mhe

So if I can make a wish, it would be the abilty to use "overlapping" bindings for different seats in aircraft with more than 1 crew function. It make absolutely no sense ot me, that in the C101 for example I have to use a different pickle button from the back seat than when I am sitting in the front seat. If I try to bind the same button, it deletes the binding on the conflicting function. Same goes for most of the helos and I am afraid it would be the same subpar approach for the Hind, Kiowa and Apache as well? The only airframe - if I remember correctly that is - that doesn't suffer from this was the Tomcat. Will this be resolved by the multicrew API update?

Vaicom Pro does write down 9-lines automatically in their voice-controlled kneeboard. You can even dictate free text to it.

BMS has had this for years - due to Falcon 4.0 already having it! DCS really needs to include this, it is a massively useful option.

Another way to bypass Oculus is to start DCS.exe with command line arguments. Just create a new shortcut to your dcs.exe and add --force_enable_VR --force_steam_VR Very useful for example if you have Oculus software installed, which also applies to the non-Oculus users who play Oculus games via Revive. That way you can keep DCS from even attempting to call the Oculus API, hence the Oculus software won't even start.

You can actually leave Oculus installed and force DCS to use SteamVR via cmdline arguments. Just create a shortcut to dcs.exe and append --force_enable_VR --force_steam_VR as arguments That way you can have Oculus and Revive installed, but DCS won't touch it - it normally wants to default to Oculus if the software is installed.

Since AMD does something similar on both upcoming consoles, you can bet it will happen. RTX IO is basically Nvidia doing their part to support Microsoft's upcoming DirectStorage API, which they backport to Win10 from the XBox Series X. As such, I'll expect this thing to be part of DX12 Ultimate or something. But since DCS is migrating to Vulkan, we have yet to see whether DirectStorage will be usable combined with Vulkan. I don't know whether Vulkan will have a similar way of providing this feature.

Well, competition usually is the key, but there is not a single combat simulation out there that can hold a candle to what DCS provides at this point in time and ED is very well aware of that. However, I can imagine that if they want to push the large battlefield simulation aspect further (which would also appeal to wider audience than "just" planes), there is no way around making the core engine compatible with those ambitions. However, we are still stuck on the main issue. How do we provide funds and resources for anything other than aircraft modules and terrains? I'd happily pay for something like a VR deluxe package if I get an enhanced core engine that gives me the framerates I would love to have. I don't expect any freebies, in fact I really wonder whether ED is helping themselves by making the core F2P but they must have hard numbers on that, so I guess it does. I proposed in the past some kind of tiered premium "engine" model if you will. I'd happily pay the full price of a module for the core engine if it really delivers. So for example when we moved from 1.5 to 2.5, the engine became vastly better. I would have had no problem to get early access to that core for a price. Think of it as the Open Beta but just paid access for it and way ahead in terms of tech. That way, there would be an incentive to pay for the better engine, ED could dedicate people to the development of said better engine and once a certain milestone or set of features is complete, it transitions over to the F2P part and the next round starts. So that way, everybody gets the good engine eventually, just the people who are willing and able to support it, can get it sooner and ED would have dedicated resources to make it happen quicker for everyone. tl;dr: offer me a premium version of the DCS core engine, I'll happily pay up if it gives me multithreading, Vulkan, great VR framerates, better ATC, better weather etc sooner. Once those funds have been used to complete it faster it normally would have been, make it the standard F2P core for all and start another generation of the core engine with early paid access to fund its development.

That would be not accurate feedback as well. I think there needs to be a balance. I do for sure appreciate new modules and want them to keep making them, but at the same time I'd like them to give the core a higher priority and there is no way I can vote with my wallet for that to happen. Imho there should be a way to financially incentivize core engine improvements. Because if there isn't, you inevitable end up with the status quo, where a beancounter says that the highest priority of the company are those endeavours that keep the money rolling in. And it is not wrong to think that way, but they also sabotage themselves by solely pursuing this particular approach of revenue generation. All I'd want is a way to help fund a bunch of people inside ED who do nothing but make the engine better for all of us instead of the engine being some kind of side project and most of the manpower goes towards content because of money.

That is indeed a great question. I for one care about improvements to the core engine first and foremost, I'd happily pay for proper multithreading and Vulkan support over any module they could possibly publish. However, I think that modules and terrains being the only meaningful way they generate revenue on the entertainment side (besides their professional gigs for militaries etc), they also have what economists call a perverse incentive, namely an incentive to throw out one module after the other for the money and then the modules are stuck in early access for ages. And the core engine only gets kinda dragged along, it only improves as much as required for new modules and terrains to happen. And I for one think that sucks, I'd happily pay for a Premium core engine "module" if that means I get multithreading, Vulkan, good ATC and better weather and clouds. So how do I send them funds without them directing them into the development of yet another perpetually unfinished plane?

It doesn't need to. The foveated rendering is activated in PiTool and is done on driver level via nvidias hardware support in the RTX cards.

Chances are that you would just have to delete the contents of the fxo and metashaders in your saved games. Try that before you go through the trouble of a full reinstall next time. You'd sure rather be flying than configuring controls and such.

I believe this is a pod bug. I have seen the mavs switching back and forth between a previously marked target and the currently marked target both when self-designating and when buddy lasing.

Do a repair and then update again if necessary.

Yes, I'd like to be able to trigger the same function from either seat with the same button WITHOUT requiring a modifier. Sure, I can work around that with 3rd party input scripting, but imho that shouldn't be necessary.

Hi, first, I really enjoy my purchased C-101 and it is a great little plane for training and teaching others. However, my biggest gripe with it so far is the inability to use the same button for a given function in front/back. For example, if I use a 3-way rocker switch on my throttle to move the heading bug when sitting in the front, I can't use the same button for the same function when sitting in the back, effectively doubling the amount of buttons needed to fly it effectively as a multicrew trainer. Is it planned to fix this or is this intentional?

Write a script for it and let it run via task scheduler?

Happened to me today when I was the lasing guy on an MP mission.

Can reproduce, happened without exceptions in all planes with backseaters in MP yesterday.

Bigger profit margin?

I should receive my throttle sometime next week, I'll get you guys the dimensions as soon as I can!

They had a few b-ware 50CMs last week, this time around it seems to be only CM2s.

Try Chuck's Guide: https://www.mudspike.com/chucks-guides-dcs-av-8b-harrier-ii/

Got one too but damn, their webservers took a bad hit, it took bloody ages to get to the checkout!

I believe making a payware core with all the engine goodies up to date would be the way to go. If DCS 3.0 comes out with Vulkan, better ATC, efficient multithreading etc, I'd pay good money for that. A mandatory subscription - no, don't do that. But the engine doesn't have to be free, content is paid anyway. But as it stands, there is little incentive to work on the core engine since it doesn't really bring money, it is much more lucrative to have yet another module sold as early access and stuck in said early access for eternity, which is why we see that happen for years now. So make DCS 3.0 payware, make it compatible with existing modules and you have a winner, at least you can afford the resources directed towards making it. After a year or two, you can release it again as freeware and the payware is 4.0 etc. So you can have the best of both worlds - the cheapskates get to keep their freebies and the people willing to pay for quality can do so and get rewarded for it, as does ED. Where is the downside to this proposal?

They don't always restock every item. I wanted to get a full new setup with throttle, base and grip. Throttle was in stock yesterday, but all I could get this morning was the base and extensions. And it took me some attempts as the cart was calculating items wrong (had to empty it and start from scratch to fix that). Hopefully the throttle and grip will be back in stock soon. But the piecemeal approach adds quite a bit of shipping overhead since you have to spread it out over multiple orders.