rfxcasey

I'm not familiar with Gigabyte's particular flavor of UEFI/BIOS but I'll tell you from someone with years of experience, these days many motherboard manufacturers have their boards set way to aggressively set as default and they often need quite a bit of somewhat involved tweaking to get temps and power consumption within acceptable range. First thing I'd do is check to see if there is somewhere in the UEFI/BIOS to set your CPU cooler type to "Boxed" or "Air" which will limit the power applied to your CPU. Usually these boards are set for liquid cooling power profiles by default, but even after making the change to "Air" or whatever it is, there will still be some advanced core power settings you'll need to research and tweak. My MSI had all cores' turbo maxed by default and a far to aggressive dynamic voltage profile. Hope that helps, I really don't have time to do an in depth analysis if that's what you're looking for, but it's probably what you need. It might also help to verify the CPU cooler is installed correctly with the proper placement of thermal compound just to be sure. Did you build this machine yourself? 14900KF is most likely overkill for the average user and will only result in higher temps and power consumption vs something like the 14700K which will most undoubtedly give you the same FPS in DCS and every other game for that matter give or take 2 or 3 FPS. That is historically how it goes with these things. People often go for the flagship CPUs believing it will be better for gaming or daily use when in reality its completely unnecessary for anything other than professional full time video encoding, compiling or perhaps CAD applications. 99 percent of software won't even utilize the difference. But I digress, make sure your turbo mode is set to "per core" or "turbo core ratio" and not "all core". Your mileage may vary.

Most likely an artifact of anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering but no sure. I have seen it as well but it really doesn't bother me, everything else if perfect and it only happens under certain conditions. I haven't done any extensive testing to try isolating and eliminating it.

F/A-18C is great, you just have to be smart enough and a good enough pilot to know how to use it effectively. Perhaps it's just not for you. And its not the Viper, its the Fighting Falcon or just Falcon for short. I mean, snakes don't fly do they? Well I guess vipers, and tom cats as well for that matter, do sort of fly when you let go of their tails after vigorously spinning them around, like a shot put hammer.

Understood, but it'd be nice if there was an exception for the entries in the .lua specifying the number of chaff/flare for each program, or at least the manual ones. Surely a small piece of code to allow for the changing of only these values wouldn't be too much of a bother, allow only a 1 or 2 decimal digit number to be between 0 and 9 at the end of the relevant lines while not considering the file "modified". I'm speaking of the Hornet in particular but surely there are other modules that should be included.

Why does editing your counter measures programs via CMDS_ALE47.lua break integrity check now? Never used to. Since DCS doesn't have a DTC why force people to edit their CMS programs manually every time they hop in a new jet? What is the point of that?

Yeah, I think Bremspropeller misunderstood what I meant when I said "naval". I wasn't talking about the Navy in particular, only carrier capable. Much as with the Vaught F-4U Corsair of which some were land based. As per Webster's dictionary... naval adjective na·val ˈnā-vəl Synonyms of naval 1 obsolete : of or relating to ships or shipping 2 a : of or relating to a navy b : consisting of or involving warships

It's great. I can run at 120FPS+ with full detail without DLSS on, but it reduces my GPU temp by about 10 degrees with no negative consequences.

Were those land based Marine F-4s not carrier capable?

Seriously struck a nerve with you apparently. Seems from the responses some others generally agree with the cautious approach as well, not really sure why that trips your trigger, some folks just like to argue I guess. But best wishes.

"I just wish more people would have some semblance of hope that promises of modules to be made will be kept." Why? Does others voicing their opinion really hurt your feeling that much? Its not pessimism, its realism. We're also talking about separate full fidelity modules for what is essentially (and (arguably) arguably) the same aircraft being sold independently, which is like a niche within a niche. This hasn't really happened before in DCS save for the FC3 low-fi Eagle and A-10, which is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. I honestly hope they make a naval version, but once again, there is a lot that can happen between now and then. Personally, I'm not holding my breath just yet. How many naval variants does HB think they can sell? Why would you potentially undercut sales of the E model by suggesting that potential buyers might wait for a naval variant instead? The E was more prolific, has broader international appeal and can be used in a wider variety of historic scenarios. I completely understand why HB chose to go that route from a business standpoint. The real questions are, how different is the naval variant, how much work from the E can be reused, how cost effective is developing it verse prospective sales, how many folks will actually buy both? I can see HB selling a lot of Es to an international audience, I can see a naval variant selling much less. Just my humble and honest opinion, I could be wrong.

Look I'm not going to argue with you, but there is no guarantee of anything no matter how much you want or wish there to be. "whether or not they can get data on the F-14B/U or even the D is a big IF and as we've all seen with the recent pandemic, things can change overnight. Changes in financial situations, new management with new priorities or even a company folding are not out of the realm of possibilities. Point is, there can potentially be a lot of "show stoppers" between NOW and THEN. To assert there will DEFINITELY be a naval version at this point in time is speculative. This is a much more realistic assessment of the situation.

Perhaps, but just because they keep making modules doesn't mean a naval Phantom II will be one of them. To the best of my knowledge HB has only said they're considering it but nothing carved in stone.

I'll chime in against my better judgement. I suspect that the likelihood of a naval variant is very slim unfortunately. From what I've read Heatblur has stated work, if any, on a naval variant would start only AFTER the F-4E is "complete", not released. Given many modules like the F/A-18 Hornet and F-16 Falcon have/had been in early access for years, I don't suspect the F-4E will be considered "complete" in no less than 4 years. I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps servers like Enigma's cold war would include both the Heatblur F-4E AND the VSN made naval variants. The VSN F-4 is very nice now that they "fixed" the flight model, it's a lot of fun to fly and fight in.

It claimed victories and suffered high loses mostly to SAMs. It didn't have the record of other planes like the Hellcat did in WW2, but it was a capable fighter none the less. The training and quality of the aircrews was I determining factor. It didn't turn fight like an F-16.

Discord invite expired.

Mind you, I'm not in favor of Eagle Dynamics blocking auxiliary software from running alongside. Head tracking, voice command, bass shaker and other complementary program's functionality rely on DCS's openness.

Reshade-me can be used to make dots pop from all the way across the map, both on 2D and 3D displays. In particular, the 'Cartoonify' or 'Cartoonerize' filter. It creates a thicker outline of objects as if bordered in thick ink. When set to the extreme, it can make the game look funky, but there is a happy medium that will make the dots pop without effecting the overall look of the sim too much. You're welcome. If you want proof I'll post screenshots. While this can be used to exploit multiplayer and does not break integrity check, it is also an equalizer for 2D pilots facing those in VR.

Understood, but the ear destroying capability of the Harrier is on another level when compared to every other module I own. When I have the world volume set so it's perfect for vehicles and ordinance, the Harrier is the only one that's still ear piercingly loud. As a person who suffers from tinnitus, after years of hearing damage from working around extremely loud equipment (despite the use of hearing protection), my ears can't handle this level of 'realism'.

I know the Harrier is loud IRL, but its a downright hearing hazard in DCS world. Going from the cockpit, with perfect sound levels, to an exterior shot, practically makes one's ears bleed. Can we get at least a sound slider under the special menu? Please forgive me if this post is too stupid.

Personally, I think the main focus should be on providing the same visibility distance and spotting potential for all players regardless of VR use or their screen resolution. If a medium sized fighter is only visible up to X number of miles in real life, it should only be visible up to X miles in DCS. No one should get a spotting advantage/disadvantage. You're never going to please everyone but establish a baseline based on the average person or pilot's spotting distance and then work on implementing and enforcing it across all of DCS. In VR I can spot planes with no issues, on a 3440x1440 monitor, I still can't see jack squat.

I can see that, but Jester is a goofball/comedian half of the time, so it's nice to see him take things seriously when it really counts.

From the F-4E trailer it's disappointing Jester not only uses the same voice but the acting sounds wooden and robotic. "How much fuel do you want TO TAKE on." Normal human speaking would sound more like 'wanna take on' or 'want ta take on' not the over enunciated steppy "Want... To... Take... On?

I haven't read this whole threat but regarding the salute not working, I heard mention it had something to do with having the 'throttle detent' option enabled. Also, I haven't tried it yet but I believe there is, or at least used to be, a command for manually shooting the catapult. I haven't personally had to use it yet and don't know if that will help but it's worth a try. I'll give it a go in a bit and see.

So I have this set up and working for the Hornet using the method found here https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/Exporting_MFCD_Displays but when I hop in the F-15E my left and right MFD monitors are just blank. Is there something I'm doing wrong or is the MFD export feature not implemented for the F-15E yet?

Hum, might have, let me check. EDIT: Yup, that was the problem, thanks for your help. I removed all the aircraft mods but forgot I had that tech mod installed.