dimitriov

Log + one of the miz. Log : https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=229946&stc=1&d=1584307439 Miz : https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=229945&stc=1&d=1584307366 CAU CA MAYKOP2.miz dcs - Copie.rar

Ok

Hi, So after many testings I encounter an issue on my two DCS computers. If at mission start, there are several ground groups which are supposed to follow a plan, they will not start at the begining but one after the other, sometimes with up to 10 minutes interval, which basically makes most relatively dynamic missions unusable. Here attached is a very simple example miz. Simply launch it and look by yourself. Removing groups will attenuate the issue but it is already very noticeable with 6 groups (between the mission start and the last group departure will need about 2 minutes), adding groups increases the problem drastically, some of my missions with +- 20 moving groups simply don't work anymore as the waiting for AI to start moving can reach 45 minutes. Adding the "Come back to first WP" action will even sometimes accentuate the problem. Interval seems more or less random (somtimes 1 min, sometimes 10 sec, sometimes 1 hour . . .) MIZ EXAMPLE / https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=229928&stc=1&d=1584283565 Please this issue simply destroyed all our training missions in our squad ^^ Thanks, Nicolas TEST_BIGNEWY_GRNDAI.miz

Rare enough to be noted this one :) Thanks

For modders btw, in order to make a nuke, create a smoke rocket and put its intensity to 1000. You'll see the result by yourself

You can follow me working in streaming on this channel some days :) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHS41zEhx8XJnnfsnOKpRNA?view_as=subscriber

You don't know, the unscheduled could happen :)

Oh I'm not interested at all in soviet tanks, they are targets ^^ (No offense toward russian players huh I simply prefer the occidental MBT way of working)

Yeah I clearly did the maximum on my side trying to erase the saved games by a way or another may be enough lol

Hi, no wake turbulence it was a CA only miz.

So. Don't ask me why. I went from 60 to 10 after this update. I tried drivers, nvidia cache, meta-shaders and fxo without any result. So bad new for you all : I uninstalled the game. Removed entirely the saved games folder. Reinstalled the game. I then tried on the exact same miz : I'm around 45-50 now. So not a nice solution to hear, but at least it worked for me. Good luck. Nicolas

So on my side for report : GTX 1070TI I7-3820 16 GB RAM DDR3 SSD I went from an average 60 FPS in 2.5.5 with most settings maxed to a 15-20 FPS with a standard monitor 1080p. I noticed that VRAM usage is 0. I updated drivers, deleted Metashaders and Fxo. I sincerely suggest that a small roll-back would be made removing the new lighting or making them optionnal as it seems for me to be part of the issue. If I say this, it is because I have another rig : RTX 2080 I-7 8700 (I think it's this one) 16 GB RAM DDR4 SSD No FPS loss at all on this one and it's in 2K. I guess your lighting system uses some RTX features but the current average rig doesn't use these GPU. Other difference between the 2 rigs : First is on W7, second is on W10. Perhaps something to investigate. I would if it didn't lead me to format everything ^^ SSLR disabled on both though no real impact on the 2nd rig. Nicolas PS : Please avoid big discussions on this thread, that's not what devs need. Report in the kinda same format as I did, it would be far more efficient I think.

Hi Stuart, Currently the Leclerc interior is going to take long to complete. Once it is done, depending on what I can do of this cockpit, I could be interested in making another tank and then it will essentially depend on the amount of data I have so it would be an M1 or a Chally or a Leo. Nicolas

Whatever being the level of armor you have on the vehicle, I too noticed that results obey to some kind of random law. It's not perfect and I think there are many reasons for it but well. It's acceptable.

Bug reproduced on my side and other people in my squad.

Complètement timbré j'adore lol

Yeah sure. Still CA GUI probably is the worst RTS GUI ever done in a videogame but costs more than most RTS. If you do something, do it well, noone ever asked for a tank simulation of DCS, but if you want to go arcade, then do a good arcade job, not a half done work. If you don't want to touch it anymore, at least let motivated people more freedom to improve it. It's not a critic to criticize like many forum users do. It's simple truth : If ED doesn't want to spend time on CA which is something that I really understand as DCS is a flight sim, perhaps for some very motivated modders could it be considered to allow some limited access in order to try to improve things and ED keeps what it wants. This is all. Again I don't get the mentality of some people here who nearly insult modders work because it is modding and so it wouldn't be sometimes some professionnal led work. I perfectly know that such behavior would not be tolerated toward ED products, but toward people who spend thousands of hours on their free time and share the result, it seems to be normal. Anyway, there is no point in staying here. You owe nothing to modders, this is why the modding section is the most visited section of these forums after the inputs...............

IMO modding can bring some good ideas on the table by using code variants in order to improve base sim. I think that community manager could sometimes perhaps talk a bit more about some mods to the ED team simply because some mods are made as "showcases" of what could be done better for some assets ingame. People who simply say "Modding is always worse than official content" simply never modded anything and lack a lot of respect toward those who spend thousands of hours working hard with one idea in head : improve base experience. Let me take my own example on this : I am making a Leclerc tank with full interior and external API in order to have a complete C4ISR system able to communicate datas with other planes and practicaly replace most of the basic "half done" Combined Arms GUI, using the real life manual. Model I make for the Leclerc uses real measurements, working with RL instructors, and is 386 000 triangles with 4K PBR textures, which is already more than most aircraft paid models you have ingame. Interior too uses thousands of reference pics in order to get the most accurate result you could get in any sim whatsoever. Meanwhile the Abrams or Leopard 2 models don't have the right measurements (12.5 m long for a Leo 2A5 instead of 10.97 m) and the global CA is extraordinarily limited. Extraordinarily more limited. Because it is left aside of dev work for years now. What's the purpose of such mod I make ? Is it to say "Ow look at my beautiful Leclerc I am so good xoxoxo #IamGod" ? It is to try to show ED that CA has a lot of potential and that some time could be spent on it. I would not have any problem in helping them on my own time. Is ED able to do far better than what I do ? Of course they are, they have all the core coding tools that I don't have. The sole purpose is to show them that it's already possible to do great things with not much and so that spending few hours on improving their code could allow great things. I know that there are some mod assets which are sometimes quite limited, but when I read this : "at the end of the day modded content is bad. they cause problems and they have low quality standards. even the most well-constructed mod does not come close to matching a professional production. i honestly could not give any less of a rat's wet fart if they ceased to exist." I simply want to ask : Who are you to insult other people work ? People criticize the "expert armchair man who gives advices to ED" but don't have any problem to insult the persons who actually simply make better quality stuff than what's in base game for FREE. It is better quality stuff. There is nothing to say about it, it is made and thought to be better in order to show ED that there is more potential in their modules than what they sometimes seem to think. The purpose of many modders is to try their best to bring new and sometimes better content than the original one. It's not always true, it's even rarely true, but again, if there any CA users here, is this Leclerc project a downgrade compared to what exists today ? Wouldn't you like to get this kind of work, this kind of dedication by default on the sim ? This whole thread is one of the main reasons I post less and less on this forum : people think that because you mod, then it's necessarily lower quality content. It is not always true, really. Some people set quality levels for their product that they use in their current job in sometimes far wealthier companies than ED (with all respect to ED itself). So please be respectful toward each other work because this kind of post I quote is nothing else than pure insult and I don't even understand why @Bignewy you allow this kind of thing to happen. We work for free, on our free time, to bring people nice content. Nothing else. For the remaining part of the topic, no SDK is asked by anyone, though sometimes someone to answer some very simple questions could be nice. Bignewy, I asked you a simple question by PM, is there a possibility to one day get an answer, even if it is a simple "NO !" ? What's the result of producing such very high quality showcase ? More CA sells for example at least in French community. Does ED complain about this you think ? Again, it is made in the intent to make some showcases of the sim potential, nothing more. There is no ego involved in this, simply passion and the pleasure to share it. Nicolas

Hi everyone, I'd like to introduce you the next upcoming vehicle, which I'd like to offer for integration to ED but else will be integrated in FrenchPack V4 The Leclerc Série XXI. The Leclerc Série XXI has been worked on for several months now alongside professionnal tankists who served on it and will come with absolutely all the FrenchPack advancements in terms of coding and integration, which means : - Real weaponry values - As accurate as possible Armor values - The second most detailed 3D model currently ingame after the F-14. (IE : Real measurements, physical tracks etc etc, and of course LODs in order to do not burn you computer) - PBR Metalrough textures 2K (Like on screens) and optionnal 4K - Full commander interior (currently still WIP but should be finished by the end of the month) - Real commander optical system (HL-120) - FrenchPack Smoke protection screen - External API with complete cartographic and Data-Link system allowing it to transmit targets/coordinates to other units by pressing a single button, asking for artillery fire, repair, rearm, which will consist in the simulation of the real life C4ISR ICONE system. Just like IRL, Leclerc XXI will be able to shoot and hit with 90% accuracy a target on the move while being itself on the move, up to 4000 m, the cumulated velocity difference being 110 km/h thanks to its 30° rotating mirror. The vehicle is frontally very well protected against 1980' ATGM except on the driver area, and frontally very well protected against 125 mm APFSDS from 1500 m Early version in action in Normandy : Nicolas

FYI Voc I remade your canopy V1 and V3, I used yours as reference since there is no need to reinvent the powder so it was faster. If it takes you a long time to remake models, I can already send these two to you

For the code I simply know this because I make the FrenchPack for 2 years now and I use every tiny bit of code ED made available. So now I know mostly everything about it ^^

In the code there are two main informations : ARMOR : - For basic tank/APC/IFV : One single value is set (say 0.2 m), the sim will then calculate the average value depending on the side you're shooting, using at the same time an angle calculation (very approximative) in order to tweak the pen value depending on the global angle of impact (the angle formed between the shell and the vertical axis, not the plate itself). - For advanced tanks : M1 Abrams, FrenchPack AMX-10RCR, FrenchPack Leclerc XXI : Complex armor scheme : The collision model is divided in plates with each plate being set to its real value (Example : Leclerc XXI Left turret cheek : 750 mm RHA). Then add to this the angle calculation which too is specific to each advanced vehicle, instead of the generic calculation system which is used for every other. This allows you to get as detailed armor scheme as in other advanced tank games, but again, in base DCS, only one vehicle is concerned, the M1 Abrams, others use the basic armor scheme. SHELL : - The shell itself has several parameters : For perforation : Its mass, its speed, its caliber, its sub-caliber. The last one is the most important as it defines the main parameter for penetration value, the lower it is, the more is penetrates. (At equal mass and speed, a 10 mm in diameter dart will pierce more than a 30 mm. Each tank has its proper shell model, so an Abrams shell is not the same at all than a T-72 shell which too differs from a FrenchPack Leclerc XXI shell. At the end of all this calculation, you obtain the observed result that you described earlier. By experience though, the complex scheme is not entirely reliable and sometimes works badly, probably due to limits in code calculation because of the shell very high speed (about 1.5 to 1.8 km/sec). Finally, there is no HEAT amunnition in DCS, only High Explosive and APDSFS, which means that your tank should not be too much damaged by an explosive shell, at least it shouldn't blow it up. The real lacking thing in DCS tank battle is the perforation effect depending on the part which is hit : engine on fire, turret disabled, all these things. I hope they'll implement them one day, cause it will be implemented on the FrenchPack the day after ^^ Nicolas

Only for statics yes. Until next episode I guess . . .

Using the database way of working is actually better in terms of gameplay anyway, the AI won't try to shell walls, canopy or fuel tanks because it considers them as a threat.