Fastbreak

Belated happy birthday, Mr. Wagner!

+1 (c) And some attractive ground personnel for the heli wash - the whole shebang, please.

Hello mate, Why don't you ask right away what makes women tick ... ? No offence, just a hint of sarcasm!

You are not familiar with the KA-50 killing rules of the ED bible, aren't you? Thou shalt not kill any bird with vikhr. [the 11th commandment from the ED version]

Hello Lange_666, Seriously, no. But it should not be the question! The problem respectively challenge for all software developers is to regularly adapt to new technologies and optimise their programming for modern hardware capabilities. In view of various expense factors such as personal, knowledge, time, time expenditure etc. a lot of companies might postponene the inevitable measures to the future... With regard to ED, they could have started in 2016 with Vulcan 1.0 to modernise DCS graphics engine in time, for the reason that even in earlier versions than 2.7 performance has never been a DCS highlight. Now, at the end of 2021, DCS has ultimately become the dog's breakfast as a result of its performance. So the question(s) should be in fact: When has ED started to restructure the program code (2016?) or why have they still not finished the change-over to Vulcan and multi-threading yet (keyword priorisation)? P.S. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s easy to critizise, but I think above question is indeed legitimate due to the complex of problems reported.

Hello Taz1004, "I remember someone telling me that's wrong way to do it but I fly with FD when I need to maneuver." It is not wrong. If you use the Flight Director (FD), you will maneuver without the autopilot system, whose channels are switched off, but whose dampers are still working, and without dependant weapon system functions, e.g. 'turn to target', that need the autopilot system. If you use trim method to maneuver, you will switch off autopilot for the time you shift down the trim button, too. Trim method might be more efficient (faster) in combat, when you need to freely maneuver as well as to use the weapon system, than taking your hand from stick to push the FD button on and off. Although using trim method has become second nature to me, I often use the FD in situations like nap-of-the-earth (NOE) flying to target area, where I do not expect hostile fire, or when I need permanent 100% control authority, e.g. air acrobatics. "But Shark is not like other helos. You just have to get used to the trim stuff. Once you know and predict how it behaves, you will be able to control it accurately." When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

I have been stopping to buy, I have been stopping to fly for several months, too, due to DCS's substantial performance loss. I do not know the reasons for ED's product development strategy regarding the (absence of) graphics engine modernisation, but I have been shaking my head in disbelief for a long time yet. I do hear news by news about the Apache (a great project without doubt) instead of a regular development status of Vulcan API and CPU multi-threading support in DCS. At the same time I read about all those users reporting on performance issues with DCS 2.7 (me, too) and I find only perfunctory feedback from ED - but let's forget about it... What kind of immersion do you expect, when you will fly the highly agile combat helicopter Apache (or any other rotor wing) with 30fps? You must be kidding! If ED sucks dry a vintage graphics engine and do not breathe new life into it with latest technologies (Vulcan, DX12 etc.) by return, they will have to take the blame. It is ED's turn to work towards a speedy solution - now and with highest priority.

If you fly the KA-50 from the beginning in 2008 and therefore know it in detail, you will recognise some mistake in the product that spoils its appearance slightly, e.g. rocket impact, object targeting etc. You will find many more shortcomings in the 'Bugs and Problems' pages of this forum, finally BS2 has got to be be revised - thoroughly. Why do I wait? Well, a very legitimate question ... I hope ED has gained enough experience after some 13 years of programming to be able to deliver a solid product once and for all! In my opinion the new Apache is an addition and not a replacement for the KA-50 in DCS world. Primarily ED should optimise DCS performance very soon, so that 60fps minimum @1080p with graphics settings 'High' will be standard on an average pc system - otherwise flying the highly dynamical Apache may become very disillusioning ...

No(w), you are worthy !

Dear BIGNEWY, dear Silver_Dragon, With all due respect, I still think that I take a dim view of ED's communications strategy in this matter. Anyhow, I think it's to (y)our interest to not start a discussion here, so I would like to thank you for your feedback! Bye for now

This statement about the status quo is worth its weight in gold - thank you.

As to Newsletter 13 August 2021 I would prefer to read more and detailed information about high-priority topics such as performance improvement and Vulcan implementation status in the newsletters. Both coding corrrection and architecture change are basic prerequisite to significantly improve DCS World 2.7. (efficient use of hardware) and for this reason fixed and rotary wing handling (frame frequency, latency) as well as the inevitable improvement of simulation depth (AI ground and air, communication, dynamical weather, etc.). ED ought to be able to regularly communicate concrete results in this regard, too.

Rumour has it sophisticated quantum computers with about ~1000 Qubits are being developed momentarily for the sake of DCS 3.0, but will be ready for operation before DCS 2.75 ...

Well, Azzhat - now you are together with all DCS bugs on DD_Fenrirs ignore list ...

Difficult to find appropriate words of solace - but I wish all the best to your wife, to you and to your family.

“The proper office of a friend is to side with you when you are in the wrong. Nearly anybody will side with you when you are in the right.” Mark Twain Dragon1-1, maybe you should take a look at hell () for the company?!

I do not deem a pilot an explicit arcade gaming element. As a pilot can see other pilots in their fixed or rotory wings from outside, e.g. when flying close formation, therefore pilots are essential objects of the simulation just as animated flaps, moving gears, blinking lights, wake turbulance etc. I absolutely agree here: A simulator has to be left a simulator and must not be(come) arcade gaming by any means.

Don't catch a splitter ... Pilot's graphical representation or animation is surely not a high priority task considering long-time bugs and performance issues in DCS, but where do you see a problem to add it to the wishlist?

Well structured, easy-to-follow, well done! Thank you, too.

The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much; if he is an optimist after it he knows too little.” -Mark Twain-

What is ED's concrete concept to bring flight sim to a stable (minimum) 60 fps level and corresponding low, consistent frame times (GPU,CPU) @ 1440p (for readable cockpit instruments) so that FLYING a helicopter or a plane will be adequate to ED's claim to a have a "Digital Combat Simulator"? Still experiencing myself and reading about abundantly clear performance issues in view of a great many pc-systems that are not absoutely high-end (e.g. AMD 5950x, Intel Core i9-10900K, Nvidea, GeForce RTX 3090, Radeon AMD RX 6900 XT) and therefore do not meet the requirements for airworthiness any more. Scaling down resolution in combination with changing options in game or windows settings often does not show the desired effect, either - DCS 2.7 remains more or less a "Slide Projector Simulation". All the more I am very much surprised by ED' declaration that their beta version is now stable - it should inspire much confidence among update losers, shouldn't it? I would realy like to see ED public the specs of their (or one) test pc system as well as its detailed windows and DCS configuration, so that everybody who is willing to fly with stable 60fps / reasonable frametimes @ 1440p can directly change over to a problemless pc hardware. Conveniently ED could also make clear-cut and proofable statements on the performance, namely in form of index numbers, especially when they update the simulator or modules - transparency paired with unambiguousness. They could measure and chart the performance development from update to update, years by year, and compare it to the hardware performance development, too. All endeavours to push complexity by realistic graphics, illumination, AI, weather, radio etc. are great (!), but with about 30 fps @1080p/1440p/2160p simply a no-go(!). If ED is not able to include new features and modules on the current base, why do they not rebuild DCS for a solid base first, keyword Vulcan, to sustain needed capabilty. Instead of that they bring new features, modules, clouds with no information when all those "jigsaw pieces" become an efficient system. ED might be well advised to reconsider their product management (strategy with a competence analysis, technical, go-to-market), but that's only my thoughts and, no doubt, none of my concern.

What about bug-fixed choppers with perfect pilots ?

Don't demand such a great deal of them - they have to stay focussed upon bug-fixing ...

"And as of now, what little they have done with BS3, I don't see myself buying it." I myself miss ED's explicit statement that they will do bug-fix the essential errors with the existing KA-50, such as the absolutely annoying problem with the jumping Shkkval resulting in unintentional helicopter movements in "Turn to target" mode (...). A lot of other present problems with the KA-50 are described in detail in the forum, thanks to the commitment of many users (excluded false reports of uninformed users or fanboys). So, now we can read in the last newsletter that ED will be adding some more functionalities, which I do welcome. But on what basis? Does the KA-50 gets a new shiny look with three more features but retains its old errors? Exact this way I interpret the vague information on the KA-50 in ED's last newsletter. If they know today that they will launch a BS3 module, they will also know by now what they are going to fix. They will, won't they? Strange, that I do not find any exact information about it - and not a bit I ask about schedule. With regard to ED's comment on BS3 price in their last newsletter I have a very simple opion: Good work needs adequate payment. If ED's work complies with this requirement, I will not mind to buy a new KA-50 module and gladly accept the required price, even if it were e.g. on new module level. Seriously, I am not willing any more to dedicate myself to testing DCS or modules for hours and days to make them somewhat run (including stable version). I would rather spend my time with flying and aviation in general. Due to KA-50 history and development as well as ED's marketing communication in their previous newsletters, I unfortunatelly have the dim feeling, that they fob off users with a small priced but half-baked KA-50 module again. So here I absolutely agree with 3WA's statement above. It is evident this feeling is my subjective perception. Should I be wrong, I will apologise here for jumping to a conclusion. Should I be right, I hope, other users will not only make strictures upon ED, but put their money where their mouth is. Beyound doubt, every user has the right to evaluate on his own the (momentary) quality level of DCS and its (future) modules. I am highly sceptical and also miffed at ED these days. Nonetheless I look forward to BS3 and hope that ED makes with BS3 a living proof that I am wrong.