statrekmike

I do agree that users should always endeavor to be constructive and polite. That being said, since RAZBAM's communication about the Harrier module has been a issue for a good long time now, is ED in a position to comment officially? We all know that modules can take a long time to push out of early access but the Harrier hasn't seen major updates for a worryingly long time. I think that it is fair to say that a good number of us who bought the module are starting to wonder what its fate will actually be. Obviously this is a tricky situation but does Eagle Dynamics have a position on this? If the Harrier does eventually get the features and polish it needs, that would be great but what will happen if it doesn't?

Honestly? I am not even sure why the training missions are as convoluted as they are. It just makes more sense to hop into the editor, make extremely simple "training scenarios" that allow you to just open up the manual and go through the various procedures and checklists as you go. It would be faster and more efficient to do that than it is to mess with the training missions as they are. Whenever I help out new players, they always complain about the training missions and they are not wrong to do so. they are more complicated than they need to be and are not nearly comprehensive enough to really give you what you need. It is just better to use the editor as a training tool and simply create the scenarios you need to learn the various planes. The editor may seem a bit intimidating at first but it is shockingly straightforward and very easy to work with if you don't try to push it past its limits.

To be blunt, your entire process needs work. My advice is to break the carrier landing process into a few different major skills that you can learn one at a time and put together when you have gotten a handle on them separately. The first step is to get a handle on just flying the aircraft. From take-off to landing it was clear that you were always a few steps behind the jet. Spend some time doing by the book landings on a airbase. Spend some time just flying around to get a feel for more subtle, more precise stick inputs. Get yourself to a point where you are not struggling to keep the jet under control. Next, you need to learn how your navigation systems work. The airplane has all the tools you need to navigate to and land on the carrier without even seeing it. It falls on you to learn these systems and the best way to do it is by the book. Don't try to find shortcuts on youtube. Don't try to rush the process. Learn how to use TACAN (which will guide you to the carrier) and learn how to use ICLS (which will get you on the deck. It will take some work on your part but that is kinda what you signed up for when you got into DCS in the first place. Finally, you really, really, really need to understand what "on speed" means and why it is pretty much the most important thing in carrier landings. The only reason you landed in that video without destroying your plane is because DCS's damage model isn't there yet. If it were more realistic, you would have wrecked that plane by landing way, way, way too fast. Getting on speed means setting up your aircraft so that it can hold the desired angle of attack as you control your descent to the deck. It isn't going to be easy and will take a lot of practice but like I said before, you signed up for that when you got into DCS. Overall, I think your issue is that you are trying to do one of the more difficult things without seeming to understand all the parts of the process that go into it.

Considering that other modules have ECM to varying degrees (even ED's own), I don't think the issue is classification (since ECM in DCS will always be simplified anyway) or "game balance" since that makes no sense when you take everything else in DCS into account). What is more likely is that ED simply hasn't gotten to a point where they add the ECM elements. They will always be simplified but there is no reason to believe that there won't be some kind of ECM.

My impression has always been that ground radar (as it is implemented on multi-role jets like the Viper, Hornet, etc) is not really the "end all, be all" sensor but instead is just another useful tool in the toolbox. When I argue against the "ground radar is useless/wasted effort" crowd, I don't argue that it is something you should use as your sole sensor but instead as a option that will be more or less useful depending on the situation/context. It is probably safe to assume that your own viewpoint (and the viewpoint of your peers no doubt) is shaped by the "airpower ecosystem" (for lack of a better term) that you worked inside. You had access to a lot of tools that were far, far more effective than just the ground radar on a Hornet. Sadly, DCS doesn't model a lot of those tools at all so it can get tricky to apply current, real world views on ground radar usefulness/practicality without running into issues. At the risk of sounding like I am "theory crafting", in the real world, you probably had a JSTARS or something else on the radio that could tell you exactly where to go to find ground forces. You probably had a JTAC or some troops on the ground giving you (or someone who you might interact with) a good idea of where the targets are so that you can easily punch in where you want the pod to look. In real world conditions, the ground radar isn't going to be a super useful tool compared to the massive information structure that you had access to. As I said before, DCS doesn't have a good chunk of that. We don't have JSTARS, we don't have tightly connected command and control, and we don't have the kind of datalink that you had access to. Without all those tools, finding a set of vehicles moving across a open desert with just your targeting pod and a waypoint isn't really practical. Suddenly that ground radar that isn't super useful in real life (nowadays) becomes very useful since it can help you point that targeting pod in the right place without having to scan miles of desert through what essentially amounts to a soda straw. To be clear, I am not advocating for the ground radar to be given capabilities it doesn't have. I don't want it to be better than real life. That said, I don't think the dismissal I have seen in various DCS communities is a good idea either. Even your own statements in this thread will no doubt get twisted into something to the effect of "See, even this real world pilot thinks the AG radar is useless so why bother with it at all!" (even though that is not what you said).

I was one of those "nits" that was apparently "whinging about it" so I will go ahead and outline my reasoning behind wanting the ground radar prioritized. In real life modern air operations, we have a lot of highly networked assets that can build a shockingly decent picture of where ground forces are at any given time. We have JSTARS, we have ground assets with datalink setups that can talk to SADL and link 16. We have drones, and we have satellites. All of this stuff helps a pilot in a multi-role aircraft to point their targeting pod on the right stretch of ground to see the target. With all that put into consideration, said multi-role aircraft's ground radar is obviously less important. DCS doesn't have a lot of that. We don't have JSTARS. We don't have a massive command and control network tied into all kinds of different assets. We can certainly make missions where we can imply (via briefing text and such) how we know where fixed forces are but we don't really have the required assets or the complete datalink setup needed to do this kind of thing organically in the mission itself (at least not without some very artificial feeling scripting). This is where ground radar that is normally less useful in real life suddenly becomes more useful in the sim. It won't be a magic bullet that solves all the problems but it does allow aircraft like the F-16, F/A-18, and JF-17 to locate enemy forces more easily as long as they have a very, very rough idea of what direction to look. Let's put this into a practical example. In the past ten or so years of making missions for DCS, I have always run into a problem where I can't just have players hunt for enemy ground targets (especially moving ones) without pretty specifically guiding them to exactly where they need to be. The targeting pod is a great tool but only if you have a pretty good idea of where exactly you need to point it. The TGP isn't a search tool. It isn't something you would use to sweep large areas. Since we have not had access to modern multi-role level ground radar until the release of the JF-17, I have had to find sometimes rather convoluted ways to avoid mission types that require players to actually search for targets without knowing pretty much exactly where they are in advance. Now, you could argue that I could do some stuff via triggers or scripting but I tend to feel that such methods result in a artificial, "gamey" feel for the mission. I like using the sim's existing systems and structure whenever possible. When the JF-17 came out, I suddenly had the option to do missions where players actually have the means to search for ground units. Suddenly they can locate a group of three or four moving vehicles rather quickly even without being led directly to them via waypoints. Now they can use the targeting pod and ground radar together to quickly locate and target units without having to waste a ton of time trying to eyeball a few specks moving along a open field or desert. As I said before, if DCS were to get JSTARS and more fleshed out datalink setups, the ground radar on a individual Viper or Hornet would become less important (as it has in real life) but we don't have those things so ground radar becomes a important part of target acquisition. If you want to do a experiment that kinda highlights what I am talking about (assuming you own either the Hornet or Viper and the JF-17), make a simple scenario where you kinda haphazardly place a handful of BMP's (or something) in the open desert on the Persian Gulf map. don't pay too much attention to where you put them exactly (so you don't easily get to cheat) but make sure they are moving in a large, somewhat confusing pattern. Make sure you place a waypoint in the (very) general direction of the area these ground units are operating (because that would make sense). Now, hop in a Viper/Hornet and use your own eyes and the targeting pod to find this group without knowing exactly where they are. You might eventually find them but it will take a while. You will have to really use your eyes because the "soda straw" view from the targeting pod isn't going to give you a lot to work with. Next, hop in the JF-17 and enable GMT mode on the ground radar. It will not take long at all for a few blips to pop up that you can lock on to. From there, your targeting pod can be slaved directly to that point where you can do all the fine targeting you need to do to get weapons on target. That is the value of the ground radar. It isn't a end all, be all sensor that will tell you everything but it is a fantastic way to get a good general idea of where to point your pod without having to waste a lot of time.

In current real-life combat operations? Not a ton. While I know that some in the combat aircraft enthusiast scene have said that it is useless because of the targeting pod, it isn't quite that simple. The big reason why ground radar (at least in a target acquisition context) isn't as useful today is because we have other assets like JSTARS and different kinds of datalink all contributing information to a picture given to the pilot. When you have a JSTARS tracking ground targets, a datalink telling you that info, and people vectoring you to the right target, ground radar isn't as useful as a targeting pod since you already roughly know where to point that pod. In contrast, DCS players are going to be in a different situation. DCS doesn't have JSTARS and it doesn't currently have anything beyond SADL and the Black shark's system for ground target datalink information (and neither of those systems can talk to link 16 currently). For all intents and purposes, a DCS F-16 player is getting something like a Desert Storm experience where the lack of JSTARS and comprehensive ground target datalink made the use of individual ground radar systems necessary in some cases to find enemy positions and vehicles. If you want a good practical example of what I am talking about, try this experiment if you can. Set up a mission (or better yet, have a friend do it) where you have a choice to either spawn in a F-16 or a JF-17. Place some enemy vehicles in big open desert area on the Persian Gulf map and set them to follow a long, wide, erratic path. It doesn't need to be complex, just a handful of moving vehicles in a group and your aircraft. First, hop in the F-16 and try to find them at a altitude of about 20,000 feet. You will have a targeting pod so you can try to use that to help you but you can't use the F10 map and you won't have any JTAC or AFAC guiding you in. You have to find it yourself with only what the plane currently has in terms of sensor options. You will probably eventually find the vehicles but it will take a while and will probably not be a fast enough process to do in a more serious mission context. Now hop in the JF-17. Since the JF-17 not only has ground radar but also a working GMT (ground moving target) mode, you will have a vastly different experience. All you have to do is set the radar to GMT, watch the display for blips, and lock them up when you see them. From here, you can slave your targeting pod to that sensor point of interest and quickly engage them without a lot of wasted time or fuss. One could make the argument that ground radar is not as useful as a JTAC/AFAC or even some sort of scripted setup by the mission designer to deliver target locations to the player but a working ground radar gives you a level of versatility that you simply don't have otherwise. To be blunt. Anyone who argues that the ground radar isn't useful in DCS is doing so without considering the limitations we have in DCS versus the real world. If we had JSTARS and more agile JTAC/AFAC AI assets, it would be different but we don't. Without those things, ground radar suddenly becomes as useful as it was in Desert Storm.

I am fully aware that the maps, buildings, and trees are not terribly high resolution. That being said, let's dig into that a bit and see where it takes us. When I spawn on the Persian Gulf map at Dubai international, I am smack dab in the middle of one of the more demanding map areas of the entire sim. If it is just me, I get pretty much the same overall performance that I would get in any other airport. The framerate will be a touch lower but it won't be serious. To go one step further, I could also have a bunch of my buddies spawn in next to me with F-14's and even with some of the most visually demanding, performance intensive aircraft in DCS surrounding me, I would still not see a massive drop in frames. At this point, I am pushing more polygons and more higher-res textures than I would on the Supercarrier and I am still getting solid (if slightly decreased) performance. The hit I am getting is proportional to the visuals I am seeing. When I spawn on a the empty Supercarrier deck with no land nearby and only my plane and the deck crew to keep me company, I automatically get half my frames. I could turn off Vsync and get some frames back but now I am experiencing serious stutters. If I look away from the superstructure, I get some of those frames back (but not all) and if I look back at the Superstructure, I get performance problems again. Now, while I do think the Supercarrier looks pretty great, I am not really seeing texture resolutions or even mesh complexity that lines up with the performance hit I am seeing. Unlike the scenario I outlined above, I am not seeing where that performance is actually going. The performance hit isn't justified by what is happening in the sim. There are some interesting things to keep in mind. As you have hopefully gathered from all the posts in this thread, shadows seem to be a pretty big part of this. Running the sim without shadows isn't really a practical or acceptable option (especially when one meets/exceeds the recommended requirements for "high") but it does give us a hint that maybe there is a issue somewhere in the Supercarrier model that causes the shadows to have a particularly high impact on performance. Perhaps this is a bug that simply needs to be looked at by ED. Again, I could be wrong but it is at least something. As BigNewy said above, apparently ED has identified a bug with deck crew performance so maybe that is a big part of it. Perhaps this issue also extends to the crew in the superstructure as that would go a long way towards explaining why we are seeing a 50% cut in performance when looking at the Superstructure specifically.

Nobody has ever, ever said that they expect the Supercarrier to perform as well as the Stennis, that is a strawman argument of your own creation. What we want is to know why we are seeing a massive loss of performance when there isn't a obvious visual reason for it. We want ED to do some tests and figure out if there are some things that can be done to improve the situation.

I think you are completely mischaracterizing the issue and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you seem so aggressively committed to doing so. If this were simply a issue where a nicer looking thing runs a bit worse, I don't think this thread would be going as long as it has. Everyone here understands that you will see varying levels of performance depending on the visual complexity of a given module, map, etc. As you say, "It is obvious". The problem here is that we are suddenly seeing a huge performance hit on one specific thing and there isn't any real justification for it in the visuals that we are seeing. The Supercarrier looks nice but it doesn't look -30 FPS nice. I could load the Stennis's deck with F-14's (the heaviest weight module visually) and still get better performance than I would on a completely empty Supercarrier deck. Does that seem normal to you? Does that seem justified considering the visual complexity of the Supercarrier module itself? The core issue here is that out of everything you can do in DCS, the Supercarrier itself (again, to be VERY clear, with nothing on the deck but the player aircraft and the default deck crew) cuts the framerate in half without any real sign as to why in its basic visual design/complexity. As I have said often in this thread, I am running a system that exceeds the recommended requirements for "high settijngs" as listed for the Supercarrier module itself and I see a 50% drop in overall framerates. I go from a nearly rock solid 60 FPS for everything else in the sim to 30 FPS on a empty Supercarrier deck. It doesn't make sense. There is something going on beyond "You need a better computer" or something to that effect.

I still think the best solution here would be for ED to do some experiments for themselves and see where the greatest performance hits are with the Supercarrier. From there, figure out some kind of option that can go in the "special" settings that switches to a version that doesn't cause such a massive hit. I strongly suspect that the changes required to get the SC module to run roughly similar to the rest of the sim would not be so great that it would cause a major issue anyway.

I really hope we get some kind of official comment about this soon. This isn't a minor issue and is especially glaring when you consider that many new players coming into DCS will not know that they need a computer that vastly exceeds the recommended requirements for "high" in order to get relatively consistent performance. Something needs to be done. ED needs to find some way to make the Supercarrier's performance at least mostly line up with the rest of the sims performance.

The F-14 has always been a bit worse in terms of performance when compared to the Hornet. Obviously it will be a bigger issue for some systems more than others but I can't say that there has ever been a time where the F-14 had higher FPS than the Hornet. I mean, the F-14 obviously uses much higher resolution textures and more intricate model work, it is going to be a bit heavier on systems as a result.

"Hypocrisy" may not be the right word. I mean, I consider myself to be very much on the "rivet counter" side of the overall equation but even I understand that there is really only so much that can be realistically simulated before you leave the scope of the intended simulation environment. As I said before. People who are looking for realism in DCS as a priority are not talking about anything outside of the aircraft, its various systems, and the procedures involved in using those systems. It is obvious that anything outside the cockpit isn't really within the scope of the simulation. Nobody is asking ED to come and kill them when they crash. Nobody is asking ED to make us file paperwork after every mission. You know that and I know that so lets not go to that extreme when it accomplishes nothing and only serves to make the overall discussion less productive.

So when you use the Supercarrier, do you not see a framerate drop at all? Is your framerate the same as it would be when using the older Stennis model or even a airbase? Even my friends with extremely high-end systems are encountering notable FPS loss even if it doesn't really impact the playability.

We know that Minsky's system is old. We know that it is a serious contributor to his performance issues. There is no reason and nothing to be gained by dwelling on that. This thread is largely about the overall performance issues with the Supercarrier and fighting over how old a user's system is isn't going to move that discussion in any useful direction. There is objectively a serious performance hit with the Supercarrier on EVERY system. It might not render the experience unplayable (especially for those with very high-end systems) but it is still a issue that needs to be looked at seriously by ED.

To be bluntly honest, I think that worrying about Minsky's hardware specifically misses the larger point. I agree that his hardware is past the upgrade point but that isn't really the crux of this thread. Let's use my system as a example. I run a i7 6700K, 32 gigs of RAM, have DCS installed on a m.2 SSD, and use a GTX 1070 as my GPU. I am running in 1080p so I have been able to run DCS at quite high settings without any significant issues. When I create a scenario where I spawn on a Supercarrier with a empty deck (aside from the default deck crew) and no other objects but my own aircraft, I experience almost a 50% loss in overall FPS. I go from a pretty steady 60 FPS to 30 FPS. This is especially the case when I look at the carrier's superstructure specifically. When I asked some of the guys in my group that have much, much better systems, they also encounter a significant loss in FPS when using the Supercarrier. It doesn't render the experience unplayable but it is a huge loss in performance that seems to be deeply connected to shadows. This tells me that there is a issue with how shadows are rendered and makes it a optimization problem that ED really should explore and try to solve or mitigate. To be blunt. Arguing about people with low-end systems will not help ED understand our issue and will only make it harder to actually get them to look at it seriously.

It is true that Minsky's GPU is quite outdated (and this will be even more of a issue when even mainstream games go beyond his card's capabilities when the new consoles come up (and minimum requirements go up across the board). That being said, Minsky's rig isn't exactly the whole issue here. So I have a few people in my group with VERY high-end systems (including ones with 2080 Super's in them). All of them have encountered a pretty severe framerate drop when using the Supercarrier specifically. This isn't to say that their performance is rendered unplayable. They just encountered major framerate drops when compared to everything else in the sim. The problem isn't if it is playable or not. The problem is that the Supercarrier goes above and beyond DCS World's base-level system requirements to such a degree that either there is something wrong in terms of optimization that really should be dealt with (perhaps shadows need to be tuned for the Superstructure area, I don't know) or the system requirements for DCS need to go up quite a bit to keep up. I don't have a bad computer (and easily meet the "high" requirement for the Supercarrier) but I still see a significant performance loss that doesn't really make a lot of sense. There is something going on that shouldn't be so flippantly dismissed as "you need a better computer" or something to that effect. Again. It isn't about if it is playable or not. It is about the total performance hit across even high-end systems that exceed the recommended requirements.

I see responses like this come up in these kinds of discussions and to be blunt, it doesn't really help to go to such a absurd extreme. I am pretty confident that you understand that your "reductio ad absurdum" example isn't what anyone really wants. What people want is DCS to continue to be a platform that tries its best to provide realistic, immersive aircraft to explore and interact with. Obviously there should be options for those that want to tone down the complexity (perhaps MAC is that solution in the long run) but this idea that it is either "make DCS accessible" or "I want to actually file paperwork, go through real-life briefings, and actually have a chance of dying in combat" with no in between is silly and doesn't help the conversation move forward.

I don't really think it is a "either/or" scenario. Additionally. I don't think either of us have any true, substantiated insight into what the rather silent majority of DCS players wants out of the sim. We can only really speak for ourselves and perhaps the trends we see in the very vocal minority that exists on the forums and in the somewhat larger subset of DCS players that engage with the community online in other areas. Here is the thing about my general preference towards "rivet counter" levels of detail (like circuit breakers). I like having it as a option. Obviously not everyone will (like yourself) but at the same time, you also are often not required to even interact with those deeper levels of simulation. Sometimes they are simply not essential unless the mission maker specifically requires it. Sometimes you even have options you can change that remove those deeper levels as a significant factor. Heck, in pretty much every module we have now, your average player probably only learns and interacts with thirty-five to forty percent of the system functionality and is perfectly happy with just that. The extra functionality is still there. They just understand that they don't have to interact with it. So with all that said. When you are quite likely never required to even interact with those circuit breakers and other "rivet counter" features. Why decry their presence for others that do go that deep? DCS may be complex but it seldom puts a lot of pressure on players to engage with EVERYTHING on offer system-wise. Finally. I hate to break it to you but even if DCS modules were to suddenly get rid of all the more complex system interactions, the sim would still not have much mass market appeal. Flight sims were big back in the day because the PC gaming market was smaller and generally older. The gaming audience is much younger on average now and several orders of magnitude larger. Obviously genres that target older, more financially stable gamers will fall by the wayside in the mass market. DCS being complex isn't what keeps it from being a mass market game, DCS being a combat flight sim in general is. The addition or subtraction of some of the more in-depth system interactions won't change that. To piggy back on your claim about Falcon 4 being the death knell of flight sims. Did you consider the larger context? By the time Falcon 4 came out, the flight sim genre was already on life support. The PC gaming audience was getting larger and younger. Suddenly shooters and multiplayer focused games like MMO's and the like became a lot more lucrative to publishers. Even less realistic survey sims like some of the Jane's stuff was probably not seen as worthwhile compared to more lucrative, safer bets like multiplayer shooters and MMO's. It wasn't that the flight sim audience left because the genre got too complex. It was that bigger audiences with different, simpler demands became the focus of publishers.

I can see where you are personally coming from but you should also be willing to consider that there are indeed players who do enjoy the option for system failures (perhaps as a way to add tension during a mission or to make a trip back to base more interesting). Having systems that are simulated finely enough to support full bit tests are systems that are simulated enough for interesting failures. That is the big reason why many of us want those circuit breakers and bit tests that you don't personally care about, we want those systems to be there so we can interact with them on either a gameplay level or a mission design level. You don't have to ever interact with them if you don't want to but don't be so quick to dismiss those that do.

So the first step in the troubleshooting process is to determine if your throttle is actually getting enough power to operate properly. Just plugging it into your standard issue USB 2 port that you might find on the back of your computer, the front, or even a USB 2 hub will not certainly not provide enough power and will give you the "ghost inputs" that you are getting now. Generally speaking, the X56 throttle needs to either be plugged into a USB 3 port on the computer or (preferably) plugged into a powered (and it is very important that it is powered) USB 3 hub. The hub is the most certain solution out of the two and will more than likely get rid of your issue. I had this issue myself and going to a powered USB 3 hub fixed it right up.

This misses the point of the issue. When I make a mission full of particularly demanding modules on a particularly demanding map (like the Persian Gulf), I certainly notice a drop in performance on my rig but it is one that makes sense based on what I have going on. I can understand how a bunch of Tomcats sitting on the tarmac on Al Dhafra can cause a noticeable performance impact. Even then, the performance impact is proportional and isn't severe at all. Keep in mind, I run DCS on a i7 6700k, 32 gigs of RAM, and a GTX 1070. I usually run DCS quite smoothly at a mix of mostly high and medium settings. I can't max out DCS comfortably but I can get it looking as good as I would expect for a computer like mine. Now. If I were to leave my settings as they usually are and place a single Supercarrier far out to the western edge of the Persian Gulf map (where high-detail terrain is too far away to render). I would see a 50% performance drop with only myself on the deck. I am not even talking about a lot of AI assets or static objects. Just me in a plane on a empty deck in the middle of the ocean. If I look at the superstructure of the carrier, my FPS drops more than 50%. This seems a bit much. It is still playable but if I want those frames back, I have to turn off shadows and to be bluntly honest, that isn't a real solution at all. That makes the game look awful to say the least. As another user said above. If this were someone that happens across a wider variety of conditions in DCS, it would probably be a sign that the minimum requirements have crept up and people need to catch up but we are not. We are talking about ONE thing that cuts performance in half and even recent 20 series cards are seeing a pretty significant (even if not unplayable) impact. There is something wrong here. Telling people to turn off major graphic elements or even raising the system requirements is a band-aid over a bullet wound. It is clear that there is a significant optimization pass required for the Supercarrier and that might mean ED will have to tweak some things to keep DCS in something even remotely close to reasonable and proportional system requirements.

I don't know if "spike" is the word I would go for. My point was that AI planes (especially those with high detail models like the F-14 and the like) will have a impact on performance if they are near enough. Likewise, the AI itself (regardless of the quality of the model/textures used) will obviously impact CPU performance. My larger point overall is that AI aircraft are not really the issue being discussed in this specific thread. We have always known that AI impacts performance to varying degrees. What we are trying to figure out is why the Supercarrier on its own is impacting performance in such a extreme manner.

The AI has always been a significant factor. It makes sense that AI assets would cause performance drops on one level or another. The issue we are trying to get to the bottom of here is why the Supercarrier itself (separate from any other AI or static objects) has such a massive performance impact.