BiBa

How's the hell you came up with this stupid assumption?? Twisting my words so maliciously won't squeeze out that misleading conclusion! I don't know how many session you sought with your shrink, but this is the wrong thread for group therapy. I DID write: "I'm sure with a DCS collaboration of your Program engine source code they'll find something," or not?. DCS Firewall must find a remedy against digital psycho crap :doh:

OOOOPS... That waiting hurts... :( Vulkan or DX11 apart, if DCS is flooded to the neck with many tasks at the same time, I wonder if it is not wise to contract FSPS with that 3rd Party Multicore-App. If they were able to crack that Microsoft FSX engine, I'm sure with a DCS collaboration of your Program engine source code they'll find something. In case of failure, they'll be liable for the time investment damage themselves, and DCS has nothing to lose! It is a win-win situation.

Well that IS good news indeed! :thumbup: Is this just an insider Info or an official DCS? I'm just about to update to a High-End Computer starting with the Motherboard, which is dependent of the CPU type Intel or AMD, as you know. I just want to know how long should I be patient with my PC purchase, because in this case, I'll definitely go for the 16 cores AMD CPU!

Changing to Vulkan means more graphics performance for the GPU, but if there is no CPU core extension planned in the future DCS core engine, the performance will have to suffer from the bottleneck effect between the two.

Just in case the thread title might cause any confusion between game performance, multithreading, hyperthreading and the role of DirectX in all of this, here more feedback: This Multicore-App does feature Supporting Hyper-threading enabled systems. I am also aware that DCS uses a different engine than FSX. But the fact is: this App did break the two cores limitation barrier in FSX! (which uses DX9 or DX10) Now I assume DCS uses DX11. Here is a summary from the Internet on DX: 1) DirectX is an API (Application Programming Interface) used for developing video games and other such media applications, much like OpenGL. 2) The differences between DX9 and DX10 is that Anti-Aliasing is supported in DX10 and DX10 supports shader v4.0 Anti-Aliasing is used to smooth the edges of objects in a video game and makes little difference in games playing in low resolutions. With it on, it will noticeably slow down performance in certain games while delivering an almost unnoticeable difference in visuals. The difference between DX10 and DX11 is that DX11 supports Tessellation. Hypothetically, DX11 is supposed to enhance performance with compatible systems as well as providing a graphics increase with a feature called tessellation. An example of the graphical improvements with tessellation on can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtbUWiZ48a0 , tessellation is turned off at first. Too much tessellation can cause terrible lag just like too much anti-aliasing. And a summary on Multithreading & Hyperthreading: - Hyperthreading is a hardware thing and Intel branding. Most other people call it Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT). To the programmer, two hyperthreads look like two CPU cores. On the hardware side, multiple hyperthreads share a single core. (In the case of Intel, there are two hyperthreads per core). - Multithreading (or multithreaded programming) is generally considered the concept of using more than one thread context (instruction pointer, registers, stack, etc.) in a single program. (Usually in the same process or virtual address space). To frame the core of this topic, (in case I do decide to enhance my PC with a 16 cores AMD CPU) is the question if IT IS possible to engage the remaining unemployed CPU cores in a future version of DCS. In that case, I will decide for AMD and not Intel CPU.

So you've just joined DCS this month... Welcome... And this your FIRST post reply - which makes you an expert in what ED needs? Right! Anyway thanks for the expired advice. I know how to adjust my settings. If you took the trouble to do some research on this subject, you would have found out that there is no topic of higher importance than FPS performance. You have a lot of homework on DCS performance to catch with before diverting the topic out of its core, because the framework of this topic are the unemployed CPU cores turning thumbs and waiting to be engaged.

In my last thread "Intel or AMD CPU for DCS hyperthreading?" the majority declared Intel as the winner due to threading limitation. Now again I'm not sure any more... Recently I bumped into a utility Add-On which made me exhume the old FSX dinosaur out of its grave for an unbelievable revival and gave it wings with such a performance, I couldn't believe it was possible. All my six cores were in full operation to the extreme limit and boosted my frames to a hitherto impossible height! (see attached pic) This utility offers also many configuration options in selecting Add-On priorities and affinities for further boosting. So if hyperthreading support up to 16 cores is possible in DX9 + DX10 with such an old stiff engine like FSX, why is it not possible in a new flexible DX11 engine like DCS? Immagine the DCS performance with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16 cores all in use simultaneously! Beyond that this greek team also offers an Add-On FSX Booster that can decrease / increase FSX frames WHILE playing, so that in a dog fight the Simmer can simultaneously increase the frames, or decrease them for a higher resolution to enjoy the beautiful environment sight. This is indeed the unavoidable challenge to the ED programmers. Red-Bull does not give wings to DCS. Those Add-Ons do

Intel is indeed the winner! I even got advice from the PC Shop, that for Gamers / Simmers Intel is the better choice, even though the whole PC constellation change meant for them around 700€ less investment. Yet the idea that all 32 hyperthreading of the Ryzen TR 1950X can be set in the simulation/game in the near future, means that the engine can deal easily with double amount of AI in the sky. Until then, it will remain a beautiful dream of that pie up high in the sky...

I cannot afford not to question DCS on how long should I wait with the new PC purchase, so this request goes directly now to the DCS programmers: is DX12 planned soon? The destiny of my future unborn PC lies in your hands...

I was planning on upgrading to a new PC with the following constellation: AMD X399 MoBo M.2 SSD 1TB Drive 16 cores 4.0GHz AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X CPU GTX1080Ti GPU 4 X 16GB PC-3200 DDR4-RAM so I started unintentionally a debate between which CPU would be better to the Sim, the Intel 6 cores i7-8700K or AMD 16 cores Ryzen Threadripper, especially when the Motherboard request depends on the CPU! The complexity of the feedback was confusing, especially when an experienced IT claimed that currently or for the foreseeable future, no flight sims use DX12 or Vulkan graphics API. Therefore my thread question; does DCS engine use DX12 for hyperthreading or DX11? As far as VR/graphics and CPUs depend on, the use of DX11 is a serious reason that single thread performance is so important. Checking the VR benchmark/performance threads in VR section, where it explicitly depicts the benefits of the high-performance single thread, Intel has the lead. So is it true that the results will never be as good as with Intel CPU, while DX11 relies on a single thread for a lot of info to be fed to the graphics card, regardless of how well the game uses multithreading? Is threading in DCS 2.5 engine really limited to a specific amount of cores, (how many?) so that the 16 AMD cores become irrelevant?

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2018-07-20_NS430/ Referring to the recent update on the NS 430 GPS navigation and communication system been now available as cockpit instrument for the L-39, it would also be great to implement it into the P-51 for a civil navigation version! Beyond being thrilling to have a civil P-51 version, the bigger advantage would be to crack the limitation of the 4 preprogrammed fixed military COMM's by gaining flexibility flying beyond the predefined route and to land wherever you would like to, so that the flair of adventure in discovering new terrain is no more fouled by the rigid military predefined flight limitation. Finally, you can decently radio your inbound with the tower of any airport you like, without risking losing your pilot license for an unauthorized landing. This is a Poll! If you like this pls vote for Yes

12 years ago I tried to start the first project with a 220° FOV HMD on the Beuth University of Applied Sciences here in Berlin where I live. My calculations hence came up with a 13K HMD. My project was titled TR for Total Reality, as I designed also the first autofocus tec (still not realized). Its technical demands overwhelmed both the local technical possibilities and the budget of the University and were way ahead of its time as also the PC Technology was not mature for 13K. In the meanwhile, I'm quite content with my Pimax 4K and also anxiously looking forward to this 200° device. I still have concerns about the Fresnel lenses, as from my point of view, if there is a possibility for, not only curved but rather spheric display, the Fresnel lenses would be futile. 9 rectangular simple compound lenses, usually arranged analog in the desired shape along that spheric display of a ground polished or molded transparent material of glass (or plastic), would also do the job. PS. used to be sales director of Middle East & Africa for ARRI with ZEISS as partners

CRASH in Huey Flight File attached dcs.log-20180617-213219.zip

I programed a CVN carrier mission and added a group of Hornet to follow up. I tried to set my Hornet with a cold start, to have enough time watching the other taxing out for take off, but ended being bumped in with a broken wing by the other aircraft who exploded! I managed to evade to the rear but even the Aircrafts who managed the takeoff, crushed in me later and the rest followed while taxing after landing ending in a carambolage! (Same result every mission new start) The problem there is when you choose the option "Takeoff from Ramp", the Mission Editor sets your craft to Auto, so you cannot chose a parking slot. Stupidly ME sets always the player in the front of the deck, just on the way where the others taxi to get hooked. On land they do recognize obstacles and react accordingly. Why are they blind on deck? :doh: Those pilots may have a license to fly, I doubt if they have a driving license. :megalol: AI stands for Artificial Intelligence and not Imbecile. In the air they are able to adapt to unexpected obstacles and to initiate a corresponding maneuver. On deck they seem to be suicidal... :helpsmilie: In the meanwhile until this bug is solved, I've set the player on Takeoff from runway to avoid a multiple crash. Until then those Artificial Imbeciles will keep on scorning the good reputation of the Marine... Attached is the *.TRK File to replay the multiple crash. PS. you'll need for the replay the "3-Ship USS Arleigh Burke Class" mod from Markindel. You can download it from the following DCS Downloads/user files: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1731335/?sphrase_id=11813363 Then add it to the folder "saved games/DCS openbeta/mods/tech" AI Deck-Carambolage.trk

That's the first thing I've checked, and as mentioned, no problem with my Z Axis in all other aircrafts. I assume you can lean full to front panel stop with your TrackIR in F18? In any case I still need info on the name, file path and the needed parameter for this modification.

Excuse me - but Field of View and Head-Panning Radius are two different things, and it’s surely not the VR-IPD (distance between eyes) we’re talking about. It’s the limited movement while panning / leaning the head forward; it stops about 30 cm before reaching the front panel, and you can see then clearly the limited position of the head in the cockpit when you yaw your head 90° sideways. In all other ten aircrafts I have, TrackIR allows you full movement of the head until it touches the front panel. It’s better than zooming for two reasons: first it’s real and not zoom-cheating & second, it’s healthy sport for the blood circulation to stay active while sitting stiff for hours in front of the monitor. So before my pledge dissipates out of the context, I just need info on the name, file path and the needed parameter for this modification. Thanks

All Straps are designed to remain loose for slow movements, and block instantly with strong acceleration. I don't see why it should be otherwise in the F18. And if it is indeed so, they ought to set the harnesses tension tied up automatically only when the Hook is activated :doh: Pilot risks Claustrophobic Attack tied up so tight :mad:

Leaning forward with TrackIR in the F18 cockpit is for some reason limited to approximately 30 cm. It is working fine in all my other aircraft cockpits, so it's not a TrackIR setting issue. Any idea how to fix that? (name, file path and the needed parameter)

Well - you ought to have checked my TDC first ;) cause it is as an 8 way button programed! Check how I've set the quantitize time - it's working great :thumbup:

Need to boost up the VR-Zoom speed up to 0.5 Sec from norm to full expansion. The current zoom speed is too slow. :music_whistling: In a dog fight, a fraction of a second is crucial! :pilotfly: Any idea how to fix that? :smartass: (name, file path and the needed parameter)

I can't make any comparison with your Warthog Stick, because I never had one. All I can say, the X55 is working fine from day one. Most of the problem cause with any devices are due to driver issues rather than a hardware problem...

This is my X55-Rhino device profile for the Hornet programmed as real as possible to the original HOTAS. (Attached is also a pic of the original F18 HOTAS for comparison) :joystick: All programing are made with sophisticated advanced commands, which make it flexible for further alterations. It is optimal for TrackIR, because The POV-Hat is programmed with (A/A Master Mode) commands, so the view functions aren't bound on it, but can easily be deactivated. The F/A-18C SIM Control Command in DCS is still up to 80% empty and needs a lot of work, so when you open my device profile, check the programing of every click and insert it in its appropriate DCS Sim control box if missing. Rotary 1, 2, 3 & 4 need axis assign in the DCS Sim control box. The Speed Brake Switch – RETRACT on Throttle K1 is not functioning appropriately for now like the K1 Speed Brake Switch – EXTEND, which extends the brake integrally. Until this bug is fixed, I advice to use the extra Joystick option. Available for download on DCS/Downloads/Users Files: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3300818/ Have professional fun with it!

Working again Thanks

After the last update today I cannot open DCS in normal mode anymore for one monitor, without that Steam VR launches itself automatically with it, setting the screen in VR mode (mirrored), even though my HMD PiMax is disconnected. And when I close Steam VR, it closes DCS with it. (see attached pic) Before that I had to launch Steam VR manually first if I wanted DCS in VR mode. Why is DCS starting solely in Steam VR mode, and how to run DCS in normal mode?

Need here DCS Support reply ASAP!