Madfish
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Madfish
-
-
On 8/26/2020 at 9:30 PM, Rudel_chw said:
The Table is loaded by the db_years.lua script, located at \Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Scripts\Database\
Can anyone else still find it? It seems to have disappeared completely on my client.
As in it's not inside that folder and even outside I can't find it. -
-
two questions:
1) how do we specify separate ACMI folders for each DCS instance (launched with the -w argument), for example on a single server with 2 dedicated DCS instances?
What I found in the documentation online was: Open Tacview (full viewer client) >> Options >> "ACMI Files Recording Folder..."
But I have not found how to specify it for each -w instance on the client, nor did I find anything in the config files for those instances that saves the storage path for the ACMI files. How can this be accomplished?
What I want to achieve is:
-w instance1 >> %userprofile%\Documents\Tacview\1
-w instance2 >> %userprofile%\Documents\Tacview\2
-w instance3 >> %userprofile%\Documents\Tacview\32) How to make tacviewAutoDiscardFlights work on dedicated server installs?
Currently the config is set to ["tacviewAutoDiscardFlights"]=90,
It should discard files shorter than 90 seconds.
Right now it is still creating the known 0/1kb ACMIs though which, if you open them, are 00:00:00.
Is there a way to fix this for dedicated servers or is it a client only config?Thanks in advance!
-
On 7/26/2021 at 7:28 AM, cfrag said:
I believe most who say 'no' are saying 'please not vendor-specific'. I'd love to have DLSS-type tech for me (as I, too, am flying VR, and the temporal AA 'no shimmer' feature alone is to kill for). But as someone who got burned one time too many with vendor-bound features I now advocate waiting until an independent standard emerges. If you don't agree - well, I still have some 3dfx Voodoo-bound titles lying around in my discard pile for you (those that did not provide an OpenGL version as fallback).
This is what ticks it for me, although I currently use an Nvidia GPU.
It'd be a yes from me if it was FSR (which works on all GPUs).It'd be a yes for DLSS a implementation after FSR (since that only works on Nvidia cards).
It's a no because it's currently only saying DLSS, which is only for Nvidia cards.On 7/29/2021 at 10:06 PM, SkateZilla said:I would wait till after Vulkan is finished and deployed.
Vulkan is on the table since years now and fans already added FSR in VR mods, to outside programs etc.
Both FSR and DLSS are API agnostic and both DX as well as Vulkan work so that shouldn't be a problem.-
2
-
-
On 7/17/2021 at 9:40 PM, Flappie said:
The more AI units you have in your mission, the faster the track will be different from what you actually experience in the mission.
I use tracks everyday to fill bug reports and they work just great for me, as long as I keep them short (<10 minutes). ED crew and testers are using tracks for bug chasing (tracks are often effective for this task, as long as they are short), while players often use them to record videos (tracks are often very ineffective for this task, mostly because missions last way more than 10 minutes).
@dorianR666Your example is rare. You should report this as a bug with your track attached. This seems like an easier fix than the AI units doing their own thing.
@Gripes323I believe this happens because AI units "improvise" every time you play the track. That's why tracks as we know them are not effective to record gameplay videos, unless you film a "simple" CAS attack with no AI CAP.
As your signature is "A track or it didn't happen." and you seem to be an expert on the matter, two questions:
-
Is the short trackfiles <10 minutes a confirmed amount?
-
E.g. are tracks reliable 100% under 10 minutes, no matter if AI or not?
-
What if there's no AI? Still 10 minutes or longer? If so what amount is confirmed as reliable?
-
What if there's no AI? Still 10 minutes or longer? If so what amount is confirmed as reliable?
-
E.g. are tracks reliable 100% under 10 minutes, no matter if AI or not?
-
Can you confirm track files are historically compatible without issues across versions, including e.g. changes to missiles or FM, or how would one use a track to prove something happened?
- If they are not compatible I would suggest adding that to your signature to avoid confusion e.g. "A track from no older than the most recent version"
- Also what would you suggest to report bugs with if they are not reliable across versions when changes happen - as many bugs are not being looked at right away?
-
1
-
Is the short trackfiles <10 minutes a confirmed amount?
-
2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
This is likely due to CPU limitation so FSR won’t help with that.
Why would that sound like a CPU limitation? Higher poly count from the improved terrain mesh, more unique and higher detail objects as well as density, more texture streaming, more shadows, more anti-aliasing...
It could literally be a person sitting on a 5950x with an 9xx card with todays GPU prices.
And that's exactly what FSR is for. To make people enjoy higher resolutions on less capable systems. And DCS would definitely benefit from any optimization which is free even.
Open source API, super easy to implement. GPU vendor neutral.-
3
-
-
+1 FSR
Really sounds like the right tech for DCS as a platform as it's working on all GPU brands.-
1
-
-
Just came across this and I'm in full support. Would be really helpful, especially in the F10 map for mixed flights with imp / metric airframes.
-
On 12/29/2020 at 5:15 PM, BuzyBee said:
In Tacview 1.8.5 the DCS Exporter is completely revamped so the options have changed.
The new options are as follows - you may need to copy-paste this into your options.lua if you have a dedicated server.
["Tacview"] = { ["tacviewAutoDiscardFlights"] = 10, ["tacviewBookmarkShortcut"] = 2, ["tacviewDebugMode"] = 0, ["tacviewFlightDataRecordingEnabled"] = true, ["tacviewModuleEnabled"] = true, ["tacviewMultiplayerFlightsAsClient"] = 1, ["tacviewMultiplayerFlightsAsHost"] = 2, ["tacviewRealTimeTelemetryEnabled"] = true, ["tacviewRealTimeTelemetryPassword"] = "", ["tacviewRealTimeTelemetryPort"] = "42674", ["tacviewRemoteControlEnabled"] = true, ["tacviewRemoteControlPassword"] = "", ["tacviewRemoteControlPort"] = "42675", ["tacviewSinglePlayerFlights"] = 2, ["tacviewTerrainExport"] = 0,In order to implement a 10-minute delay, simply disable real-time telemetry:
["tacviewRealTimeTelemetryEnabled"] = false,Or, if you want to implement a 10-minute delay but you want certain people to be able to connect to real-time telemetry using a password, enable real-time telemetry but with a password:
["tacviewRealTimeTelemetryEnabled"] = true, ["tacviewRealTimeTelemetryPassword"] = "password",If you want to allow no 10-minute delay for everyone, do this:
["tacviewRealTimeTelemetryEnabled"] = true, ["tacviewRealTimeTelemetryPassword"] = "",Hey, thanks for the info. Two questions:
- Installing TacView 1.8.5 on the ded Server didn't auto-update the options.lua. Is that behavior intended / expected or an issue on my particular server only?
-
Could the documentation on https://tacview.fandom.com/wiki/User_Guide_–_DCS_World be updated with more details - especially the section "Using Tacview with DCS World Dedicated Server"?
For example:
> Instead of just a mapping to GUI table a table with values expected to set up a certain behavior - for example when does it need 0/1 or true/false?
> What effect does "tacviewBookmarkShortcut" have on a dedicated server with the value 0, 1 - or 2 as mentioned in your post above?
> What effect would "tacviewRemoteControlEnabled" have on a dedicated server?
Thanks in advance for the support and the amazing product
-
Would be nice for sure! Maybe you could turn this into a topic for collecting asset ideas
For example what about some ground (crew) assets like- a detailed shelter (if possible one where raindrops don't fall through)
- hangar tractor / pulley
- hydraulic test stand
- starter unit / generator
- chemical decontamination ground support unit
- field laboratory for chemical identification
- couple of suited up NPCs in meaningful poses as seen e.g. here
- load trailers
- hoist
- towbar
- component crane
- DASS Typhoon Cooling Cart (conditioned air and ECS)
-
other statics / decorative elements like
- an engine on service frame
- high detail crates
- fuel tanks
- fire extinguisher cart
- wheel chock
- decent fuel truck
- decent fire truck
- some ground crew in decent (animated) idle poses?
- barrier tape that could be used for airshows / display
- flood lights
- see this image for a reference of a few elements described
E.g.
-
5
-
I'm having a hard time seeing sustainable lift happening with that surface and especially at the bank angle visible in the video. It's also not just limited to the C-101 - other planes have the same thing happening. e.g. mirage with ripped off delta wings.
I for one am super glad this is still visible to players and not hidden under those random moments mentioned since we don't have a lot of (any) debugging tools on our hands as players to actually display lift in a meaningful way like in other simulators. So there's no way to simply sanity check the FM.
Would be interesting if an engineer could pull off a fluid dynamics simulation on this. -
Can confirm, not updating position or data - meaning even engine RPM isn't reported back to the game in MP for other clients. It will stay grounded at 0 RPM while the client flying the Su25T can maneuver freely.
-
You have little insight into what is in the development beside what they tell you. Newsletters are not job reports. If you read the forum more you'd know better. Just wait for the next update for any real impression.
I'm sure what he means by "having the impression that the development of DCS is somewhat stalled" he means that he as a user / customer doesn't see progress.
Thus it'd obviously be the job of newsletters to inform about progress made as you're totally right, as a non developer there is no insight into the code base.
That aside do you have recommendations of dedicated sections and threads in the forums that report on the development progress that's not mentioned in the newsletters / patchlogs?
-
2
-
-
Hey gents,
@AeriaGloria
Not sure what you meant by it's a reason why it's late - could you clarify?
And yes, to help fix potential bugs is exactly why I asked if there is an easily readable source file to support the effort without having to spend days to research this via the editor by placing the objects for testing.
And sorry I should've clarified better. ME stands for mission editor.
I reworded the post - hope it's more clear this way:
Obvious example: JF-17 for Pakistan. It's not available for Pakistan in the ME in 2005 (expected) and not even in 2020.
If you take the filter out it's available - but it's then also available for the USA which to my knowledge is also incorrect but not related to this feature.
Other examples which might need confirmation are:
- M-2000C (in ME available from 84 for France - I expected from 83)
- F/A-18C Lot 20 (in ME available from 98 for USA - expected from 89)
- F-16CM bl. 50 (in ME available from 91 for USA - expected from 97)
- AV-8B (in ME available from 97 - I expected from 87)
- F-5E-3 (in ME still in service 2020 for USA - I expected not in service anymore in the USA (only F-5F/F-5N))
I couldn't find any F-5E-3 in service in 2020.
@Rudel
As for the hornet you could be right as the hornet in DCS is almost the latest C built for the Navy.
However, shouldn't the filter represent the earliest that model was available? Also taking the unit out the latest it was found to still be in service for that country / coalition?
In general I tried to compare with the DCS encyclopedia - sadly it doesn't, with some exceptions, tell much about most of the air frames.
- M-2000C (in ME available from 84 for France - I expected from 83)
-
Hi,
so apparently the ME is incorrect even for many core modules. Could we please get a sanity check (maybe community can do it together) so the values could be adjusted properly?
Also is there an easy to read source file so we don't have to dig around and change dates in the ME?
An obvious example is the JF-17 for Pakistan. It's not available in 2005 and not even in 2020. If you take the filter out it's available - it's then also available for the USA which to my knowledge is also incorrect.
Other examples which might need confirmation are:
M-2000C (in ME 84 - expected 83)
F/A-18C Lot 20 (in ME 98 - expected 89)
F-16CM bl. 50 (in ME 91 - expected 97)
AV-8B (in ME: 97 - expected: 87)
F-5E-3 (in ME: still in service 2020 - expected: not in service anymore (only F-5F/F-5N))
A good example is the A-10C which is 05 and I also expected an 05.
-
+1, at least bring it back to where it used to be.
Fully support this.
-
Instead of a video my expectation on this would be to have proper tool tips that explain A) the setting itself and B) hint as to what impact the change will have.
- Low impact
- Medium impact
- High impact
- On GPU
- On CPU
- On GPU / CPU
DCS to my knowledge for some reason has this only for checkbox options currently - like those in settings > gameplay.
This needs to be done to the settings as well. It would hugely benefit newcomers in setting up the game correctly and enjoy it more without lag and stutters - thus higher chance of new players joining as customers.
- Low impact
-
VR
in DCS: NS 430
I dont want a pop up in vr, i want the 3d version more widely implemented in vr. Theres a few airframes that could conceivably be equipped with itFor FC3 planes it would not make sense since those don't have clickable cockpits.
In this way it'd only make sense for full fidelity modules and from those only the ones that don't have satnav built in and were in service after GPS went live.
So we still do need a VR version of this as it's mainly FC3 modules benefiting from it.
For example the Mig-29G, which is the Luftwaffe version of the 29 and was retrofitted with GPS navigation among other things - in DCS it doesn't have any retrofitting whatsoever, just called the G and limited weapons.
And frankly I don't see why it's not coming.
I have all NS430 versions:
10$ C-101EB and C-101CC
6$ L-39
15$ Mi-8MTV2 + Pop-up-Window Bundle
31$ total so far, which is nearly a full module or high class module during sale.
The popup alone is 11$ and still incompatible with VR in 2020. I'd even consider getting a VR version of it for another 11$ if that's necessary to make the devs work on that topic.
It should be doable. I mean I can download OVR toolkit and display youtube videos or even the whole desktop while playing. DCS can render stuff to external displays. There must be a way to get this done for the customers.
-
This part isn't quite true. With static weather you can set the cloud deck and thickness to anything you want. You just can't do it through the ME which makes it more of a pain. You have to edit the mission file. Here's Butami with the base set to 80m:
[...]
Of course, any runways at a higher altitude could very well be very deep in the clouds.
If it's not doable via the ME the statement is true. I mean yes, you can do lot's of things with extensive scripting, modding etc. - not limited to but including adding whole air craft.
But in the end the functionality that the game provides via it's official editor is the benchmark.
Whoa whoa whoa... I can have an expensive car and take vacation trips?!?!?I can't since I have to buy so many modules :lol:
That aside I can understand where the poster was coming from. Keep in mind that Eagle Dynamics has the same amount of employees, actually a little more, than Asobo, the studio behind some other recent sim game in the news.
So in essence he was talking about focusing resources on core aspects of the game itself that cannot be compensated by community modding or 3rd party developers, like more modules or maps.
And I agree with that to be honest.
I would love to see more openness especially to community modding, taking some of the pain out to get mods distributed and running as well as improving parts of the game that are just tedious but rather super easy and simple work.
Obviously core modules will have to be developed to get new tech into the platform (ground radar etc.) but just looking at what awesome mods are available and how hard it is to build dynamic content around them to fly with a few friends is always a sad sight. The game could be much better if some of the workload would be sourced to the community and staff could focus on the core platform.
-
Maybe flying over a nice "flat" rendering is ok for civil sims, but in a combat sim you need a 3d world all the way, and that means 3d objects...
Could you elaborate on what you mean by flat rendering? Are you referring to the lack support of VR in certain other games?
If it's about the texturing, tessalation quality etc. the detail in some other simulators is on par or higher, especially considering the sheer size. You'll reach the end of high res nevada very quickly for example and DCS has a big issue rendering any decent ground detail from textures, especially in the distance. For example check out the mountains in NTTR or PG.
As for geometry quality we don't even have a single airport with a detailed realistic and sloped runway yet in DCS.
So here's hoping they'll make a big push to get the maps up to date and hopefully merged as they are beginning to look a bit outdated and feel rather small.
-
VR
in DCS: NS 430
Aaahhh... As opposed to all those thousands of people who don't want it to work in VR. I see now.Have you read the thread?
Or even the OP? :lol:
Could you elaborate? The tread is titled VR after all.
Also what do you mean by there is thousands of people who actively want to prevent VR users having access to the NS430 popup edition?
Is this really a thing in the DCS community or are you just being toxic?
So data display export to 3rd party displays is okay but support in VR is not?
I mean yeah, the average DCS user is probably also playing using low or mid end audio hardware - should we now gather thousands of users actively demanding to prevent improving audio quality?
+1 from me for VR support on the NS430 popup. It adds so much value to many of the airframes that do not have it as a 3d model.
Just a small example: it creates a semi realistic Mig-29g, the German version of the 29 that is in DCS.
The German 29 was retrofitted with GPS among other things, so the NS430 is a great addition to emulate parts of that capability the Eagle Dynamic product lacks.
-
I hope I get the point the OP is making: asking full price for a 20% module.
That, in my book, is totally correct. It neither falls into EA nor Beta access or whatever terminology. But it's what it is with DCS since everyone basically operates on the open beta so... a discount would not make much sense sadly.
However, I'm okay with the module pricing as you don't really need to buy them all. If it's money then just buying what you really wanna fly is doable and there are discounts from time to time as well.
What I'm more worried about are maps and other addon modules. Those have very negative effects on the multiplayer community since you cannot join unless you buy - including assets like train trailers from the WW2 pack.
The supercarrier is also a bit spicy seeing you now have to set up multiple carrier groups just to allow naval ops for everyone.
So while I'm okay with paying for a full module, even if it's incomplete (you could just wait until it's finished) I'd love for this absurd maps and asset DLC pattern to change. It splits the community so hard that I cannot even begin to imagine a future with dozens of asset packs and maps. It will just not work.
-
How would you know, do you have any real world experience?
That's a point but let's just turn this around - can any real world pilots confirm the Gazelle performs up to spec? So far I haven't seen that.
Torque effects, ground effect, Vortex ring state - all seems to be needing improvements. There's lots of videos around showing this - maybe you could confirm with a real pilot if it seems reasonable?
That said they mentioned they will work on it after Kiowa so I'll just sit there and hold my breath.
Kiowa sure looks awesome so I will reserve my purchase until it's confirmed by real pilots that the FM is up to standard without major glitches. Should be doable though to find real pilots confirming the flight model is close to on spot, at least in the important categories. If so it will definitely be an amazing module from what I have seen.
-
Again thanks for the reply but are you kidding me? As with myself and I'm sure many other people, use old computers to run a server. I have for years and now its not good as a result of this update? Can you please tell me what changed to make it all of a sudden useless.
What would have been great is to notify people ahead so they can purchase hardware. This should indeed be mandatory if requirements are changed drastically.
@c0ff, could you forward this so in the future the community get's a notify e.g. 1-2 months ahead?
That said SSE 4.1 should be implemented from AMD Bulldozer (2011) and Intel Penryn Core 2 Duos (2007). So we're talking 9-13 years old hardware.
I believe what's more likely to affect a lot of dedicated servers is setting the correct CPU type when virtualizing.
I know because it happened to me.
So make sure you set the CPU type to
A) the most modern one that your host CPU supports or
B) set the CPU type to "host" if you are willing to expose it
That way the VM can use those instruction sets.
Anyone know how to place the Stennis/Supercarrier in any of the lakes?
in DCS: Nevada Test and Training Range
Posted
I'm not sure when you tried this but I'm 99% sure it doesn't work as you described. OP was requesting a NON static object - and carriers are not available for USA on the NTTR map, even without historic filter.
Honestly I consider this at least it's a lacking feature if not a bug. Yes, it may not be realistic but I'd appreciate the creative freedom for mission makers to have all ships available, even on the NTTR map.
On top the UK for example has a Boat Schnellboot type S310 available - which is a German vessel (WW2 mind you). So even the current configuration is not realistic at all.
For the USA there's only 2 two ships available:
1. Boat Armed Hi-Speed
2. Harbor Tug