SmirkingGerbil

Worth the wait, think we are at 6 years now as a Kickstarters when it first came out under a different umbrella. I will take what they drop in and be damn glad for it. EA, is EA (if that is first phase), and I will fly her per the manuals and note any findings. Their really is no comparison to "other" titles and being "driven" to them. DCS is sublime in it's immersion and EA will just be our chance to help improve it. Really looking forward to contributing anyway I can, and learning this module when she drops. Thanks DCS/ED, a long road, but worth it. :thumbup:

BIGNEWY confirmed, known issue, will be addressed in DM updates (not sure at what point), but will be addressed. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=271669

My apologies, sorry for the repetition. Thanks for the update.

I did anyway, just in case. Might have been wrong to do so, but they can just delete if redundant or already reported.

This thread has screen shots: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269992&page=3 JU's taking damage once on the ground will lose wing sections and running gear, but continue to run, and stand on one leg. Attached picture. Thread referenced has more screen shots to reference.

After reading the Bug posting rules, this would be a good place to put this. I guess I can change the title? Here is a pic, of a running JU that was damaged after landing, standing on one leg.

Plenty to fly, and keep busy until things can get tested more. Good news. Last weeks patch noticeably improved frame rate.

I have seen the JU stand on one leg myself when hit and damaged on the ground. I guess we need to open a bug report!

Last weeks mini patch significantly boosted performance for me, on the most problematic of maps - Normandy - But I am a 2D with TrackIR user. I know some folks are still having issues in VR?

If you can capture this, and create a bug report, it might be helpful for the ED team. I have not seen it, but I will make an effort to observe. :thumbup:

Amazing, thanks for contributing this effort. Very interesting for the "ultra-realism" crowd. Much Appreciated.

Well worth the time. Really enjoyed listening to this.

Until no longer needed, I can redo the test with the Anton/Normandy "free flight" mission at tree top, and record results here, and compare to my last post with my graphics settings. This seems to really tax everything, at tree top level, scanning around, with lots of geometry in my FOV, I even fly through the large smoke clouds from burning structures. Since I have a "mid range" machine, it could be useful information. But as mentioned, this last patch significantly boosted performance! :thumbup:

Definite FPS increase - after every Beta Drop, I load up the same instant action mission with the Anton, free flight over Normandy, and then a mission I created with Persian Gulf and A-10C. Fly the same path for both. The Normandy/Anton one, I run the "Free Flight" and follow a small river towards some fuel storage tanks. low level, tree top. Last few updates high 20's up to 35 ish. This patch, never dropped below 35, and stayed up in the 40's and 50's over same path!!! Still get the Normandy "stutter" though, but very much an improvement. The Persian Gulf instance would run 80's, today low 100's! My graphics settings for reference included pic. Running GTX 1660 overclocked, Ryzen 7, 32 GB RAM on all tests. Dual monitor, Head Tracking. Well done!!!

:thumbup:

Not disagreeing entirely, but I will create missions using the Anton specifically to shoot down B-17s, and recently the JU - yeah you have to jink, and jive to avoid a stream of inbound fire, but I have left plenty of B-17's and JU's smoking on the ground. Of course, the mission is simple, with only 3 B-17's or JU's, and me flying at them from the six. They can be shot down, but yes, if you dally for a perfect six line up, or stay in their cone of fire too long, you die pretty quick!

Ju 88A-4 - torpedo bomber aircraft A-20 - medium bomber aircraft These two additions, are simply stunning in detail and workmanship. I haven't looked at the other models yet. I did look at the Elefant which is also amazing in detail and workmanship. In the very old precursor to DCS, I loved flying the Ju 88 on torpedo runs, it was one of my favorite aircraft. She is lovingly re-created here. A big thank you to all the artists and developers involved with bringing the Ju 88 to us with such stunning detail. As well as all the other assets. See latest post entries, a bug exists for damaged JU's that are parked. They will lose a wing, still stand on one leg, will even taxi and run if sustaining catastrophic damage after landing and on the ground.

Appreciate the updates, very much appreciated. All good from my perspective.

Sir, as one of the Kickstarters . . . no apology for past or current issues getting this bird in the air. I actually exchanged emails with Ilya in the beginning, and when he went dark, I just resigned myself to lost money. I have led, and been a team member on large projects. I am EXTREMELY grateful that ED/TFC picked up the ashes on this, and carried it forward. I know how things can go sideways on complex projects that shift in scope, and ownership. I for one, am very excited, and the time and duration to get where you are is meaningless to me. Just overjoyed she will be here soon. I thank the team, and all they have done.

Just to indicate I am seeing this too, but it seems map dependent, and also how many other AI of similar warbirds are present. Specifically in the Anton, flying against AI on NTTR not many problems - flying with other Anton's with a bomber intercept over Normandy, and FPS will plummet to 11 and 12 fps. Only reporting in that the effect seems different depending on the map I load up. So far only tried on NTTR vs. Normandy.

I think all of us original kickstarter folks, with Luthier at the helm, get the prize for longest wait on product - We should get a badge, or skin! However; not complaining, TFC/ED saved the warbirds, so the wait is worth it. Now that we are getting close, I am getting a bit itchy!

As an original Kickstarter funder . . . I cannot wait! :pilotfly:

+1 :thumbup:

I used the old GAO report, as it leads to the newer ones. 160 non combat aircraft are still in inventory, that hasn't changed. I can see that this is just going to be "oh you spoke ill of the development and cost overruns . . . surely you are some meme and getting bad information . . . therefore I dismiss you as meme." So, as a meme, I leave you with the URL to no less than 25 of these reports (with the search criteria already baked in!!), up to the most recent, and none of them are "glowing" regarding development costs, procurement timelines, etc. I have read most of these, as a taxpayer, I was very interested. You will note, that I end my expose that it will be indeed a historical aircraft, and its data amalgamation and synthesis capabilities are unmatched, but the cost is way out of line compared to what was promised by LM initially. For your meme based enjoyment: https://www.gao.gov/search?q=F-35&Submit=Search :)

Only if you include the 160 initial deliveries that will never be combat, mission ready, or even able to be used as trainers. The first 160 are so flawed and far behind in design changes they cannot ever be fully functional. The cost metrics are skewed, including the first 160 as if they are functional, they are basically bricks. If you remove those 160, especially the naval version, cost goes up. Now that they are replacing ALIS with ODIN, development costs of a completely new logistical, inventory, troubleshooting, and mission data platform will increase costs associated with each airframe. Not to mention that an F-35 has dismal readiness rates, and maintenance costs as compared to an F-15 who's combat readiness and mission loads literally exceed the F-35 by hundreds of hours. The F-35 expected cost over it's initial delivery run, and maintenance of those initial deliveries is expected to exceed 1.5 Trillion dollars, literally the most expensive weapon system (per plane) ever produced. But hey, don't take my word for it, just read over the GAO reports about it. Here is how the GAO characterized costs of procurement outside of raw manufacturing costs: To execute its current procurement plan, the F-35 program will need to request and obtain, on average, $12.4 billion annually in acquisition funds for more than two decades. One of many articles, detailing the 160 (or more) that will never be combat ready: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a28685/f-35s-unfit-for-combat/ But the good news is, since the American Taxpayer, and Allies have funded LM's research, development, and initial startup costs - LM is looking sweet on Wall Street. Also, current Block models are finally coming into their own as mission capable. The data amalgamation and synthesis capability is literally a game changer and no near peer advisories have anything like it. It will truly be a historic platform.