Worrazen

Techincally they could develop tech to predict where a target would go based on previous data and just make the missile track that prediction point and hope the target pops out and then reacquire lock, but I don't know enough about this topic, if it really exists in practice.

The summary obviously can never be as good as the video can show the context and stuff, RDR ALT switch is missing from the summary, what about other people who haven't seen this thread, it's about them testing it out and confirming commenting on that, I'm sure someone else who's responsible for A-10C would want to see it. I usually don't delete anything unless it's terribly wrong or obsolete, this doesn't feel like it. I put my old obsolete or wrong test videos on unlisted (not private) for example, so they don't mess with new users, but when someone's been part of a topic deeply and suddenly can't check back on something to remember how it went then it's just more confusion IMO. Must be a mistake. If the comments were the problem, why not just disable them? Perhaps that's just my philosophy, infact part of my DCS hiatus is because i have around 12 TBs of data I need to sort and archive, only a fraction is being erased, I'm pretty serious on data preservation I guess, I can remember so many times I was extremely upset when I couldn't find something from back 3-4 years ago, even if it's just for reference when talking on another topic, another time I forgot to save source code to my VS projects because they were saved in Program Files for some reason, I guess if a person never has such an experience you don't tend to ever develop a serious data retention habit. I'm not saying this is of that importantce, but you know, the internet is full of garbage these days, screaming and yelling and impatience, this was just a well made video, no weird microphone imbalances, just loved it, I listened to it three times just for the fun of it :) Good thing there is Google Takeout, I think it should retain the original copy of the original video even on deleted videos, I've done it a few times, but the last time was a bit back so I forgot.

Why was the video deleted?

Depends what kind of numbers and where you're looking at, it can mean something else that you think it means. I'll dig into windows memory stuff again once I finish resintalling a newer version of Win10. Windows memory model and the way memory consumption/usage is reported, grouped, labeled is one giant clusterpoop to wrap the head around, particularly because many things aren't even relevant for most people that need only totals. It takes great amount of effort and reading up on devloper documentation to understand it for good. The best way to send reports is to make a profile of the stats so we get the whole timeline chart, not just an arbitrary point in time (I think driver utilities are now able to do this, or use MSI Afterburner's logging or overlays)

Also good catch on the Motor Switch and Fuel Flow Override stuff being modelled good, along with the overall engine stuff, this is important for Damage Model eventually so it'll have to be looked into one or another, it's critical to the in-flight recovery stuff and that whole part of damage resistance and survivability to RTB for repairs, this no dobut affects gameplay in a long term dynamic mission, and that's the kind of stuff I find so interesting, that's partially a major reason why A-10C is still my favourite. I don't care if even bigger than original work needs to be done on A-10C 2, I'm ready to pay for it what's necessary, I want them go all crazy on the damage model for A-10C :devil: , because A-10C is exactly that kind of an airplane with such potential and we should use it to it's fullest potential !!! But the raw damage model is one thing, the systems, gauges, alarms, warnings, buttons and beeps all have to respond and be in sync so it's all dynamic and your even slightest things affect the way damage spreads/affects the aircraft, edge cases should be covered, that's the magic of it!

Guys, make sure the internal testing numbers corresponds to the front-end gauges numbers and visually confirm, if the FM is tested with other tools bypassing the cockpit, it wouldn't reveal a possible issue with just the gauges properly corresponding. If there's a gauge that has an issue like this, it can make so much trouble for everyone and we would argue forever. There should be some kind of a setup where all the gauges in the cockpit view are all presented on multi-monitors visually and also numbers when the team does the FM tests, or some similar setup, so both can be compared in real-time. There has to be a tool that plots all the performance data to a timeline chart ... and another separately for the final gauge values, a discrepancy must not exist. A simple program could monitor all of this for discrepancy in real-time and show a giant warning when a discrepancy is detected in any of the gauges/stats. For statistical and benchmarking purposes, perhaps it's possible by modders/users to use the DCS scripting API to get a report dumped to a text (or otherwise) file from all the A-10 gauges, perhaps TacView already does this, kinda like "black box" data or "telemetry". I don't have DCS installed currently so I can't check right now. This is speculation ofcourse, I don't know how stuff is really wired under the hood, but it's best to leave no stone unturned. @Habu23 - You could wrap the youtube tags around your video to make it embedded as well, thanks, but without the URL link, only the video code RY8lAihUMUY

Sure I understand it feels like pressure, but I think he wanted to sum it up and revise it and put it up for attention because of the fresh new video. I do this *all* the time myself and it's never meant to demand some response, I apologize if that's how it felt all along. Hopefully it's not viewed as pressure, it is just infact revisal of what was said to be more coherent and well written. Due to my busy nature for the past year I many times end up writing some stuff off-the-cuff around DCS in the evening and waking up later in the morning or a few days later to find out I didn't do a good enough job at writing that and I have to re-word and/or repost it and that kinda ends up in more posts and threads sprinkled over the place. I admit this is a bad habit and I'm not doing it on purpose, on the other hand ideas/points don't all come out to the conscious memory and I'm forced to do a follow up once I remember other points hours or days later. This hiatus from DCS I'm now still on for over a month is infact the solution to that bad habit, I rather focus on other chores and come back with more polished posts/threads. But I personally appreciated this post bringing it up to my attention again, along with the video helps a lot to put this stuff in perspective, I enjoy such geeky videos very much whatever it is about.

LODs, Color and Lighting a huge tuning part that can significantly change the perception of visual quality and realism (that said, I don't want DCS to look like over-saturated over-bloomed and over-reflected competitor products) I'm not that touchy on postprocess effects, I'm not part of the crowd who sits and waits for the RTX reflections, a lot of it is just a bonus to me, my attention is more on the terrain texture LODs and terrain shadow LODs, I think they are too agressive, LODs levels are too rough (need more of them, gradual) and there is one particular near shadow LOD transition that is particularly noticable which produces an illusion of a line that keeps following you, but your camera has to be at a specific height and angle from the terrain to see this in action so it's not always a problem, but only at low level flight. That said, this is hardly the biggest issue, as much as I want to say "hey it's annoying", but then again I need to hold back and put it in perspective relative to everything else and the focus of the simulator, it's not a module problem, it's not a gamplay problem, it's not affecting any system, so hopefully it gets fixed somewhere before or at least at the time of new rendering engine using Vulkan API is released.

I guess the word you're looking for is "Converter". But saying that it doesn't support Link-16 is odd if the converter is able to convert the whole thing and speak back to Link-16 the same way, others in the Link-16 network would have no idea any conversion took place, that's how I think conversion should work, otherwise it's purposelly different for some other reason. So you're trying to say it's only able to convert some basic subset (limited set) of Link-16 features? Or it's able to receive the full Link-16 feature set but only transmit a limited feature set? For reference this is how a pure relay from the A-10C's voice radio system is like: So if the new DCS Warthog 2 will be able to get some Link-16 features into it's cockpit systems, it probably has some capability to digest Link-16, over just being a pure relay of Link-16 to others.

What a weird response, actually!

It shouldn't be too much to ask for a revitalization of the whole module's side-stuff, updated and a few category-missing single missions, updated instant action missions, updated training missions so they don't get stuck and built with newer version of the ME and at least one traditional campaign that could be done by a third party. Doesn't need to be for the early access, but the campaign could come with the release version. I don't yet see why updated old missions just wouldn't work with the new A-10C, couldn't one just use the same loadout and play it as if you had the older A-10C? I'm probably missing something. Ofcourse, balancing this with the "dynamic campaign" in mind, so that not too much of resources and effort is spent, but I don't want the "dynamic campaign" to be a total replacement for the base level stuff, sometimes you do want the mission to follow a script, especially for training purposes. Some missions could in the future be converted to "dynamic" mode, or even some hybrid functionality to enable and disable prior starting play, but that's out of the A-10C scope right now so I'm not going to dig into this deeper here.

That's definitely something I wanted to talk about for a long time, I just thought it was too convenient/nonimportant to bother you folks about with. So if this is part of the general improvement of the Mission Editor, then yes please :) I still didn't send in the PM I was suppose to send about ME improvements from the big official wishlist thread, will get back to it.

You would have to keep the PC running and turn rendering off, and then speed it up, otherwise you need a server that would do that. I don't know right now, whether it's a gimmick or it would actually be of any huge simulation experience benefit. Similarly to how "whole world simulation" is kinda a gimmick for DCS at this point and I'm thankful ED didn't fall into that trap. It's a lot of work, for little benefit, relatively speaking, compared to damage model, AI, Dynamic Campaign, Weather, Comms, ATC, Vulkan API, etc. Perhaps they already have something like that for testing, but it feels like a cheat, I think people would fool around than actually play, so I'm a bit on the negative side for now, but that doesn't mean I'll flip, I might figure out more negatives and be strongly against it, we'll see.

The dynamic war simulation will mostly be a mission editor thing, once you play as a pilot role it should remain the same. An upgraded DCS Combined Arms (paid upgrade) could be a suitable area to expand the other higher-level command roles and their specific tools and features, this is one of the bigger ideas I'm writing for a wishlist in which "Advanced F-10 View" (draft name) In my head the idea for the "Advanced F-10 View" came first, but then I had to envision it's correct usage, the ideas in there shouldn't be valid for a pilot-level role, except only what your aircraft can receive from data-link in real life, which would be in a read-only fashion I would think, but this is sort of already there, the SA page on F/A-18C already gives you positions of your buddies from datalink for example, perhaps having those duplicated on the F-10View could be something okay ... but then again is the F-10View even realistic for pilot-role at all? The F-10View as of now isn't tied into the realism of a pilot-role indeed, or we just keep using it with the god-like "ALL" visibility ... I'm not sure what the default object visibility is anymore lol, since I have it set for "ALL" all the time, that is a complete cheat which I didn't get to try to get myself to de-habit on, due to all the testing I was doing, I wasn't really seriously playing any campaign yet ... keep delaying my purchases of a proper HOTAS joystick. I did however manage to force myself to avoid using labels, it took almost a year to get used, I fly now completely without ANY labels except DOTs sometimes when testing.

There's a lot of factors, it's just normal that the FPS will be variable. You would need to do a proper performance diagnosis to better confirm this whether you simply are viewing and doing something that does not require much CPU resources at the time and observational/interpretational mistakes, or has some would really be some kind of a bug/inoptimization that does not properly feed the CPU and/or GPU with enough work.

This would be a Battlefield Commander and Combined Arms type of feature, should not be possible if you're only a pilot player/client.

That's russian-english translators, btw, changelogs are usually like that too, but not a big deal really.

So I took the Su-25T in Rockets and Gun Practice mission, which spawns at Kutaisi, I flew for half the way to the targets over at the lake to the east, paused and took a look in the memory with Process Hacker If this even counts, it's suppose to be inspecting RAM and may not actually be valid to what things could be in VRAM. I would assume it's not the full story, but at least in this case it shows low usage, adding to the evidence these files probably aren't loaded into the game, but I don't know the VRAM to RAM relationships enough ... I need a VRAM inspection tool, should have looked for that a long time ago.

The whole module obviosuly not from scratch IMO, but the 3D cockpit model seems to me it is from scratch.

This looks like a bit of a false alarm, unfortunately or fortunately actually, the OP is correct they're not 8 bit, but I've dug into this and they're not 32-bit per channel either, they are 16-bit per channel with alpha. The color parent is BC3_UNORM or DXT5 as expected But the "uvs" is R16G16B16A16_UNORM But what's more is that these assets don't seem to be used on Caucasus as of OB right now, I got to test for a few hours as I got access to another PC with Win7 with both DCS versions on there. After failing an initial search as I've never seen such roads before, I've edited the color parent files and colored them differently to stand out for highlighting purpose, then I flew around for 30 minutes and looked 15 minutes around all the major cities in mission editor's SAT view mode and didn't found any sign of these files being used right now. So I guess it's not taking any VRAM/RAM probably right now, just some dev files that are left or misplaced there. Another person I asked had no idea what these 16-bit files are, they don't seem to be Normals/Bump nor UVs to him (even tho the filenames include an "uvs" suffix). It may be something custom, for some special vector stuff probably the way textures are applied onto the splines or something. There may actually be a reason to use 16-bit per channel because of more space for more data that may be useful when storing things not usually in color that you can see nor intended as texture data, in that case it may not be a bug and may be intended (correct). This is an unusual format so that's why most image programs will not show what the image actually looks like (nor IrfanView, only DXT formats), so only performance and debugging tools will work. Red Channel: Green Channel: Blue Channel: Red + Green Channels: Red + Blue Channels: Green + Blue Channels: RGB: RGBAlpha: FWIW ^^ If it's some non-texture data these channel combinations and colors in this view don't mean anything, it's just used by some custom shader or something, data in another channel could be for something completely different.

Why are you demanding answers, it's still months away from release and they should take all the time to properly decide whether there is enough maintenance headroom to support both variations going forward, possibly even making a "new old version", a lesser suite comparable to the existing Warthog 1 based on the 3D cockpit geometry model of the new Warthog 2. Ofcourse if the theory I proposed holds water about actual A-10C pilots who retired before the newer A-10C suites came out and want to get the experience exactly right that they had back then in addition to the newer experience, and second, the ability for map makers to make more timeline accurate missions, and for players to get a surprise when a number of "elite" Warthog 2 highly-skilled AIs come around the corner unexpectedly ... but is this enough, I wish I had more reasons, I don't want to make some gimmicks up so that's all I have for now. Theoretically you could have some option system that would limit the new Warthog 2 to a lower historical level, just disabling some newer suite components (similarly to scripted failures), but that's not that simple either setting that system up (for other planes too) and keeping it bug free, or perhaps it could be, I don't know.

It kinda is, it would have been FC4, but it got so expanded that it became MAC. Furthermore there was a decision for now to have it as a separate install/game, at least the last time I heard about it. If you ask me deeply, I wouldn't actually mind if MAC is both standalone and a module for DCS if that is the only way to make "crossplay", but I think MAC should get it's own forums, if not a new domain then a bit more separated than what it is for various modules right now around here. A potential problem could be the MAC community growing in size and one random day revolting wanting to be part of DCS ... or a third section of the community who wants to play both.

Oh ofcourse, normal mapping is bump mapping! :doh: Right so my answers aren't valid for this, but for the color we see.

Well, eventually when monitors with Rec. 2100 gamut or higher start getting on the market, with WCG and HDR finally taking off, this will be needed! It's great to see some hint they're preparing for that early, I said this a few years ago that they can be ready for this if they build stuff with higher bits now and work with higher source material, so that the transition to HDR/WCG doesn't force them to rebuild every texture from scratch more or less. That said I'm not the expert on texturing. On the other hand, I could just be a 100% mistake with the output mode that file was saved.

Existing campaigns for the legacy A-10C fixed to acceptable state, and fully remastered campaigns for the new A-10C. To get something more out of A-10C new release, but then again, dynamic campaign ... so not sure if it's worth it. If the old one would be kept that is.