Worrazen

There, boys and girls, the general has spoken!

It is probably rendering something less to get more FPS, IMO. I don't think it's for free.

Yeah, Unless you have 5000 thousand euro budget for a proper wired VR like the ones from Varjo, then I just wouldn't bother with it if you're thinking you'll get everything plus, it's a huge step back in resolution, you won't be able to read any text AFAIK, or barely. That's not to say those who are into it and the devs who are developing int are doing it for nothing, the journey may be the destination, reexperiencing the evolution one pixel at a time I guess. Eeeeeee, Here we go again ... :lol: Infact you put so much effort into your post, so I challenge you to find my past rants on lack of soviet-block jets, and the whole "putin letter" thing. You might have a fun read ... I'm not going to start a new rant right now. But then I heard just a couple of weeks ago someone posted a reminder about some rumor that Sukhoi actually .... threw the old documents away.

DCS voice will improve over time, that was already confirmed, it'll just take time, so no worry there. The whole radio-signal-distance-voice-simulation will be a bigger deal later on and it should be done good. A radio transmission can affect the whole result of a mission, accurate simulation of the signal propagation, interference, and the translation to the subsequent audio quality loss or interruption is not a small deal, propagation and simulation may be right, but if that's not reflected with the voice properly then the simulation doesn't help. Currently there is already 3D based voice signal simulation, the increase in distance will lower the volume ... I haven't done good enough testing and comparison with real life to gauge how good it is but I would assume in the end there are a bunch of other things that mess up the audio not just volume. This would then be tied with the AI ATCs and AI units, perhaps even ATC-to-ATC transmission (emergency handling, diversion due to airfield full, or even relaying info, SAR assistance), and with good radio signal simulation this will offer lots of tricks and twists ... but the big one is, integration of this with the real-mode F10 AWACS view (fog of war), so you would have the F10 AWACS be a composite of multiple sources, AWACS radar pings ofcourse, pings from your ground units ... if they actually feed into your HQ and see this is where signal stuff comes in, you shouldn't see those pings on the F10 View if your AI friendly ground unit was out of range from the mobile HQ or nobody was in range to relay the datalink (the units that have that capability), this kind of simulation, or even deeper, I don't know if they though of this at all, but this is a bigger deal that plays directly into the arms of what the new "RTS dynamic campaign" needs is that kind of an overview but not a cheat-map like F10 usually is without fog of war, as I deal with basic radio-amateur equipment myself and a bit of an enthusiast on FlightRadar and ADSBExchange I would love this kind of stuff in DCS oh my god!; Continuing, then sources from your friendly air bases providing secondary radar (transponders) .... visual sources, etc, the problem is this can get very complicated, especially with visual or some airplane doing some IR on it's own which has no official datalink with the base (AFAIK), to what length can DCS go to kinda simulate what could and would happen in real life when they're talking over the radio a lot to relay approx position of a target of interest, so how in DCS would the code/system work to display that ping/icon on the F10 view approximately in some location but so indicated with a special icon that perhaps fades slowly away just like the real radar pings, perhaps with some kind of a special-colored ring to indicate "approx somewhere in this area", without your AI friendly units talking over the radio to your AI HQ units to provide the approx location, that would be a ton of chatter but except wait, perhaps that is okay some of it, it just would be for cosmetic effect, but the underlying tech would work independently, it wouldn't rely on speech recognition for sure, but the AI would be simulated his eyes looking and have this InternalDatalink ... however this is question whether this would actually happen in real life, would the military heads/commanders really see things like that, well, we may simulate what's in their head and is simply not put onto a map so putting it onto a map in DCS shouldn't be that unrealistic right, because the awareness in the whole military of where the target is or it might be doesn't change, it's somewhere there, so it's not wrong, right ?! This is actually part of simulating the battlefiled commader, the whole military's awareness put into a map, but I think they do have such maps or visualizations in some fashion, we just never see them in public. The ones we do are static and limited in scope, filtered, meant for later reporting/debriefing. I would even rename it because it isn't just AWACS source, F10 Battlefield View or something, but that's just my opinion. I already wrote about this, or I have notes saved for a dedicated thread about this, will do it later, all of this is still a long way away. Anyway this was more of a rushy post, I should have do this one more clearly sometime.

Now all we need is a big freaking Mid Eastern Assets Pack !!! Don't forget the mobile military kitchen for the folks in Latakia Air Base (Khmeimim/Hmeymim Air Base) :smilewink: Speaking about Khmeimim or Hmeymim Air Base ... a serious question arises actually. Does DCS Syria map therefore even include actual Hmeymim Air Base built by the Russian Military? Becuause that's what Hmeymim Airbase is, to my knowledge, a unique case, it is it's own whole area that happens to be inter-connected with the runway-s of the civilian airport, "sharing some of the facilities", but Russian Military has been expanding and building more military-exclusive facilities to the West as years went by so I beleive it's quite independent as of now, even tho it may have always been independent from the civilian facilities. And then there's the question of what level/status of expansion it will be in DCS (I guess we can figure that out once released, no need to answer) The Russian-English and Russian-Native media AFAIK always referrs to it as the Latakia / Khmeimim Air Base, and never with the name of the civilian one, apparently: Bassel Al-Assad Intl. Airport, which I'm not sure if it was operational during the war, so this may have added to the confusion because it then operated only with military aircraft and thus it looked as if it's either a different place or it got renamed. The timeline of the DCS Syria map we would expect is perhaps pre-2011 or pre-war, we want the buildings all good and shiny as usual, not a wasteland out of the box, but I guess some areas/parts could be exceptions of that timeline and this looks like to be one (or even some kind of a dynamic evolution-construction thing in the live map in future if terrain tech allows it, to avoid having multiple versions of a map) I checked again now, as per (excuse my low effort I'm a tad in a hurry) the heavily unreliable source called Wikipedia, it says that the Latakia/Khmeimim Air Base uses/shares some facilities of the civilian airport, but I know from myself from following the conflict news that it was built and expanded heavily during the years from all the sat images I've seen, those were all Russian constructions that built/converted it to military use, but I didn't fully research the subject yet I'm a bit outdated on the latest happenings. As always I don't want to do a half-baked job so I stuck and searched for some of the satellite shots. (This post has been heavily edited for the past 2 hours, I originally intended to only leave a small comment) If this separation is really the case (that the second runway was used only for military and the facilities for military were built ... "turned kinda into two airfileds with each 1 runway" theory) then it's fair to consider at separating these two to indicate both of them with their own icon, name/label on the DCS Syria map (and the underlying code ofcourse, Airfield Resources), still it's a stretch because it's a dillema of following officiality or just going along with the military reality, in truth the military airport is not (yet?) officially designated with it's international IDs and stuff, ... will it ever be, do the Russian Military need the separation, but there's a shot if the Russian Military internally regards it as separate and officially uses it without referencing the civilian side for their reports to the govt, perhaps, maybe we should ask them. Or do they just mirror/copy all the IDs/monikers of the civilian airport and only change the name? Then there's the question if the separation actually matters in-sim, if it has any impact on gameplay whatsoever, other than names/labels and conveniences or lack thereof. Other than that you can look on google earth/maps now, but google has the old shot it's been like this for a few years, clearly a second runway under construction, the practical separation is clear, the mid-western part is the civilian side while the whole northern part is military. Since DCS is military oriented I think it should weight to the separation of some sort or some kind of a compromise, something unique because this is out of the ordinary I would assume, ... Officer: So where did that Flanker land yesterday? Pilot: At Bassel Al-Assad. Officer: Where? Pilot: At Hmeymim Air Base. Officer: Oh, so he landed at Bassel Al-Assad and then taxied into the Hmeymim Air Base, which has no runways?:smartass: Pilot: Say what? I guess you guys can add it to one of those pilot jokes if ... I assume would exist. Like, umm, (if the movies are correct) when the pilot comes home and tells a story, haha, and then he landed in Hmeymim with no runways, bwahahaha :doh: EDIT: Oh... this looks familiar, it took me a number of times to even figure it out, wrote the whole post meanwhile ... That looks pretty freaking good there holy smokes!

Mission Flaming Cliffs 3 - Su-33 Instant Action - Cold and Dark for Normandy uses non-english description text when it should be english (like everything else in this case).

Vulkan API came from Mantle API yes, but it's not brand specific. Maybe you're mixing those. Occlussion Culling isn't something tied to a graphics API, or at least it's a possibility in most of them, but I guess it's probably not simple, you have to write/implement it from scratch yourself, and DCS uses an in-house engine and focuses on in-house solutions, so yeah, SoonTM. It may have already been under construction prior so, it may be just around the corner, who knows.

Even tho there's multiple threads for I/O ... it's not completely watertight, while I'm determining if it's due to thread-jamming (multiple threads racing to get CPU time and the main one get's unlucky for a moment) which can cause stutter or it's really due to some part of the asset loading process (texture streaming, model, effects, loading) ... the third option is the latest one which is shader compiling. There's a particular laggy just when you fire a rocket with F-18C for the first time since starting up DCS, but I had my shaders cleared in that case, I've seen it happen before but didn't record it for documentation. I have figured enough now to realize what I have to do, I need to start logging and documenting and also videotaping all the stutters that happen at the same exact time there's a fetch and read of DCS data from disk. It may take some time tho, I'm in the middle of a large PC/HDD/data maintenance and I'm looking into testing another version of windows to move past 1607, well I probably won't move completely, probably 2 or 3 concurrently, but I'll put DCS on the newer version together with some other things I plan to have there earlier than originally planned, running out of HDDs/SSDs to put new Windows onto dammit.

The main point I had in mind is the big thing about occlussion culling, because DCS doesn't seem to support it, this means you're rendering everything behind an object that you're looking at with your screen, perhaps even the underbelly of aircraft and the other sides of them (as each one has hundreds of draw calls) and you can't look at an airplane from all sides simultaneously so there's should be some benefit to this even in a top-down view looking at all of the aircraft on a carrier deck for example, it shouldn't suppose to render the underbellies.

I tried it now and currently I'm not seeing this problem with my current circumstances, TacView only took 0.55 CPU on it's main thread while the other two trailed at ~0.05 Circmustances: F-18C on Caucasus with the 2.5.6.50793 OB (along with the tech specs in the signature below, GPU Driver is Radeon Software 20.1.3)

There is POV/HAT snap views already built in, for cockpit at least, just needs to be activated with a mode, I think that is bind to some key I sometimes hit accidentially but I never figured out, it always happened at the wrong time so I tried to get out of it instead of trying to find more about it.

Thanks, should come handy in future Also relevant: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=272259

You are misunderstanding that, possibly justified, I'm already past that onto another thing, I didn't explain my thought process. I knew it earlier, I forgot it, now I looked at the module details and after that I responded with the above suggestion. But you know me ... I'm a nitpicker, I see a bug everywhere and hop I'm in beta-tester mode yet again. :smartass: It just says "Su-33 Flanker D fighter" and not "Su-33 for DCS World module" or similar, which is not some terrible disaster, no panic, this was perhaps not foreseen, but it's vague and open to confusion whether it's referring to a playable aircraft asset/cockpit or another module on the E-Shop. There is no mention of "Su-33 for DCS World" in my Order details, the only product is "DCS: Supercarrier". This is probably the first such case, because I bought boundles before and it properly included the boundled modules in the Products list. With more complicated relationships between modules, this distinction should be further indicated if this kind of practice is used. Similar warnings/indications exist for add-on modules and campaign modules where it says "Requires Another Product", so I'm not inventing anything new with this suggestion. Currently it can be understood the same way how FC3 module details referr to it, as a playable aircraft asset/cockpit, because you don't get the licenses of the standalone modules when purchasing FC3, FC3 is not a boundle of the standalone modules (Perhaps it should be?) and in general the content/assets aren't necessairly bound only to 1 module or license. The problem may be that the "Su-33 for DCS World" module isn't properly boundled with "DCS: SuperCarrier" in the website E-Shop logic (front-end?), perhaps it was intended to work like that but didn't went according to plan. The (separate/back-end?) license system seems to works fine because it properly says "You already own the license ..." for "Su-33 for DCS World" module, but that's is exactly how free trial licenses were granted, out of thin air (from our public view). So the "DCS: SuperCarrier" module kind of shadow-grants you the "Su-33 for DCS World" license, it works as intended in terms of playability, but it feels broken or unusual in terms of E-Shop consistency. Just using plain logic, one way to make this "right", the "Su-33 for DCS World" module should be listed as part of the Order with a 100% discount, with the corrected text in the "DCS: SuperCarrier" module page to indicate you get another boundled module for free. But perhaps for the future case, many orders are finalized now, probably not worth correcting all of them back and again it's just a documentation issue at this point, and it can aswell work differently from a point onward with the old orders still being left "broken" it probably won't cause any issues. The free trial licenses are fine, they are shadow-granted out of thin air and once they're over they disappear without a trace, that's probably intended and I agree with it.

FALSE ALARM Oh ... I guess Well okay, but it should be noted it actually include another module, in the E-Shop, as opposed to just making the aircraft available to play like FC3 does. Yes, my module list is in my signature below. I guess I'll label this solved now.

I don't think you've understood what I meant, or I didn't explain the circumstances completely. It thinks I have a Su-33 standalone license, but I really never ordered or paid for it, I only ever had FC3, which includes Su-33 airplane but has no relation with the standalone Su-33 module. That's why it's asking me to install it. There is no "trash icon", because I never installed it.

The UI text says that "Eagle Dynamics" is the author of the Normandy map. But isn't it UGRA-MEDIA ?

I have had FC3 since beginning, after the free trials and after I removed all the trial modules, it still keeps asking to install Su-33. I'm using only one installation, OpenBeta currently.

I'd give you more detailed HW advice but I just don't have time currently dealing with other DCS things. Don't get a GPU with 8GB or less VRAM. Don't get less than 32GB RAM. Don't bother with very high memory speeds (RAM) and XMP profiles, as it'll just be a pain in the butt configuring that right with the mobo to work stable, and it depends on CPU and Mobo's support, but even if support is there it's not perfect and their quality depends, with CPUs it's also a lottery how good of a CPU you get and if you have a "bad core" in there it could crap out if stressed out, so if you're not up to speed you should just avoid that. If you're not in a hurry, you could wait for the new AMD Ryzen CPUs to arrive, I think there's going to be a reveal in September or something like that, but they may not come until fall.

This one says yes But as always ... updating too early is always risky.

1 day later, my 6th sense in action baby: https://www.techpowerup.com/268329/bang-olufsen-and-xbox-partner-up-to-deliver-highend-audio-proposition-for-gaming Oh let it snow let it snow let it snow ... now DCS's turn! However, in seriousness, as I said you can probably with the customizability and modularity and flexibility of the PC platform do this already, it's just not going to be cheap whatsoever, and less straightforward, but not saying it would become much cheaper, however due to more popularity it could, the bar would be raised in general, perhaps the PC platform just needs more infrastructural/connectivity/standard lable thing that kinda promotes this and maybe that may be just a honest promotion deal DCS could do with an audio HW manufacturer, because the problem may simply be the industry isn't really recognizing the market rather than a technical limitation. The technical limitation is certianly the creapo motherboard audio hardware, but it got quite a bit better on hardcore motherboards. However seems like the experts seem to point that headphones and binaural audio is the way to go, and that 5.1-7.1 sorround speaker systems aren't where it should move forward ... but I'm unfortunately very anti-headphone user, I don't know how I would adjust to that, I don't want anything strapped to my head, it's like being underwater, it's just a weird feeling.

Holy smokes, that's some cool stuff ... imagine one day seeing Microprose in the DCS 3rd-party subforum, I'd love the sight of that. But this is serious and hopefully it benefits the whole scene, we need to strengthen these passoinate and history-respecting communities against the corporate behemoths, and avoid excessive inward competition.

Pssst ... I hope it stays exclusive to DCS and not MAC :devil_2: (BTW: If MAC scope was explanded than originally planned, should it really be all that DCS is minus full fidelity modules? There should be some incentive to strive for the reality-professional level in some ways)

Depending on what you're doing on the F-10 AWACS View, your zoom level and the amount of unit icons you're looking at. FPS is usually high because there's not much to render, but there is a ton of draw calls in certain zoom levels, so FPS can vary significantly, the scroll-stutter is IMO caused partially due to the draw calls overloading the CPU for a few moments when it spikes, partially due to the speed of storage device (SSD should be fine), and partially due to IMO imperfect DCS asset streaming which interrupts the main thread in some certain moments when certain assets have to be loaded from disk even tho File/Disk I/O is suppose to be running async and it mostly does, I'm investigating the latter part further with an unrelated issue and I'm also thinking it could have to do something with shader compilation, that's why it's good not to jump to conclusions. For these limitations above, there's no other thing to do than wait for DCS multi-threading improvements to the engine and an upgraded rendering engine based on Vulkan API. If you have an actual memory leak then you would need to post some evidence of that happening from the beginning to the end when DCS becomes very laggy or crashes.

The big thing is also, it would help find false positives and what is causing what. And also very importantly, CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES, so that you can have a clear list of factors of the circumstances so nothing changes, then it's much easier to find a mistaken or culprit factor, perhaps something may be due to some non-DCS factor, like something running in the background or some DCS plugin. A performance dip may be normal due to excessive use of radar-equipped units for example. I have had this on my queue to show for a long long time and didn't got around doing a video about it, I have it in the plans this summer, probably around my own draft example of a benchmark map (mission with all units with some scripted stuff, but thing is IDK DCS scripting yet)

Say your thanks to Facebook, as they acquired Oculus they made it only about social and low level stuff, they don't care about hardcore VR, the other two or three proved it's not that simple to make a proper VR so they took quite a bit more time to do all the research from scratch themselfs. Anyhow, we have Varjo now anyway. The industry just isn't there yet, that's why I don't bother with VR at all. Early adopters are usually beta testers so there you go, I'm sorry. Now all we need is a professional level segment of PC hardware :D , the upgraded DCS engine which is just a matter of time and actually for-purpose professional audio equipment (which does exist but it's all currently designed around about music and entertainment and so is the community, most audiophiles aren't gamers AFAIK and they take a minute to even figure out you're asking them about gaming audio (generated audio), these two worlds are too disconnected still it's it's such a pity, the HW audio in the mainstream PC segment is dead for years, it's dire situation and thankfully UE5 with PS5 is doing something about it that will hopefully bleed into the PC side and thus the enthusiast PC segement which will benefit DCS in some way, I'm not saying it may be big, but it's probably not small either, anyhow it's better than nothing !!!)