TAW_Blaze

This. People don't even think for a second to spend thousands of dollars on simulation equipment, but can't afford to spend 10 € a month to make their chosen hobby a thousandfold better? The core of air combat simulation is the experience. Not owning a copy of a module. Everybody always wants to own things. Just look at it as investing a steady amount of cash to enjoy something you like doing. That sounds very alien right? Oh wait, every other hobby in existence is like that..

It was running fairly well on 2.5.5. Lots of room for improvement, but the graphics is by far not the worst issue. IMO a trial period one module of 1 or 2 weeks on sandbox purchase, sub or one time paid would make a lot more sense. Any newcomer could pick something he'd like to try, if he likes it he will buy it.

FC3 is irrelevant. It either has to be that the sandbox is a one time payment, or a subscription. The vast majority of problems have nothing to do with the graphics engine.

Obviously I would only pay for such as if that money was spent on exclusive improvement of the core simulation, or possibly features that interact with it. If this would be another false label just to fund other early acces jets, it would be a no go. Bottom line is, they are getting paid to deliver new modules, be it aircraft, ships or a terrain. This has been the case for the last 12 years. Nobody directly pays one cent for them to dig deep and fix underlying core mechanic problems that ruin the sim. What is one of the most common issues *the other sim players* bring up against DCS? That the air combat related parts are often laughable.. .. yet it is a combat simulation at it's core. Or it's supposed to be, but due to the business model instead generally we are getting cows or other features that only add show-off value. I had a discussion recently with a friend and the core of the discussion was that all simulation has severe simplifications. The important part is whether the end result is behaving "as it should". However in DCS after lots of testing what you often find it seems to be there wasn't even any attempt to make that happen. This is the problem. They are not getting paid to bring out the best core simulation possible. They are getting paid to bring out flashy aircraft. It's hard to really see the market that's lost due to this. Then in your case you're surely bothered by the mountain of absurd core mechanics that are never fixed? - Missing critical missile guidance features - Being able to lock burnt out missiles with IR seekers - Not having any interaction between optical sensors and weather - ARH guidance being totally absurd (especially in SP) when going active - Awful AI GCI services - Wingmen AI - Extremely unstable mission editing environment, one patch can break all your work the list goes on.. TO ED: I applaud the recent uprising in consideration of core simulation issues this year. The activities seem to be also a lot more transparent too, which is another great thing. However I'm afraid until the business model is changed this will ultimately never be really solved. I can't count how many times I've heard or read "this or that team is busy with that project". As long as the majority of developers are working on other stuff and core development is just a "mini project", this will not change. Temporarily you can reorganize them to focus on something, but long term if the income is based on modules and not the sandbox development itself, in the end people will always end up developing modules.

Even if we're talking real life this is not really the case either. You have similar airframes flying both sides i.e. different versions of MiG-29s etc. Between different aircraft types you can often mix them up visually unless you're within a mile. Obviously this is considering that the spotting sucks in DCS but still.

I'd rather pay a little extra to have a functioning software instead of alltogether stopping to use it at all because multiplayer once again is borderline unplayable for over the last month. Clearly the current business model does not support a well maintained and evolving core simulation. If it did not for the last 12 years, it won't change now.

It's been in the game for more than 2 years actually. N1 annoyance is hardly the case, you can easily work around it and still keep a good picture, even only based on RWR. Good competitors for N1 annoyance are screen freezing for seconds in critical moments or everyone warping 10-20 miles back and forth after 2 hours of flying on a server rendering any kind of combat flying worthless.

No IFF indication on HUD TD symbols has to be one of the worst design choices ever. Looking at your MFD is almost suicide in a merge and that combined with the atrociously unreliable IFF we have now is really hurting. Yesterday I had to IFF my own wingman in the same flight group 10 times in a row and still he was showing as no response and red on datalink. The only reason I'm not TKing people is because I always keep a good SA in my head..

I don't know how the architecture is in DCS is but previously you could not notch the Jeff radar.

Flying thousands of hours exclusively online since 2013. :) It's not an exact number but rather a reasonable ballpark. Of course if you fly to the merge on purpose it'll be different. But especially now in the age of Phoenixes and lofting 120C and everyone flying FF aircraft with datalink it's even less common to see merges. It actually got much more difficult to kill players on average, they have far too much SA due to datalink without any effort if you ask me.

Canards were deferred because they are detrimental to stealth. Less than 10% of fights online end up in a merge. Even then it's typically not about how much ITR you have but rather who sees the other guy first. In every other case it's all about sensors and energy capability. EF is a lot better in both. Especially in terms of performance when loaded with external fuel tanks.

Viper has a broken FM and not modeled extra G tolerance due to seat inclination. Meanwhile the Hornet FM is severely overmedeled. EF will have significantly better energy regaining capability than any of the other two which makes it a BVR monster just like the Eagle is. Try getting back to altitude in the Viper or the Hornet after an initial BVR shot.

Multiplayer could be far more successful if DCS was set up to provide an environment with a fitting timeframe and all the toys that belong to it. Obviously it isn't and it won't be either even after this comment. Balancing missions isn't just about loadouts since a lot of airframes had totally different capabilities depending on the year / model and usually in DCS only one of those configurations exist, you cannot change it. I'm glad to see that an EF is in the works and based on what I can see about the developer group I'm hoping for an equivalent quality to the Tomcat. However on the other hand practically any version of the EF will absolutely dumpster every other existing aircraft in DCS. Avionics might be comparable albeit still inferior on the Hornet / Viper however the flight performance both BVR and especially BFM is no contest. And that's considering an early EF configuration. In a nutshell it'll be what the FC3 Eagle was in terms of BVR dominance, with datalink and unmatched dogfighting performance.

Why do you think this is a bug? It's not.. buildings simply do not prevent radar line of sight in the simulated environment, it's rather a lack of feature. Besides, actually locking choppers should be significantly easier than it is, but the rotor doppler return is not modeled at all.

MCG and flying to last known intercept point are 2 totally different things..

To me it still looks like the "last known intercept point" is not existing at all. This is why you see missiles turning away from target in the notch etc. I think if this was finally implemented it would solve a lot of these problems. Just from theoretical standpoint I cannot believe late 2000s missiles do not have any mechanisms to deal with intermittent loss of intercept data and would rather result in this completely absurd behavior. Even if you lose the track for a short time you can extrapolate based on last known trajectory, an aircraft flying at 500 kts will not instantly stop mid air or start flying backwards as indicated by some ingame behavior.

Whether this is baseless or not I think it's simply to down to any eastern aircraft being less financially viable than NATO aircraft. In terms of WW2 all the most iconic aircraft are american, british or german built. Hardly a surprise considering the doctrine the russian aircraft design of the era. Not a surprise they are putting a huge investment in developing modules that probably have a significantly higher fan base (= more sales). Now put that in modern context, even if by a smaller margin I still expect NATO aircraft have a bigger fanbase and more often than not these people have also significantly better circumstances to be able to afford such "luxury" as buying a simulation software and equipment for it, not to mention the time spent. In comparison I hear some communities in China / Serbia / etc. still flying 1.5 or FC2 because they cannot afford the hardware for current DCS.. Obviously this is just a general feeling and I don't have data, but I'm quite certain ED does on what's a good financial investment and what's just an unnecessarily high risk. On another note, stating that a certain development path is impossible due to legal limitations saves them a lot of harassment (or not, so it seems, hence these threads) over stating it won't be done due to financial reasons.

I've seen it happen in MP too although it's not as common since players cannot time their notches that perfect (or maybe it works differently in SP). Against the AI most of the time it goes completely stupid around pitbull. It actually dumps about 20-30% of airspeed if not more very often and puts itself in an impossible intercept scenario and/or alltogether stops tracking.

After a week or so they have been back again. Exclusions are on, tried the fps limit but no effect whatsoever. I ended up reducing visibility to high but still stuttering quite badly and often locking up to multiple seconds.

It depends, maybe if there is more pagefile available it'll tend to use it over RAM which would hurt a lot. After 2-3 hours of flying it started some stutters again, but alt enter x2 looked like it fixed that after. I have to test more extensively though.

I don't want to jinx it but it seems like reducing the pagefile to 16 from 32 seems to have done it.

I've ran some furmarks with stable fps no issues when I got it. Sadly not really possible to test in 2.5.5 anymore since there isn't any big MP servers running it, in SP I generally have no issues.

1) this would be weird, but can try it later on 2) I used to run borderless but that had even more stutters, using fullscreen helped a bit. I tried alt enter too but it's not really doing anything from what I've seen. 3) 144 hz, I think I used to run vsync but I have it off atm. Generally I don't hit 144 hz 4) I'm using the Ryzen high performance setting. I think game mode is disabled but will double check. 5) Ok.

Long story short, I was fairly unhappy with the FPS I had with with my old rig and decided to get a new one. Now I have nice FPS with nearly maxed settings but it stutters a lot. Even on reduced settings the stutter is still there. :( Old setup: 4690k evga gtx980 16gb 1866 mhz New setup: ryzen 3700x strix 5700xt 32gb 3200 mhz 2x sata SSDs, win10 on 1, DCS on the 2nd custom page file set for 32gb on win10 ssd samsung rapid mode running on the SSD with DCS no OC dcs settings: everything high, except: shadows: med visibility: ultra terrain shadows: flat msaa 2x trees/grass max 2560x1440 fullscreen In general fps ranges between 50-120 depending on where I am, however lots of stutters and especially after 2.5.6 a lot of complete freezes a few secs. The worst part is when you try to zoom in on something quickly in a hurry and you freeze for 3 secs. I've spent some time trying to figure things out with performance / resource monitor and it is showing some SSD spikes however I've not been able to get any tool that monitors ingame performance and system resources together so it's pretty hard to correlate them. So I'm a little stuck in terms of what to do. A couple possibilities I've seen / thought of but haven't tried: - disable track/acmi writing: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=263567 - disable hot plug: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251377 - relocating DCS to the same SSD as win10 - cpu affinity black magic (is this still something that works?) I'm hoping someone else has more ideas that could work. :helpsmilie:

Typical defensive maneuvers involve significant altitude loss while gaining airspeed i.e. a slice turn or a split s. As soon as your target does this your DLZ numbers are in the dumpster. DLZ is a crutch that should be used with a big grain of salt. The only solution is to have truckloads of experience and based on that you can judge what a good shot is in a given scenario. If it was tuned differently it might be significantly more accurate, but it just isn't. However none of the DLZ makes up for pilot skill to plan and execute fights right. pK is also severely influenced by the environment you fly in. Just as an example: - a pK of 40-50% with 120B / 120C is possible in online airquake against decent pilots - fighting a coherent group of good pilots you're likely to not have above 20% pK - fighting an ace in a duel you're unlikely to have more than 10% pK .. assuming you're a very skilled DCS fighter pilot, always firing within good parameters. Your average DCS fighter jock won't be hitting much more than 20% of his 120s even in airquake environments. This is all based on years of flying on multiple servers and looking at our own stats. Bottom line the expected pK talk is laughable at best without any proof. In the end you only have some expectations on what you think the weapon should do which is just an opinion. How far a missile goes does not matter much in terms of competitive play unless the opposition is ludicrously out of proportions (i.e. SD-10). What really matters is guidance. Having the high pK ranges distorted is fine, but your "practically" guaranteed kill shots missing for no reason is hard to deal with. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does it can be infuriating. Imagine losing fights because your missile despawned from the game a half mile before hitting the target and you getting killed as a result.