TordinVarglund

Happy to see you're taking steps to pay RAZBAM! Good job finally finding a solution

If they were a serious company they wouldn't try to do the F-35...

The F-35 is a highly classified plane. We're already in the guesswork era of DCS as of a few days ago, so what's the harm?

I think the question of what the end-state should be is one that is very apt. I can barely follow the most basic concepts discussed in this thread, and I appreciate the level of knowledge you guys can bring to the table on this matter. But as KlarSnow mentioned, without a clearly defined end-state, it's hard to say if we're moving in a good direction or not. I'm just an average DCS pilot, and not qualified to say what's right or wrong, but from picking up bits and pieces of information from pilots, I get the impression that reliable missile defence in the real world is GENERALLY achieved through defeating missiles kinematically or through EW, not by performing basic aerobatics or last-ditch maneuvers. I think generally this is the end-state most people expect, based on what we can piece together from real world tactics and training snippets. Regardless of whether that's the case or not in real life, it's certainly not reflected in DCS currently.

One of the things that makes me think this is most certainly a bug is the fact that this happens with targets separated by quite large distances (.5nm) and at ranges as low as the mid 20s, with altitude separation as you will see in the PG BVR scenario. Initially I figured maybe they were close enough that the Radar couldn't separate them, but it seems a bit far fetched when we're talking thousand of feet of lateral and vertical separation at distances less than 30nm. First encountered it flying the Fear the Bones campaign in a scenario where you're launching head-on onto a bomber formation. Felt a bit underwhelming to say to least when 5 out of 6 AIM-54s missed when fired from 35nm...

Bumping this because I'm having massive issues with lost tracks recently that I did not have ~2-3 months ago. I don't know what exactly is going on, but it seems to have something to do with targets flying in relatively close formation (like .5nm or less). All of this is with Jester in TWS-A, and applies both in single and multiplayer. Best way to test this is to jump into the PG BVR and Syria BVR Instant Action missions, and observe the difference in track behavior. The Syria one seems to spawn the two MiG-29s with wider separation, and the radar is better at separating them and maintaining independent track files, and missiles correctly guide and go active. In the PG one, it might pick up both targets initially, but it will very quickly reporting lost tracks (Track Extrapolated symbology).

Accidentally told smoke to do the SoF instead of doing it myself, he flew low over the town but nothing happens from there. I tried completing it myself after he just went back to orbiting but no luck.

As of the last patch it seems to have been fixed although I have not tested it extensively.

As in the APG-73 can't actually guide one or that it's out of the relevant timeframe?

Attached 2 tracks from the Weapons Qualification AIM-7 mission provided with the Hornet. First track I went into TWS and then STT via SCS Right, AIM-7Fs go dumb off the rail. Second track I went STT via RWS also using SCS Right, same result. Note I fired all 4 of my MH missiles and they tracked just fine on the same target, so if there is an issue I'm pretty sure it's platform and system agnostic, I've had issues with the AIM-7F on the F-14 too in the past but I don't have any tracks at hand to show that. AIM-7F go dumb.trk AIM-7F go dumb 2nd try.trk

My bad, I didn't get the update notification for some reason. Had to force a repair to get it to recognize a a new update being available.

Just want to say that Radio still gets stuck on Mission 5, only difference I can see is that I am able to get out of the radio menu. When trying to order wingmen to attack it gets stuck on whatever page you go to and won't return to previous screens or allow you to actually issue any orders. It just gets stuck on the final page.

Glad to hear it, looking forward to buying your next campaign at Day 1!

Just stopping by to say this is the most fun I've had flying the A-10C since actually learning to fly the damn thing 5 years ago. I am only at mission 5, but so far it has been truly excellent. One of the things that has always kept me from playing as much DCS as I've played BMS has always been the immersion factor and lack of engaging content. BMS has the excellent Campaign engine with the huge variety of missions naturally available to a multi-role fighter like the F-16C. I am happy to say that for the first time since I started playing DCS, I now feel like DCS has a campaign that can rival the immersion and enjoyment of a BMS campaign. They obviously achieve this in very different ways, but that just makes it even more of an achievement in my opinion! :thumbup: With this said I would also like to ask if you would ever consider doing a similar style of campaign for something like the F/A-18C (or if god is willing and ED makes an F-16 :drool: ) once that gets released? I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that a well designed campaign focused on a relatively low intensity conflict as depicted in OPF will probably act as a great counterpart to the inevitable horde of full-scale war missions and campaigns we will see with the arrival of a proper multi-role jet in DCS. It would also be very interesting to see how well these high performance jets designed to perform in all areas of combat would have to adjust to the relative simplicity of doing low intensity stuff. All in all, great stuff and I look forward to your future work, whatever it may be!

Fantastic movie, probably my favorite DCS movie of all time. So simple, but so well put together.

I think you're the first person ever to have this idea.

Its amazing how people still spin the same tale of how DCS is so much more demanding than anything else around. Its not. Its the current engine being 10 years old and unable to utilize the truly massive gains in processing power modern PCs have. Its the same story with stuff like the ArmA series etc, engines made in ancient times on low budgets being shoehorned into games that they can never keep up with. Give a talented dev team a proper budget and tell them to build a specialized engine with todays know-how and technology, and you would see performance, utilization and detail levels very different than whats in use in DCS and ArmA etc these days. Not like thats going to happen though. BI already proved they cant put money to use with A3, and flight sims dont have the audience to attract the investment needed. Thats not to say EDGE cant be good, but its still a relatively small dev with a limited budget, and their record isnt exactly great if you ask me.

Missing the point completely, being that even running at 100% modern GPUs do not fail unless there are special circumstances leading to it either in software instability or lower production quality on the core components. Even then, 100% utilization in a game engine is not actually the most stressful thing a card could face. Programs like furmark etc which are designed to strain the PCB and GPU to the very edge of what they can take do strain GPU's more than any game ever could, and even then your card should not fail if its working correctly.

DCS does not push a card like this to the limit, and even if it did, it would not crash if it were not for special circumstances, in this case being that the card is simply broken. The OP's picture gives it away. The kind of artifacts displayed are consistent with what you would expect from damaged memory modules or a damaged GPU Core. It is broken, there are no other explanations for the artifacts displayed. As far as nvidia being a better choice for DCS i doubt it will do any better than a matching AMD card, yet the 760 is a more powerful card than the 7850 and any performance gains you notice will be as a result of that more than anything. Good luck with your new card.

My bad, i read it as an attempt at mockery. Either way, I dont think there is much they could do, as the basis of the engine is so old I think if there was room for improvement without an extensive redesign, i think they would have. My point was rather about EDGE, and how multicore is thrown around quite often on this forum yet its not necessarily the solution, or necessary to even produce good results. A single well utilized core together with a well utilized GPU and efficient/optimized engine may very well be enough to power anything DCS needs. Multithreading sounds great in theory, but its very hard to do properly when the process its running is not a consistent, predictable operation. Something like a video editing software will be easier to code for multithreading, as the tasks it will be working with are predictable. They dont change, where as a game is a dynamic set op operations that changes every time new input is added. Combine the above with the massive architectural gains we have seen in mainstream CPU's the last 6 years in single threaded applications, multicore might be unnecessarily expensive and complicated to implement with relatively small gains. Ofcourse, i could be wrong and EDGE could be a fully fledged engine of comparable quality to CryENGINE 3 etc both in flexibility and performance. It would be a dream scenario tbh So no, im not really presenting any new ideas. I think ED are aware of the issue, im still just trying to quell this "sim" myth that somehow DCS is such a terribly complicated engine it cant produce decent FPS.

Believe it or not, just because its a flight sim does not suddenly increase the difficulty of a calculation. The funny thing is, that its not the flight model that kills FPS. The engine will happily calculate the physics of 20-30 aircraft with no signs of slowdowns, yet simple particle effects like smokestacks and explosions will literally kill the FPS. Just looking in the wrong direction is often enough to cut your framerate in two when really there is absolutely nothing going on, which again leads to the claim that its the complex calculations required for a simulator as opposed to any other type of game is just a load of BS. Ergo, you didnt prove anything. Consider also for a second that DCS honestly looks quite shit by modern standards. Some of the aircraft models look fantastic, like the new Su-27, the F/A-18C etc, and some look like they came straight from the original LOMAC, and thats probably because they did. The terrain is unimpressive, regardless of its size its not very pretty. Same can be said for effects like explosions etc, which greatly reduces the immersion factor and honestly, makes the game harder to enjoy for someone who might not be there primarily to fly. This is absolutely true, and im not criticizing ED as a developer nearly as much as im criticizing their sometimes fanatical core playerbase for spreading rumors and fallacies based on nothing but their misguided perception of how hardcore their software is. It makes perfect sense for a small time (relative) developer like ED to work with existing tech as long as possible. Developing a new engine for any game or simulator is often more expensive and time consuming than creating the actual game itself, however currently its not keeping up and its by far in my opinion the biggest downfall of the simulator, and to the lack of interest around simulations in general. I dont want to speak about specifics like adding full multicore support etc, because frankly its not the main problem. Its also incredibly hard to do. The main problem is the code doesnt scale on modern hardware to any significant degree, which means its just pissing away computing power while having not much better performance than you did 5+ years ago in LOMAC etc, and thats a pretty serious issue.

So you are excusing the poor performance on the engine by comparing it with other bad engines? No, i have not played those and i do not want to play those. Its is however just another poor excuse. And where exactly did i imply i wanted to put features on hold? All i sad was the engine that is currently in use is simply not good enough, and that making excuses for it is pointless as most of the excuses that you see referrers to poor claims that somehow a flight sim is so much harder to run than any other type of video game it cant possibly be the cause of the engine itself being bad that makes it run slow.

And yet at the same time, i run a watercooled 5GHz i7 2600k with 16gb of 2133MHz memory and a 7970, and my framerates can run from anywhere from 20-100. btw, the vast majority of people would not consider 30fps even remotely playable. If anything one of the reasons why this runs so bad is because of the old and outdated tech that goes into it, and dont give me one of those "its a simulation, its much heavier to run etc etc". That is simply not true. I have literally never come across any game engine that works slower than this one does. If it wasnt for the great flightmodels and fidelity offered by ED i seriously doubt that i would ever have bothered, becuase the engine that its all based on currently is seriously, seriously not good. We can only hope that EDGE fixes most of these problems.

Yes it does.

Im seeding from a dedicated 1gbit seedbox and honestly i dont see much traffic on it. If there really was a need for speed i could do more than twice of this every hour, but there simply isnt much traffic on the torrent atm.