Worrazen

DCS already uses a hybrid system that includes sat imagery I belive. That said, google does not make sat images, they simply provide them in their maps service, no need for any middle-mans, no need for google.

If the existing one is kept as-is then it's fine with me, as long as maintenance isn't a burden, not asking for the old version to be modernized if it's kept. But ideally for minimal maintenance going forward it's actually what may be needed, I'm suspicious that it could be just a simple copy-paste, rather it should be integrated so both share code as much as possible and therefore be less of a burden on maintenace (if this theory is the right one), and you'd get both editions in one package/module ofcourse. I heard it's some kind of a mix in DCS that doesn't actually exist in reality, that it's a mix of multiple suites? But now Snoopy keeps saying TCTOs don't have to be fully complete and you can have a mish mash of stuff to put it simply (if I understood that correctly), so whatever I guess it all works out with reality :) I was on keep-both side from the start and I've argumented in a number of posts why there is a niche benefit to keep the old version alive in some fashion, now that I started thinking more of the consequences, I really want to make sure I'm not stretching this too far and making this seem like a huge deal that will make or break DCS (lol) and putting some big maintenance burden on them, that's the last thing ... Really sorry! The argument being that a mission designer can implement deeper gameplay with for example a sneaky trick of enemy "Legacy A-10Cs" earlier in the mission and "Modern A-10Cs" later in the mission this time with GBU-54's tracking moving targets ... and the player gets a lovely surprise, "oh shiii ..." hehe. Remember, the "Legacy A-10C" wouldn't have these modern weapons and a faster way of preparing and locking up with targets/SPI. While the opposing player would be able to, if he's skilled enough, figure out the difference up close (or distant :)) by looking, well guess what, for the presence of the TISL Pod (Pave Penny), so that *removal* actually becomes a FEATURE, without which this differentiation wouldn't be possible, how do you like that, wonderful :D The second biggest argument is that this is the first module that would have multiple variations like this, and I guess it can stay the only one if it doesn't go well or the extra maintennce capacity is reserved for some time, this is not something I'm cheering up for all kinds of modules out there, A-10C's been the workhorse of DCS for so long, I think it deserves a chance of something extra like this, hopefully not at the expense of too much maintenance costs, whatever we can do to help keep that down I'm on-board! That would be for community to have more leeway when patches for A-10C take a bit longer, I guess, but then again A-10Cs well matured anyway, not like it's Early-Access so I don't think think it compares to the rest. Back to reiterate on my hunch, I think the new A-10C's got the whole modelling done from scratch(afaik?) that may make it future proof as well, for future engine updates, and keeping the legacy A-10C may make it hard or block engine improvements is my biggest fear, because for them to maintain both, they would have to re-create the legacy A-10C cockpit from scratch too to bring it to the new But here's the kicker, there probably has to be a way to just copy the new A-10C model and modify it to make the legacy version, so probably not a full redo. Whooh. I am stubborn ain't I :) Also, if the legacy A-10C got a texture update ... well wouldn't that kinda go to waste if only people who wouldn't upgrade would see it, in that case. And then you ask yourself, wouldn't almost everyone upgrade anyway?

Would be a pity then if it came shortly after A-10C 2 gets out, relatively speaking, perhaps asking the military department who ordered the professional A-10C update if they would like to future proof it and kinda plan and schedule it, but not actually add it in until the real ones have it, kinda, or whatever could work.

An upgraded F-10 AWACS view would logically most likely come with the upgraded Mission Editor, these two things probably share some code. I have big ideas for the F-10 View, I need to do a good and clear wishlist post, sooner or later.

EDIT: In case someone gets confused, the old A-10C section here: https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=107

I think I've heard on 2 different podcasts or somewhere, perhaps not directly from ED but somewhere upper than a random forum post, that it still is treated as a sim with game components, the offical homepage uses terminology to differentiate it from the military-professional side, perhaps it's outdated and doesn't reflect this or perhaps other factors (law?), because on that level looking down at DCS it does feel like it fits into the "entertainment" category, which is kinda true but we know (AFAIK) that that is only true to a degree or the way you take it and behave with it. We here on this level, well I'll speak for me, I do want to differentiate it from the pure-entertainment traditional gaming side, because I feel the technicalities dictate such a particular description that is quite a bit different from the rest and naturally would fall into some other category, whether we treat it like this or not, whether we realize this or not, and many other points besides technicalities would further be valid arguments for a distinct category. I think ED shouldn't be afraid of creating the category if it doesn't exist, it well deserves it, once the engine and dynamic war simulation comes it may get that further reason that tips over in favor of this proposition, and the other bulletpoints it needs to declare it's own category. This may be actually quite a big deal, many mainstream youtube channels and media never differentiate DCS and never mention it and they just say "flight sims ... this that and this" and no DCS in there. With a separate category, it would be recognized by researchers, by wikipedia, by market analysts, that's enough of a start, it doesn't need to have media fanfare, it doesn't need to start out with 100x of media coming in and having to approve it. The declaration of the separate category, with a proper name I don't even know right now, could be at the end of the year 2021 in really good press release form summarizing all year+ timeframe full of huge upgrades, backward looking statements, explaining company position, some forward looking statements, some legal talk and so on, all in A4 format with all the document files such as PDF and others that is super handy for some tech sites, core PC gaming sites, and importantly business and market research sites and hopefully with some luck it starts, ofcourse that is only a planted seed, or a small plant, it'll take some time to grow. ... And then these communities will make a wikipedia page about it and other material, perhaps the market research analysits could themselfs make a segment (in theory) and then when some youtube channel or media director wants to do a video on flight sims, they'll hopefully discover DCS from this segment association and then at least just freaking mention it for one freaking second, and that's enough! Ofcourse, there's a bunch of others who could fit in this same category, so I don't mean this as an DCS exclusive term, that would be much harder if not impossible to justify, and it wouldn't catch on. And not a "simulator" ofcourse, which one, military-only or what, we need to come up with proposals for a proper really good descriptive term that when you read it you kinda get a good idea where it is even in respect to the traditional games and professional military, so I guess it's somewhere in between, however here's the big big point it's still more of a public version of a military simulator rather than a beefed up version of an entertainment game. Nintendo did a similar thing, Metroid Prime was the release title for GCN (Game Cube) in 2003 and despite half or so of the media just calling it a First-Person Shooter, the term mostly associated with Quake, Doom, FarCry, Unreal Tournament and CounterStrike etc., Nintendo repeatedly corrected them and stood behind the category they thought the game should fit in, First-Person Adventure. And I agreed at the time, (well I'm biased I'm a big fan of Metroid) even if there's shooting involved with the same kind of controls/views, that's not the primary focus, it's a calmer but serious-feeling methodical exploration with shooting elements. The media is the media, they're not experts on programming, designing, making games or simulations, we shouldn't be letting them free-reign to define our stuff. This was just an example tho, I know this is about a genre, not a field category or segment, but you get the point hopefully.

I'm not sure on the unfiltered questions either. Host of a podcast should be well informed about the overall topic and sorroundings, at least everything with the question, if not, research prior interview, no need to know answers, infact it's actually detrimental to know an answer ahead, makes the potential of the interview seeming artificial. Some of those questions seemed invalid because the person asking didn't know the basics or wasn't really part of the community for a long time, or didn't use the right terms, but on the other hand if it works for the GR community then I can't take it away from them. Don't get me wrong, free speech all the way, free for all chat all the way if that's the goal, but if a rare interview as a service to the community is the goal then I prefer a calmer way of a methodical and oh yeah surgical is the right word, surgical approach into tackling these interesting questions, not soo slow and not too elastic if there's not much to talk about, feels more satisfying to listen than a speedy rundown like engless machine-gun fire. Or is that just me? One single subjective point is that I often put DCS talks and podcasts (little or no video) on my phone as an audio file and listen it while I'm out, cooking or doing some chores and the idea is that it's easier to do other things simultaneously if the pace is calmer, but it also calms me down which is why what I want when away from the computer. That was kinda weird yeah but whatever, I can't keep myself sometimes from referring to DCS as a gam... err sim. I'm not really sure if the devs care what we entertainment customers here use but perhaps it could make some philosophical or spiritual difference and that may manifest in the treatment of DCS as I've talked before, sometimes when I want to get a point across fast I tend to disregard the rule half the time. Since I do have a large gaming background, even tho interest for DCS did not actually come as a consequence of that, but probably from my documentary/nature/mechanical/electro-technical interests, in terms of game files and modding I'm pretty much glued to call any 3D .exe program a "game", doesn't help that Westwood Studios called some their Command & Conuqer .exe filenames as "game.dat" or "gamemd.exe" haha. I did saw some posts around here recently, or actually heard on a podcast about some hardcore simmers that don't like sims to be mentioned as a game, would have been extremely ironic if they were talking about ME because I made such posts too talking about we should differentiate DCS primairly as a SIM not a GAME, but I want to make something clear, I never said or I never meant that I'd be offended about someone happening to use the "game" term, or some kind of a sacrilege or whatever, oh please no, just avoid it when possible is the recommendation. My connotation with the term "game" is more as a 3D exe program, I inoptimally say "game" in many cases where I actually mean to say "DCS.exe", but without the "Video Game For Kids" connoation ... but because newcomers have that connotation I decide I should avoid using the "game" term that would possibly in some philosophical or spiritual and subconscious way associate DCS with that little "Video Game For Kids" connotation, which could diminish DCS's big mean image into something inferior, right!?!? A newcomer would come and wouldn't FEEL any difference, it would just seem like another ... "GAME", and from that IMO comes all the whining and begging for release dates. I try to be respectable right here in this thread in this regard where it's several branches of the community interacting, but you really did englighten me on this one, thanks for reminding me. Indeed I do tend to see some major disconnects with what's going on this forum and what Grim Reapers say/chat/comment/feel, I kept watching as I watch quite a bit of the DCS stuff, while I do not have the best familiarity on multiplayer I still do try to stay in touch overall. It was all me watching for entertainment more than for analysis, I didn't want to act like a shark preying on who say what all the time, I didn't take any of that as a direct example of some of my other opinions on here, so when I talked about, the newcomers and the MAC stuff I really never meant Grim Reapers, always spoke in-general to the potential things that could happen in the future. This is the first time I'm mentioning GR directly in this post, that I can now recally my memory and see quite a differentiation in a lot of opinions and ways of doing things, not necessairly in a bad way, that's just what is expected will happen, the other interview with the modder who became ED Partner to produce WW2 Instant Action missions moving forward is someone who's very interested in ground-pounding role of A-10C and such stuff for example (happens to be my area too currently) and it's just expected to hear someone say they have a specific focus in DCS, so it doesn't even trigger any kind of "outsider-detector" within me nor it should in anyone else, nor I used the "outsider-detector" on any other DCS community channels, nor Grim Reapers, but even without that GR does seem to stand out from what I can see in my memory, now wait, that's all I'm saying, I'm not saying that's bad or wrong, I'm just going to leave it like that, raw and objective. Since others started talking about it here I felt like if I add my raw knowlede to this it would be better so that the statements at least swing in some direction stronger rather than being left handing on the fence as a half-rumor, would be worse IMO, so not to stir anything up. So what's the big thing I had in mind. The whole MAC - Modern Air Combat being flyable inside DCS ... wait what? Did something change and I missed an annoucement about it? I aplogize in that case, otherwise, as far as I know it was this community here on the forums including me who wanted MAC to be spinned away from DCS, and majority of that was others not me because I was just AFK for a few days around the time and I came in late, with the decision being said at the time that the there would be some kind of a split. I'd be okay with MAC in DCS if there's other thing that separates things a bit in terms of community, but in the end it's not my call, this doesn't affect me that much so I'll probably continue as usual, so this is just more of a chat-opinion how I would have it, but I've haven't thought about it for a long time and I would need to bring up more argumentation to base my recommendation on, so I don't have some strong opinion in this post. But now Grim Reapers says they do want MAC in DCS and that the other things was just rumors ??? Rumors? It was confirmed by the community managers AFAIK.

Uuuugh ... just because one or two guys misued the feature :( In fairness I'll have to admit data integrity over speed of the update process and that was a freak edge case which can't be blamed on anyone directly, but if you ask me, using the root of a disk is just a bad practice only someone with bad computer skills would do, sorry but this is just a fact, I'm sorry I'm a bit salty right now because this was kinda my thing I kept posting on the wishlist and it's gone now, allright I'll get over it. On the other hand, we've moved to SSDs so they're much faster than HDDs in the speed regard, I'm not storage space limited anymore as I'll move to a 500 GB SSD just for DCS (*even tho I'll temporarly put it on a 3TB HDD for beta testing and debug purposes but that's another story*). So the story that's relevant to HDDs goes like this, I don't want to apply this for SSDs because perhaps SSDs may work differently in terms of read&write mix speeds I don't have good experience on, but there's another reason why it was the issue in the first place ... because there is or was (checked half a year ago) middle-man-procedure of unpacking the torrented ZIPs from the subfolders in "_downloads" folder into the root "_downloads" folder and then what I think is copying (not moving?) from the "_downloads" folder one step back out to the DCS root installation folder which is a parent of the "_downloads" folder, so that means both of the operations happen on the same device and if one device has to copy&write at the same time it's half slower than it's maximum. Not only is the unpacking procedure half slower, it's also wasting time by not installing directly, and then when it does "install" it's a half slower read&write procedure again. A direct unpack-to-install would speed up the procedure by half, then there would only be one read&write procedure on the same device, albeit still half-slower due to being on the same device if that is true for SSDs. I don't have DCS installed currently, I'll see in detail later.

I've heard before yeah, I have to say I don't agree with some of it on that kind of an exact level, it shouldn't be that simple I would imagine, and I'm just using logic, plus, my lifetime outsider knowledge of watching documentaries, following technical demos, NASA/ESA missions, and miscellaneous stuff. The term "simulator" shouldn't mean the same, these are two totally different things, it is misleading if used improperly, I suggest using a prefix to differentiate, one is a hardware simulator versus a software one, it's a huge difference in so many ways and can't be compared apples to apples. For military-grade hardware simulators those millions of dollars aren't spent on actual modelling and physics (the software side), but on the physical aspect of things being probably half of that IMO, but that's just the raw, not to mention other phantom costs as per consequence of the financial-business system such as the fact that it is a one-off solution or an extremely low amount of items, so demand is low and in business that means a much higher price automatically, second the customer is premium so they can be charged much higher and be acceptable, the seller is also taking a higher profit marging than it would if it sold to public just because they consider it a speciality, then there's all the research and support, all the pyhsical cockpit buttons and levers, all the screens, the hardware that powers the software, power delivery for struts and actuators, giant springs and hydraulics, and there's all kinds of side things I would imagine, so I would say software and specifically pyhsics modelling is probably a mere fraction of the total cost normally known in public, and it's that fraction that should be compared to DCS' phsyics modelling fraction. DCS's or any PC simulator's physics modelling fraction is much much higher than a military-grade hardware simulator. So it's a lot more complicated than it sounds in that video/podcast, comparing these things would probably take a whole study worth of work to properly do, would have to disclose and compare the actual programming code or the results in debug outputs and graphs. You would have to correct all those dollars for inflation too, etc. :smartass: So when we say and generally agree that the HW simulator "still doesn't feel like the real thing" isn't necessairly a good/appropriate argument for comparing simulation to reality, like in this case, it's tricky, it can boomerang, because those simulators may have not gotten that much attention on the software side when they were developed compared to so many years in DCS for example, their programming may have been from the time when programming it self was less understood and not as evolved as it is today, C++ has a lot of new features compared to 15 years ago for example, unless a HW sim is continiously updated like DCS is then it'll show it's weaknesses sooner or later. HW simulators still win because they can throw raw horsepower at it I suspect more than they are able to do on the software side, that however depends on the particularities of their focus on the software modelling and programming, they are certainly able to use a convenient function and the hardware just blasts through it even tho it's actually quite inefficient and would never be practical on PC. In other cases they are throwing so much horsepower at it but it can still be worse or not much better. The graphics is obviously not comparable because that's an actual decision for HW Simulators to not focus on them on purpose. (if anyone wonders about that) The difference between HW simulators and DCS in pure raw modelling and that "right-feeling" perhaps already is much lower than some people expect (unless a huge new HW sim is developed that ups the bar higher ofcourse ***), however that low amount may seem high because of the high experience and someone like that see huge differences in something that is a mathematically small difference, so it's all relative, the closer to reality we get that last bit of percent difference while it seems small mathematically, it's actuall a whole world in terms of human practical difference and DCS on PC would indeed be lower on that scale, but not outside of that premium arena. It's not even about money or hardware computing power in some cases, but the feeling could be better if enough effort is put into it and the PC HW is used efficiently and could still approach the goal. That feeling may not require a proportional amount of dollars as it does in HW simulators, indeed. So it's vital to not look at this with fixed proportions, it can end up in favor of DCS in some case for example you could do one thing really good, or you could simulate 1 aircraft at a time better, but not 100 ones as good as the HW Sim can do, for example. *** == A huge new HW Sim that ups the bar higher and runs DCS as it's sofware component. Those HW Sim Software components historically I presume were the one-off solutions done at the time for that specifically and never went into any other product, real specialites, but times have evolved since and there is something that can replace those solutions if it keeps evolving, even if it's a PC thing, and that could be your very own DCS (or a version of it) that replaces those unnamed HW Sim software solutions, even if they have unlimited resources, time is still not unlimited and to do something as all-encompassing as DCS in 2 years it's not just more expensive for at that time little gain, but also complicated, what a team of 2000 master programmers, who's going to manage all that for them to work efficiently, how do you put 2000 of them in a single git repository all working on their own code, the bigger the team the less efficient it becomes automatically, just mathematics and law of physics that works like this elsewhere. This is again one of those posts of mine when I go to the left pocket with my right hand just to prove a point, yes I wanted to do it this way just to prove a point, going the reverse way, and finally mentioning there is already a military-grade DCS version if some of you don't know yet, so perhaps me knowing this ahead may make this post a bit biased, to have an earlier opinion of "HW integration can be feasible for DCS to achieve", but the point was to try to entertain the idea how this works in life and evolution, how some solutions override others unexpectedly, coming in from behind, it happens in the gaming world and other fields, when industry shifts engines, APIs, tools. http://www.thebattlesim.com/

Interesting idea, I'll test it once I have my setup re-done.

The development procedures for updates have just been moved to longer cycles to favor a more stable experience in the beta and thus release versions, becuase that's what the community wanted as well, and I agree, that could mean longer EA period I think.

This is kinda an exotic feature so it's not entirely unexpected. Maybe the game can support it properly if they try.

If doing the same thing in a different order while not negatively affecting the development process overall, is something that makes the community 10 times happier, then I'm all for it! Great to see good solutions being figured out that works for both sides. I just said this to show support for the community-dev relationship and congratulating for the progresses made in this regard, but I respectfully excused myself from taking this survey because I'm not the best expert on F-16 nor I am in a terrible hurry so I leave it to the true fans of F-16 to cast their votes, Iwouldn't want to muck up the numbers with my less relevant influence. But yeah probably in the future, if this works out good, this kind of system could be built into this site and e-shop so that it avoids having a google or otherwise account but also verifies for module ownership so that bots/spammers/trolls don't mess up the numbers. Keep up the good job everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgzADKaBqZ7GOZaMsJt4AaABCQ

It's not what we call lag, but low FPS, to my knowledge it's pretty much normal for many to have half or worse the FPS down at tree level, trees also add burden on the CPU. Vulkan API and Multi-Threading improvements should alleviate this in the future. As for the shadows being a culprit in your case, it may just be LODs and other things that need adjusting perhaps. Also you don't have the most beefiest CPU, this sim does require the best of the CPUs out there for optimal performance. The extreme level probably not worth it, but an i7 over i5 is recommended when it comes to Intel CPUs. But there's one other thing, I found out DCS doesn't support occlussion culling, this means all those shadows and trees that you can't see because they're behind the first line of trees you do see, are rendered fully for nothing, wasting resources.

Would rely on DCS Voice for my idea above, additionally the B.C. would be able to draw indicators, lines and various markers himself onto the F-10 Advanced AWACS View (temp name) manually to accomodate this but not necessairly required, he can remember it all in his head if he wishes. I already had an idea I think I partially wrote about the overahuling of the F-10 AWACS view it self and how it ties to the idea above. I should go more serious and bring this together, find all the old posts on this topic and do a good draft with it, incorporating or supporting most of the ideas you guys had too, but I'm just busy with other things right now.

It would benefit from the signal and comms simulation improvements also, it's ability to detect targets and how good the detection is based on it's altitude and the target's altitude (and distance in general ofcourse) ... But I don't know much of AWACS capabilities to make any ideas right now. Whether it can detect terrain relief (ground radar), and like does it have minimal range? Could someone hide by riding just below it? However here's an interesting twisth I propose, AWACS in Combined Arms wouldn't need to be necessairly a flyable unit when controlled directly, it could be a hybrid, more plausible/practical for DCS to support, to only provide non-pilot seats to take control of. The main thing in this case would be the Cheif/Master Radar Specialist seat/slot/position and perhaps a Radio/Comms Chief seat/slot/position and you might jump from these seats as they're available, if not occupied by a Human Player it would default to internal AI simulation as per usual (perhaps even including AI Skill levels). This could kinda go along my whole Tactical or Battlefield Commander specific "F10 Advanced AWACS View" (***) idea that I talked in-depth a while ago, overhauling it to support a lot of detailed signal/comms information that gets pulled in from all the individual sensors of all the aircraft including simulating AI Pilot Visual Spotting and showing it graphically in some performance optimal fashion (separate indicator for direction of eyesight/head decoupled from the direction of the airplane, approx max distance of that eyesight depending on weather(not easy to dev IMO)). The B.Commander's extra sensor info ranges from various radio comm detections for example if there's a transmission of radio voice then the icons of the receiving airplanes would have a distinct visual FX effect along with some indication of the clarity/strenght of the receiving signal, so that you as the human B.Commander you would see on the F-10 Advanced AWACS View several of your units' icons to indicating(**) they have detected a radio/comm voice signal but you would need to use your experience to determine the rought position of that manually, the strenght of the signal each unit receives would be represented graphically too so you would get an idea which units got more and less strenght, but you wouldn't magically get some approx location of the enemy/unknown transmitter ... --> ... -> Unless if you as the Battlefield Commander have special units with proper radio detection equipment in your arsenal positioned correctly as they would in real life be able to determine the source location of the enemy/unknown transmitter, you may get an additional indication (yes additional, not replacement, it's about all sensors, some or many info may be redundant logically but they are separate layers of data), in this case it's ordinary radio voice so it's up to radio trilateration(triangulation*) of the signal that your units would perform automatically (AI) (not sure if you'd be able to do this with only ordinary ground units in real life(tanks, IFV, artillery, AA)), but the location would be marked as an area radius, perhaps shrinking as the game progresses and the signal is better detected, so this would not be indicated like a pinpoint (GPS) location ofcourse, which would mean the source somewhere inside that area, this kind of radius would be it's own uniquely colored and indicated graphical effect, which fades away slowly until it disappears from the live view, but there should also be a history/timeline slider in which you could go back and view older hits pretty much live in-game (with granularity optimized for keeping optimal performance). The B.Commander would send commands out to the AIs and possibly Human players too, perhaps in a overhauled way than how Combined Arms currently works, part of the whole "dynamic campaign", there may already be a whole new way of commandeering the battlefield I think, but with Human players it's actually more interesting to be more realistic where possible and rather encourage use of the integrated internal DCS radio Voice comms system, that's exactly what that feature is for, nice! This F10 Advanced AWACS View would have all kinds of filters to show only specific kinds of sensors from your coalition's forces, but all data would be logged into the timeline archive so you can always go back , in-game, and see the other data you previously filtered out. Perhaps a better term is to hide/show. But there's a question if there could be a step higher than this, even better sensor data that's more specific and finesse that would only be available when the B.Commander would go into direct control of an AWACS or other unit, perhaps temporairly going out of the F10-AWACS view, or some kind of a split screen, or a simpler version overlay. The question is how practical is splitting the data to base, mid, high level and what kind of gameplay would be preferred in DCS and whether it's approximately realistic or not of simulating what the whole agency (pentagon, military) sees on their 500 comptuer screens and big projections. So I wouldn't want to gimmickly split something away from the F10 Advanced AWACS View into the specific unit (AWACS Airplane) direct control slot/position, while more of this would benefit the folks who want some playability out of less-armed and un-armed military units, and I'm one of them, I still prefer to do it right and it has to make sense, not just put data purposelly into the internal unit's sensor screen/buttons for the sake of it being there and not in the global simulated F10 Advanced AWACS View, but there should be enough simulation depth that there is enough use of the internal slot for it to be worth it, so the prerequisite is that some form of research on these units and their sensor systems would be needed, that level of depth that would not be practical to show on the F10 Advanced AWACS View, it would clutter it too much, for example, among other things. However, another hybrid idea, the same thing I wrote above, except, the Battlefield Commander Human Player slot wouldn't be able to control any of the units directly, but that would only be possible by other Tacitcal Commander Human Players and they would feed extra finesse data to the B.Commander, over some simulated datalink way that would make that data show up automatically on B.C's end, perhaps with some delays or instantly, depending ofcourse on the signal simulation in DCS, but some of it wouldn't be feeded into the datalink that realistically also isn't, so that's where the DCS Voice comes in again, just have to call and tell them manually, that's the big gameplay spot right there ofcourse, but here's the kicker of the possibilities, flexibility and combinations, the B.C. can do multiple things and he will, but he can't focus on every single thing at once in a huge area with many units and when he's focused on a hot engagement in a smaller area, the human T.Commander could simply relay/copy the same information that the T.C.'s unit sensors are sending to B.C. via data link automatically, manually via the DCS Voice and get the B.C.'s attention that way, so the T.C.'s don't need to be silent and hope the B.C. sees the visual effects, graphical indicators, and/or blinking icons on the F10 Advanced AWACS View, in this case this shouldn't be considered wasteful redundancy, this all adds to the battlefield awareness, more is always better than less, and these layers of infos from all the unit sensors that feed into B.C. is visualizing what probably goes on in the military command centers, even tho they may not have it all electronic/dynamic, aircraft carriers like have a miniaturized set of physical figures for the positional awareness (not saying that's old or worse, no opinion right now) The Tactical Commanders would only control specific units and wouldn't have access to the B.C's specific F10 Advanced AWACS View ... without human players I guess there would need to be several types of AI models designed for that role specifically, the fighter-pilot AI, the bomber-pilot AI, the Tactical Commander AI, ... we normally don't distinguish and just say it "AI" this or that, but I think the future complexity of all of this would be greater and we should be just for clarity separating these things, and perhaps for development benefits it could also be separated in the code it self, it already is separate but it's just not indicated, or else you'd have B-52 acting like F-16. Which is pretty much how it would work in real life kinda so it's really not any idea, just a version of simulating the military structure, but funny how I kinda get to the obvious conclusion in a twisted way around my back heh, silly me. *** = placeholder name of the idea, but it can just be a mode, with the same name. ** the way indicators would work is up for creative imagination (visual FX, icons, etc) but I only have some basic things that pop in my head, but would need to draw in pictures, not doing that right now.

that kinda relates to Windows CMD ... the sim may not necessairly follow those things. Preferrably if it was designed to parse a specific set of characters for ignoring-comments. Like #

Yeah, as mentioned officially and on various tech sites, it's a feature that needs support in the whole pipeline, and it's very early, so don't expect it doing anything good, and it seems like it currently produces the opposite effect. However I'm not too sure on the game's part, if the game needs support of some kind, or at least some bits of code here and there. But you need a modern enough graphics card and drivers have to support it, and as you know early driver support could be bugged, or the feature/windows update could it self be bugged as per Windows usual.

Not trying to be smartass, just what I'm thinking may have caused this, is that the settings in Nvidia Software are applied from their own settings storage (since they're still there in the driver utility) to another registry location or some other file, more windows-specific perhaps, which got reset or deleted during the update. One would have to use Process Monitor to test this theory and see what it does when "Apply" is hit. I don't have a Nvidia graphics card so I'm out of this one.

1000hz gaming mouse poll rate doesn't seem to work nice with DCS with some people, including me, the workaround is to get a 125hz mouse or a gaming mouse capable of selecting the pollrate preferrably. The camera stutter effect gets worse with faster pollrate, so 250hz will have some, 500hz more, and 1000hz the worst.

That's expected actually, the feature has to be supported by the whole pipeline and it was said officially this is only preliminary and the benefits of this will mostly be seen in the future.

Yep that's why Windows updates are disliked a lot in the power user community. I'll be moving to a freshly installed Windows 10 with Update build of 1809 (permanently unless I install another version specifically, I don't do updates on an already deployed install), fully debloated and optimized for gaming/dev, a good comparison for DCS troubleshooting versus most of the community that moves to the latest updates.

Well it's a simulator first and foremost, not a balanced game.

If it is an Su-27 (or Su-33, etc) then I don't think they'll let you or anyone know that something changed, I don't think the community could handle the wait until it's done. The eastern side aircraft such as Mig29 or Su-27 (can't remember, but I can try to find some old videos) is the first actual military fighter jet I've ever seen in my life for real, coincidentially the F-16 was a very close second, so I'm in this horse race as well :D It most likely always means after H1 as per business-talk standard, so H2, but still not definitive in terms of Q3 or Q4. I do see the value in older models, if not anything else at least for historical preservation (but if it were really only that then it wouldn't be worth it if self funded and not much sales, I hope my theory holds water about some old pilots around here wanting to recreate their experience they had back with the older models, I'm sure there are those out there, the downside is they're older generation and perhaps not computer-wizz guys and may not know about DCS yet ...) - I'm already campaigning for the new A-10C Warthog 2 to come with two variations/suite eventually :) Might increase the price becuase preferrably you'd get it all-in-one, not a separate module, otherwise the older version would probably indeed undersell and would look as if it's not worth it. I think more people would try it if they just have it part of the package already rather than a separate purchase even if it's cheaper. It hasn't been done before so why not give a try with a good candidate like A-10C for which probably there's access to a good range of documentation to make it feasible, and so this idea can be tested in practice and if it doesn't pan out I guess it won't be a priority on other modules but at least A-10 would continue to have that specialty :) I've explained this in detail already in the appropriate thread, how most optimally for gameplay it would be to have a suite/variation of A-10C that is modern enough without the Pave Penny Pod and an older suite/variation with it, this can be a good gameplay differentiation, so it can be a cue that enemies will look for visually on the battlefiled, not saying enemies should get this and that it should be done on purpose just for this coincidential "feature", but there's other reasons why a wider gap between variations is preferred to make the effect I'm talking about, to little difference is hard to justify developing for and selling it IMO that's just a no brainer. Ah sorry again for mixing other stuff into this thread.