Amarok_73

After all these days, full of testing and changing display drivers, and all the other activities, that's also my suspicion. Point is, that i did not overclocked anything so far, and the overclocking options in my motherboard UEFI are so complicated, so it's hard for me to evaluate, what parameter could be changed by seller in the process of preparation and stability testing. So far, i've found site where are told PBO parameters optimal for my hardware, set it up, and first and only flight after this change was undisturbed. Also I've decided to use XMP profile for my memory instead of hard setting 3200 MHz... So far I wonder if clearing CMOS that will set default settings can be assumed also as most safe in regard to stability. I'll continue "doctorization", and if I'll get promising setup, I'll share what did I set, perhaps someone will benefit from such feedback.

Well, there's something concrete... I've started GPU-Z, enabled logging to the file, started DCS and flied for a while, then the crash occured, and it seems, that this happened exactly in the moment, when GPU clock raised from about 1700 MHz, to above 2060, what seems to be higher than default values for my graphic card. The time signatures from the crash log and GPU-Z log for this event are almost the same (difference is about 3 seconds). I am attaching GPU-Z screenshots showing the info screen and sensors page with max values of all measured parameters. Now, the question is, how to limit the GPU clock so it will not get higher than stock values, and how to investigate what actually cause such behavior?

Playing Arma3 I have encountered error that seems to be of the same origin as in DCS. The screenshot of this error I am attaching to this post. Now the question comes, as it can be that the graphic card becomes unstable because of stock overclocking, how can I get the information if my card is indeed stock overclocked, and how to get it to the base settings?

And now the same happened again in the same mission, with the same settings, flying A-10C. :( Tell me please if should I stop posting the Crash Log files as they probably contains the same information, so there's no benefit in it.

Well, I have praised too early. It still occurs. Nothing changed since last successful test except this time I was flying in Harrier instead of Ka-50 and A-10C. dcs.log-20200524-211950.zip

Well, so far - so good. I've deleted these modules, started pretty dense mission on max'ed graphical settings, and no any issues noticed. :thumbup:

Well, I have done what You suggest in troubleshooting advice, tried multiple combinations of graphic settings, and in every of them, sooner or later the crash ocured. I'am attaching the reports from these moments, but I assume, there's no really point in publication of these here and instead I should just use the function of reporting the crash that is integrated in the game? Logs package.zip

Hello, I'd like to report crash that aparently seems to be related to water settings. On low settings there's no problem with game stability (so far), but raising it to any higher value causes the CTD soon after mission start. I've searched through this subforum and see that there's some advices to delete files from fxo and metashaders2 directories in saved games, i did so, but th effect is the same. Also there is some advices to turn down overclocking of graphic card, but my card is set to defaults. In system event viewer I can see, that the issue is somehow related to the DX3D11.dll. I attach exemplary crash logs. My hardware (bought about week ago) specification is: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 32 GB Ram dcs.log-20200520-194343.zip dcs.log-20200522-170710.zip

Indeed, Backspace - Return to Search. Thank You all for help!

Hello, I'd like to confirm if indeed, there's no button availiable for unlocking target? Edit: Sorry, this question was meant to be put in SU-33 subforum.

On 1.5, I've done today two touchdowns (one missed), and no problem noticed with wires...

I've had it some time ago, but it was hardware problem - my G940 rudder pedals was sending peak signals, since potentiometer was stiff mounted.

+1

+1 Also, NVG brightness is not working. When rotated, it'snaps' to brighter value than default, and stays locked in that position. Tested with the same result in different missions, both - in single and multiplayer.

It can be, You've been flying without radio assist.

sc_neo, If You're using for instance A-10C, then You can install Ricardo's HD texures, so with medium/low all other textures, cockpit will be razor-sharp. :-)

No worries, You're not crazy. As I already wrote in previois posts, there was a time, when there was... let's name it "simplified" version of MWS, which was working same way as in Su-25T, so there was just vocal warning about missile in the air.

Falcon, rule of thumb is that You're flying with three to four augumentations always turned on. Four if You need altitude to be keept depending of BR/RD switch otherwise three. Then, all maneuvering You do with trimmer button depressed, what cause temporary disabling of stabilisation modes until You'll get postion which You want to stabilize. Otherwise, with stabilization enabled, but trimmer released, all Your inputs are partially suppressed, so You're fighting against helicopter trying to point him where You want him to point. Of course, there might be scenarios, where it can be reasonable to disable other stabilisators, like heading one, when You re trying to run around in circles, but most of time pitch, bank and heading stabilisation modes should be enabled.

In very general - sure, but knowing from the other side how it works (I have few friends from old times working on Military University of Technology in Warsaw) I can assure You, that any solution You can imagine, that will increase survaviblity of unit on battle field has been already invented and - depending of cost/profit calculation - somewhere implemented. For instance, I can easily imagine that RWR can not only show that markings on dedicated small, green screen, but also by triangulation and signal measurement it's position and range can be pretty precisely approximated, then - as it is for instance in some real airplanes - put to TAD where You can decide by filtering if You want or not see this information, as it can cause cluttering the screen in some dense situations. And if I'm not wrong it was recently said by some real A-10 pilot, that indeed such solution is implemented. So turning back to our beloved Ka-50, basicaly what we're about is the question IF such thing as MWS is reasonable for helicopter from that era, and - again, talking about reality - I can't imagine, that someone decisive would waste money by sending "blind" helicopter worth plenty of money on battlefield. And the best confirmation of my guesses is that there are indeed models 25+ then KA-52, where such advanced solutions are applied. So, returning to our good known "realism", current Ka-50 is good as training platform just for flying and basic weapon training, but with lack of MWS it can be at most sent to supermarket for rolls and bananas, because involvment in battlefield almost for sure mens just waste of a significant money. Anyway, I am really glad, that developers are considering upgrade for Ka-50, and since I love this heli - as declared in previous post - I'll gladly spend my money for revised model. And still it makes me sad, that contrary to what I declared in my primary post where I dug out this thread, I failed to avoid same pointless arguments as in other discussions I've read before decided to refresh it here.

But how can it be??? Such change "will be so inaccurate and will destroy whole realism of this simulator!" :megalol: Well, did I said something about "product" and "money"? THIS is realism, and accuracy in regards to real world. Schmidtfire, thank You for this finding, for me it offers some hope both - about increase of KA-50 community, as well as pointless, and full of empty argumentations discussions. :-)

:lol: Ok, I give up. When eventually it _will_ become as serious as some of You want to see it, please call me from Elite Dangerous servers, or other BMS, where in meanwhile other not so "serious" players migrate. Cheers.

Fri13, I am quite sure that such changes we can't expect, as it would make this platform too desirable, so it can cause drop in sales of other "not-so-attack chopters" :D But if this what You described would be implemented as... let's say another variant of Ka-50, I'd not hesitate to buy it for few of my friends, because I'd feel safe that they'll not turn away from this module and money will not be wasted. But -sadly- observing current trends in sales strategy, I doubt that we can expect any good will from developers to have it implemented so completely as You described it.

Come on, guys, reading all that (somehow interresting) statements and more or less camouflaged cynic-ironic expressions, I have feeling, that most of You who negate my idea of returning MWS to use, didn't spent even 10 seconds trying to fully understand what lays behind what I wrote. Instead You just spotted another oportunity to highlight how advanced elitary club of ProKA-50Pilots You represent. And all this effort while there are so many servers where You can show off all what You can do with KA-50 without being the same time offensive to some. Anyways, what I am "working" with now is bunch of newbies, who would gladly buy KA-50 and enjoy it for sure, but for them it's just a bit too tough. This bit i is the fact, they must focus on so many things around, so many switches and procedures for spotting, targeting, navigation and enagaging enemies so scanning constantly windows for smoke from missile flying towards them is just too much. I have that comfort, that having more than 1200 hours in KA-50, most of time, flying this machine is just boring for me (and still fun), but I am in minority for sure, so what I am asking is just simple functionality that was already implemented in older versions of this platform, that for these "youngsters" will offer a chance to participate in enjoyment instead of frustration. And that's why I've asked to make it as optional, so all who call themself "pro" will be able to force on their servers this "cheat" to be turned off. I'd really preffer to see squadrons/wings of KA-50 running on enemies and "dancing" in the sky in effort to avoid missiles and spot shooters before they'll reload and shoot down them in enviroment packed with MANPADS, instead of seeing just few of them (at most) crawling in constant fear then eventually going down in frustration just because they "missed the smoke. And YES - I KNOW IT'S HOW IT LOOKS IN REALITY, but first of all, scenario can be prepared that way, so all these processes will be employed having requiring more diversity in regards to behaviour and procedures. Then, some of us just differently defines enjoyment, so that's where I think it's good idea to implement MWS with parameter that will add scalability. And to precisely specify what kind of system I'm talking about is - as Weta43 mentioned above - minimal version as it was available in standalone version of simulator, where vocal alert was sounded when missile was in the air. The same mechanism as is in Su-26T functioning now. No additional switches needed, no specific sounds as the ones currently available can be used, no changes in cockpit design. Just "pакета впереди выше" and others for other directions.

Well, another day of flying without Steam Client working in the background, and still no error occured... :-)

Well, another day of flying, this time with Steam Client inactive (not started) and no more such problems. My guess that Steam can cause (directly or not) these D3D comes from fact, that majority of this problem occurences was happening the same time, when Steam was showing me this pop-up saying that someone started playing some game. But I'll observe it if this error happens also when no Steam is working.