bigger. Where the size of the dot makes a difference, also the contrast of the dot against the background is just as important. It is the lack of contrast at distance that poses problems for the human eye to acquire small distant objects.

There is also the issue of glasses. If he is wearing glasses that have a good amount of magnification, it could also contribute. Maybe the most reasonable solution for ED, would be to give us sliders where we can adjust the "Dot" size, color blend and distances where the dot is first rendered and at what distance it transitions to the rendered model. But at the same time set a "Standard" that can be ED's best educated guess on a realistic representation of object visibility. Give the server admins the ability to set limits on player adjustability. People could use a "Calibration Mission File" that starts in active pause with groups of aircraft at different distances with rough guidelines as to what the player should see and at what distance, so they can tweak their settings.

You said your vision is pretty bad. To compensate, could you have maybe changed a bunch of settings to increase contrast drastically?

I think you're the only active person in this thread that thinks those were easy to see. With your bad vision and the fact that those dots are very hard, if not impossible to see at a normal zoom level, I am guessing you got some weird setup happening with your contrast, brightness or color. Good point.. And this is a real thing in aviation. Some have better vision and recognition than others.

They strip the warbirds down to as little as they can within the limits of their class and then make it into a dedicated racer. Fully reworked engines, modified fuel, clipped wings and stabs, cut canopies, lightweight everything. They put millions in to warbirds that cost millions... to turn them into prop rockets for Reno.. It's crazy.

Adding all of these recommendations to my list, but unfortunately I can only pick one as the next module or mod, as it takes me about 14 days to learn the module and give it a fair shake. Thank you. I am kinda behind at this point, as I have half of the 16 and all of the 18 to learn, this while I enjoy playing the A10C2 in an ongoing campaign. Cheers, you all are solid, with solid suggestions. Keep em coming.

I was referring to VR users seeing dots larger than one pixel and 2d screen users seeing dots at one pixel.

Thank you everyone for the replies and the feedback. Currently the 86 the 19 and the 21 are in my "Hat" for potential trial. Although, is the 21 really Gen 2?

What is your ingame screen resolution? Your monitor size.. and How far roughly is the monitor from you when playing?

I saw the posts acknowledging that the line didn't work for some, so I figured maybe it might work on my system.. Which is why I gave it a try. Are you on VR or a flat screen?

If I create a .txt file and rename it "autoexec.cfg" and then put one line in it that reads "DotRendererExperiment = False" Is that enough to create a proper autoexec.cfg that I don't have originally in \Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\? Edit... I tried this and I did not see a difference. I'm assuming I made the file correctly.

If they didn't use dots, then they would just need to render the model when they believe that the visibility range was correct? Can you render something that might be smaller than a pixel? And if so, don't you just get a single pixel? By the way, just finished an A10C mission at night. With NVG on I can spot armor out to ~10-12 miles as a rendered black square. It is obvious, requires no real searching and is many times easier to spot than if I use the IR TGP to search. As I close the distance, I lose visual at roughly 5 miles when the dot disappears and is replaced by the model. I don't regain visual under the NVG until about ~2 miles when the model is relatively large enough to distinguish from the ground.