Worrazen

Yeah, don't go with 10GB for DCS World, even if DCS adds support for PCIe 4.0 DirectStorage relatively fast it'll still be like 1-2 years, but even with DirectStorage, that's just speed, when you want to have a ton of stuff visible all at once that speed won't help you, need capacity for that. When viewing thing from afar I guess each of those would be low quality LODs so it wouldn't take up as much but I still, why go smaller when you can go bigger. But this is just my quick opinion, I'd have to look and think about this deeper.

Yeah that was my idea too, but I didn't saw it confirmed. It should make sense, given that the new module is full price plus 10$ over. Whatever the fair price would be going forward, the new module should contain the old aircraft just so that it encourages better usage and doesn't split the userbase including bias in MP where the old version would be forgotten by server admins and mappers, that probably should be avoided at all costs. Secondly so a player would be more easily be all-set to try one wonderful sunday "hey how did it look back then with an older suite" rather than having to separately purchase it, which IMO would need more direct focus from the player and to have that "historical sense" to purposelly go out and look for it and decide to buy it specifically for that purpose, there may be less amount of people who would do that, bundling with a bit of a higher price may not be that much when it comes to full price so it may be digestable for most. I know it's one of those areas well if you're *not* going to use it why pay it ... but, it's more of a let's all support each other, same thing goes with other moduled that I do not use that much (yet) but still buy in order to support DCS in general.

If the vehicle gets trapped or moves very slow it should be treated as bug, flaw or at least not optimal and not some okay for sim representation, for things like mountains and all the other stuff, but for roads which have direct gameplay factors I don't think devs would say "that's as far as we go on the ground sim", hopefully. I know the limitations of terrain, depending on the version it just needs it's own extra manual touchup in such cases. I did saw some of them myself but forgot exactly which one, I'll find them next time.

SSD does help with some of the stuttering, however, you are right, stuttering shouldn't really happen even on a HDD, stutter as in an engine-freeze until the data is loaded, the game should load all it's data necessary for a fluid gameplay experience with 16 GB or above RAM, and only then the speed of your textures popping in would be determined by your storage speed, so with HDD, you'd just be looking at low LODs and it would take time to transition to a higher quality LOD, there should technically be no stuttering. It's not really textures anyway, with the diagnostic software I've seen time and time again that parts of assets (objects, etc) are being lazy-loaded later right when the engine needs them, not everything is being properly loaded to RAM at mission load. The fix isn't that easy as new things get added to the sim all the time. I guess tracking every single file / groups isn't that straight forward, that's why a smart new approach to memory management is probably being developed. Also perhaps this is a bug an only happens on some machines, but you can see how a fast SSD would make these stutters much less visible, kinda shadowing the issue with brute force, that's what I said back then, okay we'll deal with it with bruteforce just move to SSD and it'll be fixed properly later. Those acronyms are are pretty much standard across the industry, nothing to do with DCS. I'm really not having a luxury of 2 hours on explaining the windows memory/terminology stuff right now.

Yeah, that's my favourite cup of tea as well, this will go so well along with the "dynamic campagin" with long haul sessions when repairing/refueling/rearming will have a more significant impact on gameplay and contribution to the outcome. Saving your jet will be in one's interest over the easy way of ejecting and respawning. Not to mention the whole SAR thing. SAR (search-and-rescue) is obviously a non-combat thing but the one we mean is the military-specific side of it where it's about evac of friendly troops and ejected pilots, including behind enemy lines so it has IMO quite a military side to it which would be justified, because if you want to evac an important pilot behind enemy lines you may need to temporairly reposition and take off other duties your military troops, scouts, escorts, move ground units to a hill for observation, and quite a bit of work if the area is populated by enemy forces before that actual SAR helicopter can attempt to go in for rescue. But signal-comms simulation overhaul needs to happen first before SAR is worthwhile IMO or at the same time. So those radio transmission by the ejected pilot, by friendly forces, by last known position on primary radar / secondary radar / (visible on F-10 map by appropriate player role) coordination between ATC's who had info on that downed plane, coordination between AWACS, audio clips and voices have to be made, SAR-specific AI has to be created and it's "Dynamic Campaing" implementation, pilot transportable in aircraft, animations, airlift (zip line hooking, etc) ... so it's a bit of work and I wouldn't mind it if it's a paid module in some fashion, given that dynamic campaign is I think a "core" and is free. So yeah I would buy a SAR module, even if it only means to fund some of the core tech behind it that could be shared and benefit other areas, like the signal-comms stuff. The management of the IADS network that is being considered by a third party for a paid module also shares the signal-comms stuff so I'm all for that module or whatever compromise they come up with (the ongoing community discussion whether it should be part of CA or just free core update, or some semi-paid thing). Just don't get me wrong, I don't mean simulation as in some crazy ray-tracing super-realistic stuff, just the next doable and practical step higher.

I wanted to include this part in a bigger thread I am hopefully sooner rather than later going to write, but I felt like this shouldn't wait because I keep referencing to it and I'm throwing several monikers in my smaller posts around and can't get my head over which one should I use, so I kept using "Dynamic Campaign" with double quotes and capital letters. Apparently it's going to be much much more than just a dynamic campaign, and it also means it won't be similar to what the "Dynamic Campaign" folks always talked about and expected. I think I'm getting to understand the direction it's going now that more was revealed about it. This would be a general engine/system which you would engage/activate/setup in any mission whatsoever which wouldn't be limited to any traditional static SP "Campaign", so I think the term should lose that word out. So there's the RTS component to it, the whole thing is also accelerated by a "Neural Network (the hardware AI-Computing buzz stuff), there's the transport of fueld cargo and ammunitions so that's the logistics side, then there's going to be an economic side, a full blown war simulation by the sound of it. The interview sounded to me like the "Dynamic Campaign" is infact more like a temporary "codename" of sorts that probably isn't going by the same name internally. The longer it gets the more accurate it may get, but also it may get too specific and the lenght isn't practical, so ofcourse a balance would need to be found, that's not easy, this is a lot harder than I thought when I started writing this. I'm going to play with it with the longer ones and will kinda have some fun with those, even tho a shorter one would most likely win officially in the end, because it surely should be anything but "Dynamic Campaign" when it releases, right? Let's begin ... -------------------------------- -------------------------------- Real-Time AI War(fare) Simulation - RTAIWS Real-Time Neural War(fare) Simulation - RTNWS Real-Time Strategic War(fare) Simulation - RTSWS Real Time Strategic AI War(fare) Simulation - RTSAIWS Real Time Strategic Neural War(fare) Simulation - RTSNWS Real Time Strategic AI-Assisted War(fare) Simulation - RTSAIAWS Real Time Strategic AI-Driven War(fare) Simulation - RTSAIDWS Real-Time Dynamic Neural War(fare) Simulation - RTDNWS Real-Time Dynamic Military and Logistics Operations Neural War(fare) Simulation - RTDMLONWS Dynamic Real-Time AI War(fare) Simulation - DRTAIWS Dynamic Real-Time Neural War(fare) Simulation - DRTNWS Dynamic Advanced Real-Time AI War(fare) Simulation - DRTAIWS Dynamic Advanced Real-Time Neural War(fare) Simulation - DARTNWS Strategic Real-Time Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - SRTMLOS Strategic Real-Time AI Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - SRTAIMLOS Strategic Real-Time AI-Assisted Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - SRTAIAMLOS Strategic Real-Time AI-Driven Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - SRTAIDMLOS Strategic Neural-Accelerated Dynamic Real-Time Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - SNADRTMLOS Strategic Real-Time Dynamic Neural-Accelerated Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - SRTDNAMLOS AI Strategic Real-Time Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - AISRTMLOS AI-Assisted Strategic Real-Time Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - AIASRTMLOS AI-Driven Strategic Real-Time Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - AIDSRTMLOS Neural Strategic Real-Time Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - NSRTMLOS Neural-Accelerated Strategic Real-Time Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - NASRTMLOS Neural-Accelerated Real-Time Strategic Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - NARTSMLOS Dynamic Real-Time Strategy Simulation - DRTSS Dynamic Real-Time Neural-Accelerated Strategy Simulation - DRTNASS Dynamic Real-Time Strategic Battlefield Operations Simulation - DRTSBOS Dynamic Military Operations Neural AI War(fare) Simulation - DMONAIWS Dynamic Military Operations AI-Assisted Real-Time Strategic War(fare) Simulation - DMOAIARTSWS Dynamic Military Operations AI-Driven Real-Time Strategic War(fare) Simulation - DMOAIDRTSWS Dynamic Military and Logistics Operations AI-Assisted Real-Time Strategic War(fare) Simulation - DMLOAIARTSWS Dynamic Military and Logistics Operations AI-Driven Real-Time Strategic War(fare) Simulation - DMLOAIDRTSWS Dynamic Neural-Accelerated Military and Logistics Real-Time Battlefield Operations Simulation - DNAMLRTBOS Dynamic Neural-Accelerated Military and Logistics Battlefield Operations Real-Time Strategic Simulation - DNAMLBORTSS Dynamic Real-Time Neural-Accelerated Military and Logistics Operations Strategy Simulation - DRTNAMLOSS Dynamic Neural-Accelerated Real-Time Military and Logistics Operations Strategy Simulation - DNARTMLOSS Real-Time Strategic Dynamic Neural-Accelerated Military and Logistics Operations Simulation - RTSDNAMLOS Real-Time Strategic Dynamic Neural-Accelerated Military Battlefield Simulation - RTSDNAMBS Real-Time Strategic Dynamic Neural-Accelerated Military Battlefield Theatre Simulation - RTSDNAMBTS Do we have a winner? ... for round 1 that is, ladies and gentlemen :D I'm exhausted, enough for now, I didn't manage to fit economics in there tho. Stay tuned, suggestions welcome!

https://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/hardlinkshellext.html https://chocolatey.org/packages/LinkShellExtension https://gitlab.com/schinagl/link-shell-extension

Yeah this one is hard to discuss because of the technical nature of it, I'm relatively weak in this area other than I understand PC hardware and some basics to get an idea how costly physics simulation can be, etc. I'm not actually an expert either, anything to do with radar will not be the real thing, not with ATX PC hardware at home, it'll be an approximation with significant shortcuts and tricks. I know you didn't think ray-tracting, but for comparison, we're not even fully raytracing visible graphics yet in the whole gaming industry, let alone other EM frequencies and sound. Well, if we get a PSC one day, a Personal Super Computer, with the form factor the size of a refrigerator, external cooling in the basement hooked up with big pipes to cool the fins over an enclosure filled with non-conductive cooling liquid (oil) and the GPU/CPU submerged in it ...etc inside ... then we might be able to do a lot more in DCS. Believe it or not, this is actually a serious idea I'm writing some notes from time to time, to make a draft. It's not that far fetched, many successful people who are retired would be able to afford 10-20K for something like this as a serious hobby, if they really want it, besides what about classic cars, they sell for 100K's and millions.

Yeah, this was a thing, but removed recently. I kinda have to give the situation the priority, I understand it, tho I was the one very outspoken about wanting this feature back then. Besides, I'm not running out of HDD/SSD space anymore as I was back then so I don't have that horse in this race. Except the speed of the update process, but I haven't checked back in some time, I think I briefly updated it on another PC and checked if it directly installs and I think it may already be doing what I was talking about before in terms of multiple-steps when moving/copying data around, but don't hold my word for it, I'm still some time away from reinstall, I think I'm up in the air whether I'll get a new PC right as new hardware starts coming or I'll just use a newer Win10 version on the existing PC, I'll see, waiting for AMD. Oh, good point, perhaps this %temp% or similar specifically, once those edge cases are covered, could be hardcoded as a checkbutton option in the Updater's (GUI) settings, and the updater would display a warning on it's dialogs about it being used while it runs. Except that by default %temp% it's the system drive and would continue to be so for most people and it wouldn't do anything if DCS is installed to the system drive, perhaps the Updater could detect this and grey out the option with a note about these circumstances.

Well, pretty much all the AI's would be need of some touchup due to the need by the new damage model, I'm not sure if all of that could be glued onto the new models.

I mixed the threads up sorry ... doing too much at the same time, right this moment I was in the process of closing down the freaking tabs and windows I have allover the place, busy busy.

FWIW, I never owned or tocuhed a Nvidia card in my life, I did recently only seen one at 2-3 meters in a PC for 2 minutes, that's about it. One could argue that's fanboyism just flipped, but I never really chased the top 10% of FPS, and the times when I upgraded my GPU the ATI/AMD were never bad enough where I couldn't play the games I wanted to play, plus, I was never obsessed with anti-aliasing, I even played with it at 2x or OFF most of the time in all games. Looks like I'll be sticking with ATI/AMD yet again as it looks like RDNA2 may be a big deal, relatively speaking against RDNA1 at least. DCS and Crysis are the two games(sim :)) that I did indeed try to squeeze out the FPS I could.

However, I meant this more in the type of configuration, not that they would build a mission for you with all the units. Unit templates is a separate case, and yes, there was some more movement besides that and sure I'm not opposed to that, complex SAM sites, bases, outposts, misc cargo site templates like that would be nice. We'll see what kind of improvement in entity placement the new mission editor will have.

OP, you may forget that Syria is from third-party, they may not have luxury to sit on a finished product until someone updates the old AI models and/or adds new ones. Which coincidentially brings me to a point I just had the other day, I think the reason beta releases feel so rough is because they don't want to sit on much and just get it out ASAP, just as people wanted ... but not necessairly works in practice as we seen. Anyway, Tu-22M and Il-76 (+ fully animated cargo-rack paradrop!!! one day) is my vote here :)

Some separate training specific ideas: The ability to jump between training steps as if they were pages, skip, rewind, fast forward them universally across any kind of proper training-mission built with the new feature set. You could go back and redo the instructor's step in it's whole, the text, the voice and the cockpit indications (all of these form a "step"), An overhaul to the event-scripting system to better detect user changes in cockpit and button state so that the training procedure is more robust and doesn't get stuck due to a trigger not firing to continue the step. Perhaps the training-mission internal event trigger scripts could be smart enough to tap into each of the module's aircraft state via some kind of API, they would detect user change by monitoring that under-the-hood changes and perhaps that should work 100% every time, instead of what I perhaps speculate right now it's tracking user's button and mouse presses in the cockpit at a higher-level IMO, I may be completely wrong on this one ofcourse. Third, right now the standard message box in top-right screen is being used for I think pretty much everything including training transcript text from the instructor. It could be cool to have some kind of training-specific GUI applied to such training-type missions by default, not anything too drastic of a difference, but a agreeable theme to it. Or an extension to that idea, that you would see a specific themed message box depending on which type/group is the source. For example when the "training instructor" is talking you would see a training-specific message box theme/color, in addition all the other groups/sources could have their own, squadron, allies, ATC, unknown's (enemy, etc); which I think would make it feel better and more immersive like you're really there and you get this unique looking folder with the briefing in it and flipping through pages hehe and so forth. Kinda like a spin on the fact that you get a differently colored MFD text when switching to training/sim mode in some aircraft (A-10C).

This idea came from my would-be response to this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285021 I decided it fits into it's own thread. --------------- --------------- It was announced a while ago, classic campaigns will not be the focus by ED anymore, due to all the busy core improvements and due to the "Dynamic Campaign" in the future probably becoming the primary campaign experience. Recently we've seen announced 3rd-party campaigns and missions while supervised and Q&A'ed by ED which is very much appreciated, to fill the gaps. Speaking of core improvements, and the fact that classic static campaigns and missions may become less common, there's one field that actually needs them and that is training. You want to be able to have a repeatable training mission right, for all players, without any factors messing up the guide and practice, that means either disabled or quite limited "dynamic campaign". Part of core overhaul, the mission editor overhaul, think it's not unreasonable to also give the training-specific features and capabilities it's attention. But I think there should be some kind of a standardized way to make training missions that is well covered by the mission editor, so that a new developer would instantly get the toolset and featureset visible instead of having to dig down into triggers and manually figure out how to configure a mission suitable for training. A global option to disable "dynamic campaign", among other thing I can't think of right now. There is another method I see on my mind right now, via mission editor templates, without this "let's put everything useful for training into one place" (but that would be shortcuts, not actually moving anything) so that when you load that template it auto-sets some initial defaults, even triggers, standard initial messages, some help text perhaps, more stuff that I can't recall in this moment, etc. The mission file it self could get support for some kind of extra metadata bit in there to indicate it properly as a training mission, or single mission, or campaign mission, etc, perhaps DCS could apply some defaults to a mission depending on the value of the "MissionType" bit, and do things that way. Honestly I'm not that familiar with mission building as much, I think there is probably much I don't know about (hunch) so I may be talking about something that's already possible, I would if I had more time, so this is just ideas throwing by half, I feel the need to remind the context of this post, that I'm not an expert mission creator right now. But also, this isn't that of a clear-cut either, I'm still exploring myself in my mind if this makes sense, what if majority of the people want the training missions to also be dynamic? Perhaps I'm not seeing an obvious reason? If you think so please let me know below :)

Ah, I hoped for more explanation, are you familiar with how things work or just from the outside ? Either way we need to remind ourselfs this is quite expensive on physics calculations.

I think some people just need to be extra sure and wrap their head around it now that some kind of a decision has come, I hope the staff understands, I am like that sometimes as well, it's not intentional and more innocent than it feels, it's just double-checking to make sure we get it right. Also we should remind ourselfs that an e-shop module doesn't always correspond to number of units you get, that means for one e-shop item you can play both A-10C's, that's how FC3 works for example. It does however make some confusion to new players because we keep using the term "module" to referr to a couple of things that are a bit different, e-shop module doesn't necessairly correspond to a cockpit module for example in this case, and so on. Perhaps, we need to start separating some of these terms, "Mission Editor Aircraft Selection Item" or just "aircraft" ... but then the "aircraft" doesn't make sense from the whole weapons/cockpit/components standpoint ... but it's a topic for another time. The idea I always had in my mind, which I forgot to mention all these months I've been campaigning to keep the old one... But I don't know if it's really like that, perhaps they figured out a better way than this. Perhaps this may not be optimal because the incase old DCS A-10C Warthog e-shop stuff would be activated, the underlying servers would still need to keep the old entry in there for authentication, it may be just better to move to a 1 module method and to not conflict with code for double-old-A10-C errors is to simply automatically uninstall the old module data first, if detected, before the downloader would proceed to install And then it would rely on scripts on the e-shop which would detect the accounts which own the old DCS A-10C Warthog module, and correctly apply an actual discount (modifier) onto that one unified module. The "discounted" cases above weren't actual discounts in mind, but base/fixed lower prices versus the "fully-priced" one. One more question, would you be able to stack ED Miles ontop of the upgrade-discount in that case?

:noexpression: I decided to send reply to your PM.

Oh I thought you were talking about the WW2 gun accuracy for a second there, unfortunately I'm afraid this is too much out of my expertise at the moment to have anything worthwhile to say.

^^ ... question is if the repair is actually detecting this, if he done it 10 times already then it's pointless, I think someone should send him the file manually. Open these files with HEX editor, the contents should be random, but if the content is all "NULNULNUL" that may indicate storage disk corruption, at least that what I experienced on a SSD with a failing Sata port on the motherboard.

Yeah, my wish is that, I'm not pushing it any sooner but at least with when the upgrade to Vulkan API comes, the whole graphics options sceen to be overhauled, rewired, renamed and redesigned so that it's more self explanatory to what it does but also explains what kind of variables are being adjusted behind the setting, tooltips are gread for long descriptions, or the use of a description area box below where the description text is shown based on what option your mouse pointer is hovering on. I would like to see more finesse and control in adjusting things independently, not that this is the biggest problem or anything, but it would demistify a lot and I think it would reduce amount of discussions we would have about it and sort of get it out of the way, people would experiment with it on their own without having to spend time digging into, sort of hope it would work that way. Some things are in-game issues, for example LOD Transitions between trees (in Caucasus at leas) are too rough and it's implemented in such a way that the LOD scale is tied with the draw distance scale and it doesn't work good in lower draw distances because the LOD scale becomes so thin you basically see a lot of blurred out trees. Some kind of fix did happen at the time but I think it didn't completely solve it if I remember correctly, I haven't tested this in +6 months so perhaps something more changed since. The other thing was, which I ran out of time and didn't finish reporting in that very thread, is actually a separate issue, but still about the trees, the LOD transitions between trees are inoptimal, the tree silhouettes are changing completely, LOD1 is a tree with 1 tree-trunk while LOD2 is has 2 or 3 tree trunks, back and forth basically tree's are being changed and it's not the same tree going through it's own LOD levels, this is what causes the very noticable tree flickering, finally found the culprit behind it, I did last year but it takes time to make a video and proper report.

A while back someone told me there's two Habu-s but one of them not being a pilot, perhaps nicknames were changed since then, don't know more.

Oh, guys, that's an old thread you found there, it's a bit more complicated, it's not like that as it seems in task manager, it's not using just 2 or 3 cores, but a lot more infact, however indeed 2-3 threads are the most important ones. You could search threads/posts for terms like "threads" and "core" and include filter with my username, should get you more details.

I guess if both parties say they established contact on these things then it's good and not much we can do about that. I didn't read any comments on the video there so I don't know what happened, so I'm still confused, but I guess that doesn't matter anymore. Anyway, another reason was I wanted to replicate the manouvers later myself just to see how it feels to me, that can't be well explained on paper and it's not mentioned in the summary text either ... I guess I won't be doing that anymore, but I guess that doesn't matter anymore either. How do we know when or how it's been adjusted if we don't have a good control case to compare it to? Do we rely on a few forum people confirming it or not, pretty much, then again it's always been like that, it can't realistically be any different, otherwise everyone in the community would have to become a real pilot, hehe. ----- ----- When simulating reality is the goal, that opens that world where it feels like there's no end to it, it attracts the kind of people who will strive for that obviously, but it's interesting how it goes both way, I was like that before DCS, but 5 years of being really around DCS and community has strengthened that even more, I like that a lot! However this kind of stuff is bound to happen and probably will in some other cases in the future, some old gentlement will claim he was a driver of some battle tank and he'll be posting about how the lever for the transmission has to go this and that way and the clutch doesn't feel right or something, I don't think any of this should be a surprise to anyone, someone's going to show up and find something more to improve on, that's great, but I've been speaking how it's something the community should be aware of and simply realize this reality, with that understanding, like myself, we wouldn't get upset when this happens, obviously most of that wasn't on this forum so I'm just saying in general, not associating one with the other.