xXNightEagleXx

probably it is more an issue than a bug but i'm not sure.

I have a i5 2500k 8gb and a 780gtx. Currently my GPU does not go beyond 55% gpu usage except for some external view under determinated circustances.

NVM i have solved, it was related to login letters case.

gtx 780

It is not about the money itself, as a programmer i earn enough money! It is about the principles!

It is not about comparing to others, neither point out that there are not a lot of choice out there. It is about software quality, as programmer i know what a computer can do and cannot do, and i just don't see nothing so incredible here to say well it is impossible to these computers handle this. I repeat it is not about missing features (we cannot call this game not even a good war simulation for aircrafts, it is missing a lot of features), it is about the final result and this product has a bad result, very very unstable! That's a fact whether someone like or not and complexity is not a excuse because mainly it gets complex when the development has a poor quality. Most of time (not always) complexity is a consequence and not the cause of bad programming. Your argument is invalid because you hide the poor result behind the fact that there is no alternative or not enough, but my argument rely on the fact that the programming quality is very awful whether there is an alternative or not. Would you say that a car quality is good just because there is not many car that build them even if the engine dies, it leaks fuel, etc...???? I realize that most of ppl here just see this from a user point of view i see it also from a programmer point of view and what i see just sucks

Does any one of you know if they do some sort of refund system? Never did this but eagle dynamics products went far over the limits and i'm starting to think about it. It is not a matter of missing features (which miss the whole war environment in terms of aircrafts, this is more about flight simulator than combat flight simulator). It is a matter of instability that get worse after each update and as user and programmer it is hard to accept it, my faith it is getting lower and lower since i see NO MOVE FROM ED. As a software house where stability is really missing the least that could have done is to SHOW what they are doing to bring stability back and show NUMBERS and not just words or pictures. For me they have no credibility anymore, surely some fanboy will get pissed off because of this comment but i give no s%$^ about ANY COMPANY neither i'm a shareholder so i want to see final result in all terms (quality, stability, realism, etc...) If they have problem with ATI, ED should be the first one to notify that everywhere which i have never seen here from them. If they have financial limits then there is something called priorities and before releasing a bunch of features/modules everything should be stable and fixed. I'm starting to see the same behavior that can be seen in sh$%%y companies like EA, quality does not matter what matters is $$$. Everytime an update come out the FPS gets more unstable, and playing with lua (which is already wrong as concept, config GUI MUST BE ENOUGH) gets lesser effective after each update. I have 4 words to describe last months of ED, "very bad software development" now the question is : this awful result is due to bad software engineering and organization (required too much to the team with bad organization) or due to avidity and money priority?

that's a good info. How is the AFM compared to the A-10C?

Thanks, that sad because i don't want to be forced to memorize all keyboard commands....so no A-10A

Has the new A-10A a cockpit fully clickable?

Yes it is! let's not call them lairs just because their current engine is a pool of bad performance or bug. During a lot update message, they have spoken about the EDGE. They also notified that it might be released this year.

starting to get very pissed off Guys this situation just became unacceptable. I can't accept it anymore, the further we go the more unstable it gets. As a programmer i cannot accept it, this project just go against everything that i learned in a big company with more than 250k employers. You can't just develop a software without considerate stability, you can't just upgrade without preserving stability. Signs of really bad engineering. On one of our projects we had performance issue, what have we done? simple, we worked on tools to analyse where was the performance issue, spotted and restored the performance with a 25+% gain. It was up to us to provide a software with good performance and not up to the customer to deal with bad performance. This software house act similar to those poor programmer whose blame the user and never its own code (which is the contrary of what most university teach, whenever the user has difficulties those are sign of not enough effort by programmers) in this case they act just like well the game features/effects improves so it gets heavy don't blame us...wrong this is a very bad mentality, typically of bad programmers or bad project engineering. I was working on a dynamic campaign and it already reached a good point, but i will not proceed with the work because there is not a stable environment. Honestly at this stage, missing dynamic campaign are nothing compared to this big stability issue. Now i wonder if this EDGE will solve anything, since it is more about terrain. I really don't think that a big part of the issues is due to the terrain engine (i hope so but i doubt). ED should focus on bringing back stability. It is obvious that they weren't able to handle all this upgrades/modules without messing the engine and if they don't stop further develops to start focusing on stability things will get worse. To those who will come out saying stop complaining and bla bla bla, i say just SHUT UP. I can't stand it as a programmer no i really cannot, and don't come either with the well instead of criticism you should give solutions (which are harder to come up with), i'd answer....staff change or missing key figures. If someone like to cheer to a company like a fanboy or a shareholder then good for him, i'm no fanboy for any company and neither a shareholder so i just want to see the final result.....which always get worse. In conclusion, too easy to destroy the game performance at each upgrade/update and come up with "the game is getting heavier due to new features. We are working on performance and stability but not for this update...we are aware but keep patience (after more than a year of bad update which just make the situation worse), don't complain because we already wrote it in the release note".

Ok guys, since i see that some people are interested on this i would give a little more details. As i wrote to a nice guy privately i would like to deploy some of the initial ideas and goals : - Keys points, where when captured provide the coalition owner more resources (intel, reinforcement, fuel) - Intel are used to allow the engine to generate regular missions : ............ for air units tactical and strategic attacks, which may consist on destroying a building, airbase attack, industries attack, CAS, CAP, etcc ............ for land units attack, capture, intercept convoy - Intel can also be used to generate special missions : ............ for air units might be bomber intercept ............ for lands units might consinst on small infantry units to provide laser targeting to air units - Common Mission which might consist on BARCAP aerospace (just as example) - Self defense management which consist on vary factors : ............ For air attacks, once an airbase detect an enemy inside its aerospace (according to enemy distance, altitude and model) it pass directly to alarm state, which consist on send departure command to almost all groups (according to the amount of airplanes in that base) . Each group will be assigned to an enemy group, if we have more group than them, then the surplus will be orbiting around the base in a range of 20-30 miles. Obviously if the base has no aircrafts, then it will be a bad time, they will rely only on static air defense if still alive. Once all enemies are destroyed the base goes to caution state where some aircrafts rtb other remain orbiting. Lately the base return to quiet state where all defending units rtb. ............ For land attacks, lands unit will be deployed and will take position waiting for the enemy, forward helicopters and some flights will start CAS mission (states are almost the same as above) - As you understood air units are completely limited by some factors. So if an airbase lose its aircraft it will have to wait for reinforcement. When an aircraft land, its health is memorized and if it is lower than x then it would be considerate as unavailable and will take y time to repair. - As i told reinforcement are not a trigger matter but rather a situation and state matter. - Attack wave, occasionally both coalition will organize a synchronized wave attack in order to give considerable punch on adversary forces and organization. - All units will have a main base, capturing that would consist on a big lost and losing more than 75 % of their strength means losing the war. Surely these are just a few goals (don't have time to list all), i might be missing some or some may change drastically. To avoid performance issue i have to reduce as much as i can the amount of triggers, specially those where it checks at each seconds, how do i do that? through code, for example the airbase defense routine are performed each 30-60 secs instead of each secs (the aerospace is about 40 nm so this time is enough to react, obviously if it come in stealth mode the reaction might be too late just like in real life) For last but not least, everything can be easily changed (range, timeout, time) in first line. That said let me know if you are still interested, surely you have a lot to imply and improve the final result. As you can see i'm targeting to something big and really different....bring falcon 4 for real in DCS and not a just triggered and spawn system with very limited memory! Thanks again for your interest EDIT I'm also thinking about applying squadron ideas for airbase. Thus rather than having multiple aircrafts, airbase would have one or more specialized squadron (air to air, air to ground or general). Obviously mainly aircrafts and helicopters are those playable.

As a programmer i would say that it is not that hard in term of core engine (without take in consideration troops template) when you have most of things out of the box which is the case of DCS series. You already have group and unit relationship management, you already have group and waypoints relationship and you also have missions definition relationship. The work here is actually not hard but just a little bit long, but the more people work on this the fast is to build it. I'm trying to organize a team to work on this since as a programmer with background i know that it is possible with actual tools (maybe not a perfect result but i'm sure that when the product is finished and good ED will give more tool functions to improve the product). this is the thread that i started http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1801349#post1801349 whoever is interest on working on this let me know

Hi all, first of all i would like to clarify that i'm not selling myself as a master of anything, i'm just a programmer with a good background like many that's it. That said, i'm here to see if there are others who are interest on working on a dynamic campaign development that may be also possible to save (obviously if lua code is not limited, saving and loading are possible). By now I already dropped 760 lines of code that manage some of base self defense dynamically (inside tools limits). This is not something impossible because i've already have done it a long time ago in ARMA 2 for my offline sessions, unfortunately i don't have that mission anymore to use it as example or inspiration, anyway it wasn't finished because the work to provide a full dynamic campaign (similar to f4) requires a lot of efforts specially for defining troops and mission template since those are done by code (although i've seen that ED provides a template function that i might opt to ). Besides as a good old style programmer, who hates IT, i like to start over every time i can. So i'm here to know if someone has either the skill in lua and want to or have good knowledge on missions definitions (create a good default path to avoid straight flights, proper weapon inventory per each kind of mission and plane and others things that might improve the final result) or even someone who will just imply good things with new ideas for the core engine (ex, intelligence management) In conclusion, since i'm no god and help would only easy things i'm here to see if someone want to enjoy this and see where it will end. PS: I cannot guarantee a continuous rhythm due to my work as programmer and external projects. UPDATE If i have to make a list of positions wanted those are : - Programmer, someone with skill in LUA or others language but with skill to learn (LUA IS NOT HARD) - Mission designer, able to create mission templates (path, behavior, inventory) for both main mission and support mission. Here coding is not a must, instead it is a must to be able to explain both through diagrams and by voice the logic. - Data entry, fill up initial mission setting by creating initial units conditions. Those data are provided by missions designers. - Testers, those are never enough ..... Obviously saving and loading would be the last step of the whole project. That said no one would be considerate as the master and the others slave, all ideas would be considerate and voted, lately programmers would decide the timeline and when to deploy them. For last, the project would start only when the team would get a good number (1 member for first 3 position), if you don't fit on neither of these position you can still collaborate with the project by posting your ideas here.

first of all a fanboy for me is not someone who love or defend a game but someone that deny facts in defense of something. Second as a user and someone who works in software development i know that there are a lot of fanboys and being offended for this is just ignorant. For last but not least this is not about "fit with PRECISELY EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED" but rather about giving the right proportion....it is ludicrous to have a realistic avionics but a really arcade environment. It is like having a racing simulator where the car dynamics is really realistic but everything else arcade (tires, fuel consumption, race, etcc....). Would you consider to be more real a product where keys factors might not be extremely realistic but all proportionally realistic or a product where the car dynamics is extremely realistic (spring and weight transfer) but tires does not affect driving, consumption does not affect driving, race last 5 laps, you don't have qualification, you cannot setup you car, you don't have to deal with being constant, tracks are all flats, etc.. Now about your "being an ignorant, self-inflating jackass", if you think that i meant to offend someone than i tell you that you have something wrong if you stay in defensive. I just said something without offense and used the vocabulary, if you misinterpret my words wrong or see offense where there isn't it is your problem. About my experience as programmer was just o highlight the fact that it is not about having skill to create mission but rather missing features that should be included if this game is a complete simulation. Besides i don't care about showing what i can do and i cannot do, this isn't a employment office but just a forum.

First of all simulation is what I enjoy, I would rather fly for 30-40 min to get on the target and enjoy it than flight 2 min, attack, fly back and land (THIS IS NOT REAL). Some people argue that close air support means close airbase to the front line ...this is so wrong! XD Now you might ask why to fly 30-40 min just to get on target, 2-10 min of engage and then 30-40 min flying back? Well first of all this is a common real scenario (close front might happen but that’s an exception), second flying for that long increase random event just like real life (unexpected situations like crossing enemies path, encountering unknown lands units, having to defend from an attack thus consuming fuel that might lead to a forced mission abort, etc..). Someone argued that this is not a world war 3 simulator, well thanks man I love to play modern aircrafts like if we was in a WW I scenario with enemies at 30 nm because the general was so dumb to let them get close enough before starting to retreat…this is so realistic….fantastic!!!! XD I could stay here to point out all these extremely bad things for a day long but fanboys will always be here defending this game. Don’t get me wrong, I find this game with so many potential. In terms of avionics and physics it is one of the best (honestly even F4 fall behind specially for physics), but in term of FLIGHT COMBAT SIMULATOR this game falls behind by a lot to F4 to an unacceptable level because the scenario is just too far away from real world. Could I develop a mission by myself using the editor or at least try? Surely I’m a programmer, I have experience in game developing in C++ and DirectX, I know a lot of programming languages so I ‘m used to new things, I have done an offline dynamic for ARMA 2 and worked almost like F4 (auto generation of troops and mission planning, for both the blue and the red force, according to random intelligence information or missions result) but honestly I don’t have time and I don’t want to do it again. This piss me off because the potential here is very big they just have to fix/add some features that are not balanced….a very realistic avionics but a very unrealistic flight combat war environment.

I hope you are kidding me! You should get a little bit more information about REAL war scenario and not a limited gaming scenario. Are you trying to say that real war stands on close starting base? Everyone fighting for the only one SMALL portion of the map? yeah yeah this is so realistic, specially for a FLIGHT SIMULATOR. I wonder how those real generals are so dumb to let their headquarters and aircraft's base far about 100 nm from war line, i wonder how dumb they are to diversify targets and missions instead of sending every single man to the same point....yeah probably they are so dumb! I wonder why someone invented air refueling, what a dumb man, why use it when you can by choice let the enemy get close 30 nm and just fight that close. ohhh maybe you are talking about worm?! ....yeah that game is a real war scenario....for worms!!!!

Am i doing something wrong or the campaign is that boring? I mean always the same war zone, almost the same missions, and starting base unrealistic close to the target point. I hope i'm doing something wrong!

Guys when i play sim mode the game use the ka game control profile, instead if i activate game mode the game use the ka sim control profile. Is that a known issue? How can i fix it Solved by itself after a restart.....strange

Guys i realized that the game strutter more during sunset (first mission first campaign of DCS A10C). Is there anything to do to improve performance like when it is middle day ? That said i also get more strutter inside cockpit instead of external view. I'm close to stabilize a little more the FPS closer to 30 and thus having an acceptable game.

wrong post

Classic! What happen here is a poor optimization that hit some setups! The simplification proportional to the distance is poorly implemented for some objects. In a few words, you see too much details when you shouldn't. This happen because there is no a a line separation between environment rendering and mfd's rendering so to avoid you to see awful objects they render through TGP or MAV they object at an excessive amount of detail but this create excessive overloading. So it is not a matter of IA itself (CPU) or else it would struggle even when you don't watch them. It is just a matter of rendering engine, it is not optimized so it struggle at each non-static object added, the more you add the more the computer suffer to render them (graphics cards does not process what is not inside the FOV by definition - with a few exceptions like lights and shadows - that's why when you look the sky or the ground the FPS increase). Now you might argue but my graphic card is a damn 780 gtx, it must handle it.....well that would fit perfectly in a bug free or optimized software, in this case we would never know surely the neck bottle resides within some basics of the engine where it leads to high performance drop according to some setups. Let's not forget the a newer video cards does not mean better DX support, in fact some old videocards behave much better with DX 9 (in proportion to the power) against a newer one.

I just give up. I guess there isn't much left to try to improve performance. The more i try the more i find the game poorly optimized until the point where it gets ridiculous. I tried everything inside this forum also i tried to edit by myself but nothing impressive. As i said the more i dig the more i realize that the game is poorly optimized. I've seen one of the ugliest optimization in this game and some of them also lead to unrealistic situation. You can spot land units from miles and miles by eye contact which is not real (unless they are dark tanks above a field of snow), everyone who flew at least once will know that at certain distance it is impossible to spot small objects like car, you can just hope to spot a reflection the same for an aircraft, or in case of a tank to spot theirs fire smoke or moving dust (just like a snipe, if you watch at their direction technically you seem them but you won't spot them until they fire or the lens reflection). I strongly believe that there is not a clear separation between mfd's display and main display which force to render lands unit at far distance or else you would not be able to spot them through TGP or MAV, but at the same time this lead to an excessive rendering process. The choice are between not see them at all, see a block or see at almost high detail because the distance simplification not always seems to work fine for some objects (specially lands units). Another missing separation line is between who want to enjoy land or low altitude/speed combats (combined arms and choppers) and those who want to enjoy high altitude/speed combats. It is not a must high def models, if you computer can handle it them fine but if it can't or the engine is bugged you must provide a choice to stick with details for air combats only. The engine should allow main screen rendering separated from mfd's to avoid excessive process thus the main screen is rendered with real life feedback and the mfd's with its real life feedback. Those were just two example of poor optimization, there is much more just like excessive amount of moving crane......... Some of you might argue that some stuffs are not heavy, and i would agree for a bug free software but if the engine is bugged or poorly optimized the neck bottle might hide inside a stupid thing poorly implemented. Why this long post? Because there is so much potential in DCS series and it is very frustrating this situation. I've seen heavy game running much better.......................My last hope is on EDGE

Hi all inside graphics.lua we can find High { near_clip = 0.2; middle_clip = 4; far_clip = 150000; structures = {60, 20000}; trees = {1000, 12000}; dynamic = {300, 20000}; dynamic2 = {300, 20000,0.5}; objects = {5000, 80000}; mirage = {3000, 20000}; surface = {20000, 80000}; lights = {200, 80000}; districtobjects = {400, 400}; districts = {12000, 12000}; lodMult = 1.0; lodAdd = 0; } can someone explain what the first value stand for? Ex structures = {60, 20000}, while 20000 stands for maximum what does 60 do? Another things what is the difference between dynamic and dynamic2. What mirage do? Is there some sort of documentation?