Worrazen

LOL I was thinking of either making it or posting about the idea myself just 2 weeks ago. It needs to be generated from script perhaps to cover things 100%, it would end up being too much work for a single person, especially when new things are introduced, new units, manually updating each time would take time and effort if one wants to keep it up to date. I'll see what I can do.

I kinda agree, it was said that Campaigns won't be the focus anymore due to all the focus on core upgrades which I understand completely, but I think a module still deserves something out of the box at release, perhaps a 3rd-party filling in just so the module has something, so it would be more of a cooperation in that a 3rd-party would make it according to the specifications and wishes, the main devs would then check it an QA it to polish it to a higher standard if necessary, but it should be still released with the the 3rd-party name suffix in the title, with an explanation in the e-shop and elsewhere, it would just be subtitled as a "XYZ module release campaign" for distinction. Perhaps there is enough room to make up for lack of campaigns by putting some effort into training missions but actually better yet first improving the training system it self, making an API or improving the one if it exists, so that 3rd parties could use it but it wouldn't limit them if they want to do something special, would just contribute to the API. The current training system we know has limitations and reliability problems, sometimes it gets stuck forever or for a longer period until it detects it can proceed, sometimes it goes way too fast, sometimes the path route and speed aren't accounted for the amount of reading and the announcer/text lags behind what's happening in the sim, AFAIK there's no undo feature, you can't go back to the previous step to revisit the text to have the announcer re-read it. I think there's no system now, it's just scripting in the ME that is put together manually, right? So this is a good idea, I had this one on my mind, thanks for reminding me OP, I guess before many new modules come out of E-A, the training mission API should be created with with the training missions revised and populated where missing. Currently I think in many cases one has to rely on Instant Action missions half the time and going back-and-forth. Not saying this has to be duplicated, you can ofcourse practice in ANY mission and I don't want to make this look like a big deal, as if we're waiting for the training missions, it's just a no brainer for the future because of the steep learning requirements of DCS.

Yeah, good that you figure that one out fast, I just don't get it why would the utilization be low in DCS, it would stay the same while the Sim Shaker would fight with it for CPU Time I assume, you might have spliced together the screenshots out of sync perhaps? So are you sure that's actually how it looks like in practice when the DCS FPS is low, that DCS is at 7% and ... ah you have a 8-core-16-thread, ... and Sim Shaker at that "low". Well errr, those 7% or any % don't really compare to my Quad Core with HT disabled so it's a bit of a numbers game to get the equivalent out, I'm used to those 1 core = 25% numbers so I gotta calc this out. This threding stuff is one big pain in the butt to clearly present when one wants to quickly understand a report, I'm thinking of making custom utilities for performance diagnosis to help normalize this out ... but parsing the most hardcore perf data on windows (the switch times, events in WPR/WPA) is the hardest thing ever. I wrote my own performance viewer way back once just for fun based on the NET. Resource Monitors and nothing fancy ... perhaps I could retrofit it, but the last time I checked it didn't compile :lol: (I'm just about to update to VS 2020 today and maybe I find the time/motivation for something)

GPU Utilization as well as CPU, varies greately every single moment, slight differences can mean big changes in the numbers, there may have been a change of circumstances between your observations. It must be some bug that I'm not seeing because I didn't see it here, but I had TacView disabled for many months unknowingly as I forgot to turn it on and then I tested a lot without it, I'll see again.

That's their problem, not ED's or anyone elses and it's not the dev's responsibility to fix it, that's the point. What's available is available, what's realistically powerful is that powerful, no less no more. People shouldn't raise the imaginary "DCS balance" issue and use it as feedback and criticism. The only balance may just be the balance of number of projects on each side from a practical and sort of different reasoning, I forget the word but no no not philosophical this time around hehehe, you got Eurofighter so hey you got more ... but here's the funny thing, you guys treat US EU and UK as one side, that's just world politics, who says it has to be that way necessairly in DCS, this gets into the deeper realism debate, should we only simulate raw tools or politics too or some kind of a if you will balance between those ... that's a discussion for another time. Besides, if you want professional skill only, you pick the same exact unit to negate all other factors, this is basically what quake insagib mode was, I was a Call of Duty 2 rifle-only insagib server administrator / modder so I'm not unfamiliar with competitive gameplay in general, I still have the full server setup, custom maps, config and the whole thing right here archived, I can fire it up right now if I wanted to ;) Now the original nor the small mod wasn't a sim, but it was meant to be all about skill, there was practically difference between UK, US, German infantry unit, everyone walked the same speed, ran the same speed, jumped the same height (althought Quake 3 Engine aka IDTech3 == FPS dependant physics == jump height) Modern Air Combat may be the place where that would be more valid, but we have yet to see what kind of relationship that product will have with reality and realism rules. Ah sorry for interrupting this thread like ... go back to AIM-120 now, I might make a thread specifically for this and expand it even more ... and I've got a serious bug report to write today so back to work :)

I'm in the process of writing another bug report that may partially expose the reason behind the larger performance woes, but I have quite a few prerequisites to do, some of my posts include steps that I think I should standardize into a well writen tutorial and guide separately, appropriately posted in the newly created DCS Training Range forum. However it may not be the full story ofcourse, because this includes all builds in the at least past roughly ~12 months (I tested only half way back so far), and that includes the 2.5.5 stable.

And, I forgot to add the associated explanation from the real world ... well it's obvious most of it, but let me point it out just in case for reference. The fact that in practice in real-life it kinda seems balanced, is only because of the other side deciding to respond to the challenge and to keep things equal or better in their favor to have a sense of security, not because it necessary has to be so or that it can't be any other way, but even that's not symmetric in all fields of military, land, sea, air, infantry, scouting, rescue, management, then only handful of countries can even afford to try to be equal anyway, and on top of that, some actually decide to not respond symmetrically ON PURPOSE and one of the good examples of that is the Russian policy against the NATO "Missle Shield™" which Russia claims it can then be quickly converted to a misslile launch site with ground based tomahawk or similar missiles being that can be retroffited and are being upgraded every few years with longer and longer ranges. Putin said this himself a number of times that Russia intends to respond asymmetrically to these things, claiming it's far cheaper, that's how Putin put it, meaning that he would destroy the sites using conventional and existing closer-range arms before they're up and fully operational instead of Russia making it's own network of missile launch sites, with similar capabilities to equalize the other side. Later he actually said this was the previous long used policy, but now Russia does have it's own missile shield network which he didn't want to go into detail in this case of the video below. Perhaps the asymmetrical stance has changed a bit, but it certainly was in effect for over a decade if not more. Now, All of this does not include secret weapons and any of that stuff, even if there is any balance it's only public balance in the end, so it's all an illusion of balance anyway, this is the final nail in the coffin for this potential "DCS balance issue" argument right here. There, shot it down before it even became a thing, now let's keep it that way :) If Reddit or similar creates this idea for DCS and it becomes a thing then community staff has a serious problem at their hands IMO ... and I know it kinda seems like most people aren't serious, well not so fast, stranger things can and have had happened, generally speaking, so this isn't that far fetched.

Not saying it's a must or a necessity, but the philosophy at ED should be that as much gets contributed by the main and 3rd-parties into the APIs so that the whole ecosystem benefits because ultimately all of the aircraft, weapons and scenery has to work together in some fashion, now ofcourse computers don't have to know/be aware of the wholeness, they're many times just an illusion, made up of isolated parts. In the future, ... just look at the engine space, I'm reluctant to try to compare the gaming world, I guess I'm just pointing out the graphics side, and the infrastructural core side, the core is what makes things efficient and DCS needs to be more efficient as we know and I'm not harping on that as a whine, just talking, but unfortunately it's still software and similar in many ways and it does count, and some people will just compare it and then say oh DCS isn't like this other game that uses UnrealEngine or CryEngine For DCS to be an independent leader with it's own engine going forward, to stand against CryEngine, Unreal Engine, Unity, IdTech, GTA6 engine, DICE engine, etc ..., it will probably always be back with graphics but that is fine, for that to be acceptable by an ordinary player who is spoiled for UE5 graphics (and eventually most of us with a pretty huge tolerance capacity), including non-gamers who have unrealistic expectations of thinking it should look as good as real life before considering it, ... has to be as efficient, smooth and stable as possible. The infrastructural parity should also be considered so that it supports modern softwares, hardwares, APIs and other middleware as necessary, custom tools and internal software to make it well suited for development and easy on developers so that their limited numbers can have boost. Obviously other public for-developers engines have a much higher hill to climb because of their wide ranging responsibilities which DCS does not, even tho DCS is expanding into a bigger deal with the RTS component for the so called "dynamic campaign" feature. The whole spaghetti code thing should be taken extremely seriously, but as explained by management that some of the work is still appreciated and just replacing it so quickly doesn't do good for the morale of anyone, I agree, this is why I stopped pushing on Vulkan API in every post even before it was confirmed because I sensed that too little time has passed since DX11 renderer was released, long story short, I think that some of these major things, along with the circumstances, and a good lesson the impatient folks got with the Early-Access stuff, that it's just better to let the current generation play it self out in peace, without any abrupt changes, let the new features such as the Vulkan renderer, FLIR rendering, ... and my wishes for livery submodules and a folder structure reorganization take place good and solid and come at a later time when they're well polished. I just hope FLIR rendering won't need some adjustment if it comes before Vulkan ... I hope these things are checked concurrently so that if there's major work, I rather not have it for DX11 and delay it for post-Vulkan renderer. Big studios can afford to just have multiple renderers and throw stuff out every 2 years and replace, we'll have to get used to delays and compromises around here, I rather take all of that than see some kind of an acquirement by another company or some kind of investment. Remember first and foremost The Fighter Collection is about preserving aircraft with a true passion for this field and no random gaming company can boast about, they don't have the emotional attachement nor ideological/philosophical horse in the race to care, unfortunately these experiences coupled with inexperience with simulators is what caused the great reddit uprising of 2019, so in the end if Early-Access is what keeps the Acquirement or Chapter 11 sharks away then so be it, but well, we should still look for other additional things to offset and give a hand off E-A's weight. So don't think all of this engine issue is a good thing is some dark-humor way of well if it's bad enough for long it'll just be acquired and got into a brand new engine and things will be awesome, nobody wants to see that right, so we shouldn't be pessimistic about the engine issue, but at the same time the engine has to be the big priority even going a step further than planned. The good thing is, other gaming engines really aren't that into simulation, so one can't just use them and make a DCS equivalent in a month, because he would have to code a lot of custom stuff in there, essentially the public engines are empty shells, the "simulation" in there is in terms of graphics, is more body animation and stuff like that oriented, that won't help you with AG-Radar, for example. Another thing DCS could take a higher step up than other software, and I think it is in the works as confirmed, I saw it mentioned, is the audio engine, and we saw the new stuff being mentioned for UE5, because both of the new consoles from MS and Sony will be big on audio this time around. DCS should not lag behind, and DCS has more of a reason to lead in this area, audio has the power to overpower the (again justifiably) lesser graphical fidelity, remember Metroid Prime ... well you may not, it's a Nintendo Game Cube game, a First-Person Shooter ..err officially a First-Person Adventure game, well it's one of the highest rated games back when game scores really meant something, and I think I'm safe to say audio had a pretty big part on the overal score, tho it was more about the art of music and soundtrack rather than pure audio quality and fidelity, for DCS there is no need for musical art as much as there is the need for advanced effects and fidelity/quality/bitrate because most of the audio is generated, except for the main menu and perhaps others places (I would really love a new MissionEditor background music to be a different one from the main menu one, but this one needs to be a longer and calmer type optimal for longer mission editing sessions that doesn't take attention away from the primary work, better yet, a different music for each map, so the WW2 maps would have a WW2 themed music that would be awesome, I'll open a wishlist thread later!) Not saying that we should learn from consoles, but we should take a note in general from the fact the rest of the industry woke up about audio so much, and particularly the idea, I think, that the audio community was able to persuade the big industry hardware players to finally do something about the frigging audio, who got that going behind the scenes deserves huge props! But there's a bit of a disconnect from the proper audio hardware for computers and generated audio, it seems like audiphiles come mostly from the music and entertainment and it's like generated audio which is infact totally mixed with music scores and soundtrack from real music art is kinda left out, this is partially to blame the the lazy industry as well as the gaming community for being so cheap and having a low audio standard.

The whole Over-Powered argument is completely unrealistic as such it should never be part of any DCS feedback tho. Unless you either meant it semi-serious, which I think, or used the other context of the term Over-Powered (OP) Over-Powered is a term usually used in game balance and it is associated with that connotation, I would recommend that we should not use it when talking about a single system alone, comparing the real to it's virtual counterpart as a way to gauge simulation realism and provide feedback, especially for DCS because it's a simulator, not a game. There should not ever be any type of official "balance" of DCS as it comes out of the factory. I think this idea of balance should be quickly shot down by ED management that it is an invalid feedback argument so that it doesn't snowball into some thing with the newcomers, who may fall for it, because I've seen GR mention this a few times and that's quite a bit unfortunate that one would even entertain such an idea of trying to raise a balance issue with DCS in terms of reviewing ... (it was something like: "F-14 is going to be OP now with this new missile"). The only place for DCS balance exists solely in the personal rules of server administrators and it's communities through a private relationship to what they believe it's OP and not OP and what airplanes/weapons/system (era level) they're going to play with, that should never have anything to do with the base sim. The only thing provided by the sim developer could be infrastructural and customization to provide the fine tunability of such server rules.

Nah that's a stretch, what about the GCAS recently that went on for months ... what about https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4348546&postcount=8 Things of this nature will never be 100% complete, the point is to not bother expecting we're going to be from A-to-Z with one release, everytime there's a set goal of feasibility/resources/time and as time moves on that goal is put higher, but it's never really finished. Simulation depth can always go deeper and deeper.

Interesting, but weirdly edited video, I thought you were doing this in DCS, but it looks real, but it almost looks as if it's DCS, ... that's not your channel and video, that's one of those mass viral video reuploaders, right.

This is something a normal task manager can do. AFAIK, usually it's alternating, 0 & 1, 2 & 3, 4 & 5, so you would go and disable all even or all odd numbers, but the task manager and the infrastructure should be built to support showing the freaking detailed topology of each CPU in a fully visualized manner, but no, a billion dollar company just can't have that kind of vision, they're busy on updating the icons for their new social features and other nonsense, bleh. You'll have to check that with Process Hacker or similar, how many transcoding threads does OBS use on your system, but I didn't play with OBS for that long or deeply to know if there's some advanced thread options in it, I didn't saw them myself, so it's most likely using up to 8 or more, I think that transcoding doesn't parallel to infinity so they may not be using more than 8 or more than 12 in any case but that's just my opinion right now.

Well I thought I was way off predicting they won't have anything besides the fuel tanks. Then we see I wasn't that far off after all :) Thanks. I was also way off picking my sighting location, I should have moved inward into the city but I picked the wrong farmland to the edge of the city so my pictures are a bit useless but I did see them with binoculars for a while, the sound was obviously the main thing I got out of this, that was cool. There's a video shot from the prop plane which I found interesting and unique and I can't find the source of it to reupload it here, since the commercial site that hosted it is riddled with ad-walls, I downloaded it with one but the video wasn't valid. I might do it later. Oh, the news reported one of the F-16's left the formation early due to "unexpected higher fuel consumption" ... did they forget to fill one external tank to full or what hehehe?

So they were armed ... ??? With AA for self defense I guess, normal procedure ? And the targeing pod? Hah I was way off. https://www.24ur.com/novice/korona/prelet-za-zmago-nad-koronavirusom-425-kmh-nad-vecjimi-mesti-bolnisnicami-in-dso-ji.html

These seem to be spreading ... For me this is very out of the ordinary around here, at least in this particular area, the training grounds are at the other south-western side of the country, and the last time there was a little glimpse of an F-16 in my city was at least more than ten years ago and I don't know whether the other ones were A-10C bit I remember the shape looked like it, that did flew over my house when there was an airshow but I don't remember, perhaps someone knows if US keeps A-10Cs anywhere close here in an Italian base (well if they were used in Balkan wars then I guess they do) ... the last time I heard of F-16s in our airspace is in some aircraft escort/intercept once ago, but then again I'm not at all up to speed of the US air operations around here. https://www.aviano.af.mil/News/Press-Releases/Article/2201184/f-16-fighting-falcons-gratitude-and-solidarity-flyover/ https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/slovenijo-bodo-preleteli-lovci-f-16-in-pilatusi-v-zahvalo-borcem-proti-epidemiji/525675 https://english.sta.si/2770045/flypast-by-fighter-jets-as-thank-you-to-emergency-workers Let's see if I can catch them on my cam and see how many external fuel tanks they'll be having or other interesting things that I don't know about right now that I could look for. Perhaps they will have smoke generators too. I don't know what the forum's opinion on these flights are, I'm mainly taking this as my own aviation thing no matter the background, the mainstream news comments are mixed with "accidential weapon release" to "video taping us from above" but hah I do not expect them having weapons loaded at all , nor a tracking pod, so there's probably no worries there right, and there's one big city even more to the east that got cut out of this plan, perhaps it was a fuel issue, I should look up the numbers a bit on F-16, but since the props are escorting maybe it's their fuel issue.

Draw calls probably increase when you get lower and closer to objects.

Okay then try this: Install the nightly version of Process Hacker - https://processhacker.sourceforge.io/nightly.php Reboot cleanly so that you get rid of all other programs, but reboot into BIOS and preferrably disable HT/SMT for your CPU. Start DCS and get into your test mission until you get into the cockpit pause screen, alt-tab out and start Process Hacker. Click on the private bytes column so that DCS is at the top, double click on the DCS process and in the new dialog window go to the Threads tab. Click on the Start Address column to sort it alphabetically, then multi-select all the threads that have the Start Address begin with "ucrtbase" and "ntdll" and right click and select "Affinity..." and a new dialog will open showing a list of CPU checkboxes, only select the last two or the last 4, leaving at least 2 or more unselected. Now select the main thread, "DCS.exe!" and put it to only CPU0, NOTHING else should be on CPU0, the main thread should have a core all for it self. Now select all the threads that begin with "webrtc", "combase", "gdiplus", "amd", "ati", "nv", "dinput", "ed_sound" or any other name and put them to one CPU, that's not either of the ones you previously chose. If you closed all the other programs down then you don't need to worry about any other process affinity taking CPU0 resources, if it's all off it shouldn't, but make sure to disable anti-virus and close down updaters and the rest. Then click the View tab on the main Process Hacker window and disable "Refresh Automatically", polling all those numbers all the time may cause stutters in DCS (DPC latency), sometimes but I found it inconclusive, depend on version, Process Explorer tends to do it a lot sometimes, sometimes not.

Except I don't think the drama is necessary, on all sides, first we can't expect the sim to ever be 100% accurate in 100% of areas, and they can't expect to be necessairly be able to get it right even if they "looked at all the docs and stuff" (not quoting literally), it's been said so many times it's realism at the point of when things are relased is "up to the level docs/effort/resources allow" so this means there will always be something that we may find that needs improvement later on, and so things keep going, but it's still more realistic as time goes on, this is infact a journey, this is to be expected, the expectations may be unrealistic, it just happens that this touches the buttons because it happens to be a thing that has a big consequence, there's probably so many other unintentional and intentional inaccuracies most of the community doesn't know about and they go through as thin air thinking they're playing the real thing ... do the AoA lights blink at the same exact frequency? But what is an intentional inaccuracy, it's just an area that received less focus/resources/time, most of the time, and perhaps some of those come out a bit lower than it was intended even with the low focus/resource allocation, and the biggest problem of the community here is they whine it up as if it's this big sin has been commited and oh may gawd it's a huge mistake, ahh the drama ... what about all the ground units damage modelling, is that a mistake too, it's just not been focused at, it's that simple, if for me reading and watching youtube videos in general about the this wasn't done that wasn't done, imagine how it must be annoying and demotivational for them. I mean this in general, for every of these "mistakes", if it's a real mistake I don't think why do they need to get in everyone's face admitting it like, it's far easier if you let the time pass and the mistaker comes out himself when it is comfortable, rather than being forced, heck it may happen in a progress report down the line prior to II release. If you guys really believe the nerf was an evil intention that was decided ... like we know it's speedier but we're going to make it slower to piss of the community, then that must be a sabotage! What if it's a typo, that some factor that determines how much airspeed bleeds off in that particular case has an extra zero in there. But I guess you guys may be ahead of me, I do not know the history of this issue, but what is the reasoning behind the perception this is intentional and not a bug, I assume the responses? I rather have this thing discussed well, AND so many other juicy A-10C things like emmmm multiple suites variations mmmmm, than a rushy FM fix.

Thank you very much for your input and time. It does give more worth to something I said myself as a non-pilot as I felt from playing it a few years and comparing with a few videos of it diving, climbing and cornering and it felt to me like the A-10C in DCS was "draggy", well that thread turned out into a huge discussion and is probably the most popular thread I've opened on these forums. I had no proper way of explaining it in detail or anything specific. I know the basics now well, I did lurk around and I did play Lock-On way back in the day, I watched a TON of Air Crash Investigations (not saying that counts here, but overall it should heh) and I never piloted any real plane, not flew with anything except a little sport plane once, so my feeling could aswell be regarded as "beginner luckiness" or a coincidence, I don't want to brag or take credit at all that I was able to see the discrepancy by just a youtube video and my unprofessional DCS experience, it could be true but won't try to prove it myself. Looking back now, as suggested by the people in that thread, I should have done a more detailed explanation and test comparisons more closely resembeling the weight (loadout/fuel) as seen in the videos, and the second thing is I didn't even use any TacView replays and data because the big world in game can make it appear that you move slower than you actually are, and cockpit camera FOV (cockpit zoom) also plays a big factor to that feeling, so there's quite a few factors I didn't count in. But if you say so ... and that's similar of what I felt, then I guess it adds credence, but as I said I don't want to be the one proving that unless I take this issue seriously and have more data/experience/tests behind me. I just listened to the Air Combat Sim podcast where they talked about the A-10C FM and it was again mentioned that it was already explained that the DCS versions can't be exactly the same because of all the usually documentation and classification as well as license limitations, if speed is one of them ... I ask my self why would speed be the issue where all the adversaries probably know all the real numbers already and the whole military community knows it's slow and the biggest issue is the engines, why would we get even slower version, if there's issues in these kind of negotiations I suggest that the negotiation sacrifices something else in turn to get the best and most realistic speed possible, and we just don't have access to some sensor or something else that's touchy, now ... would we give up HMCS for Speed ... ugh that one's really hard.

I wanted to post this 2 days ago but forgot, I may be a bit late but it can still matter: Use a process utility to set the CPU Affinity of the recording process to use only like two cores, or a number that leaves DCS with at least 2 or 3 cores, however you can leave DCS affinity default. If you have SMT/HT enabled you have to figure out which logical processor or processors correspont to a physical core and you have to double the number, so you would get rid of 4 or 6 logical processors off the recording process affinity list. Live x264 compression can spawn up to 8 threads or more depending on the CPU and a multitude of factors that the developers of the recording software set which will fight over CPU time and "steal" resources from DCS. To limit the FPS of DCS, you need to create a text file autoexec.cfg in your DCS profile in Saved Games\DCS\Config folder, with a line: options.graphics.maxfps = 75 I don't know of a 70 hz monitor but I have a 75Hz one currently.

There are other reasons such as: I don't want to overspend on an oversized SATA SSD when I should be saving money on a new PC that has M.2 slots so I can buy the newer NVMe SSDs. Yeah there's PCI-E M.2 expansion cards but ... if I buy that SSD now it'll be kinda old 3 years from now, we'll see.

Two guys replied to the other "official response" thread that was locked and my post was lost because either this forum or my opera browser settings don't recover it when hitting backward, I could recover it from memory by dumping the tab's process but it wasn't that important to waste time on that. I just said that this is normal scrutiny for a product striving to hit the highest marks and it's would be bad if both sides aren't satisfied in the end, it may come with bigger consequences because the main point driving interest for the core community is the incredible attention for detail, but they're far more than just details in the minds of those. The players who are arguing that it's not correct in the game should make sure they really tested on the latest beta version, you guys could make a video with the version number and date/time info clearly displayed to remove any doubts, and then make a comparison between the official value currently and the values you think should be, so you guys mod the game your self and see what it does, but the point is make a proper video for it for even more clarity, and the other thing is, hopefully the developers aren't talking about the internal builds that may have not released yet but are the main one they're working on, hopefully we can figure this out. Just don't jump to conclusios.

That's why I proposed the use of placeholder liveries, replacing the missing livery with a placeholder, but what better way to do this is to basically create a "core default livery" slot or slots, perhaps two or 3 slots maximum, which would be the core-default liveries that are installed with base DCS World core for everyone, and that would be used for the placeholder liveries when the optional liveries aren't installed, so no missing texture. These core-default liveries should go into separate folder structures that are part of the DCS core files to have a good distinction and avoid cleanup/modding confusion. The MP client will notify if user doesn't have livery packs installed that are used by some players in a server but this may be done in-game if users can change liveries without leaving server, otherwise a notification in lobby when connecting would be enough, but then someone could join with a missing liverly later so this just has to be figured out and it's not the big problem. It requires updates to a lot of areas, I thought of it as submodules, and they need their own e-shop pages, in-game and on the site, the patching/update system, the whole system for managing this behind the scenes has to be created, probably even some "API" for 3rd parties to register their picks for the core-defaul liveries and submit optional livery packs, preferrably split into several submodules and not a giant 20 GB one if possible. A a popup of available submodules(liveries in this case, perhaps other assets in future) would show up when a module is being prepared for download (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=272259), with the defaults being to install everything, and then the user can untick as necessary, this way most users will just apply everything and liveries won't be forgotten if there's any fear of that. This is far better than cutting corners on quality, yes Mig-21 bis team will optimize the liveries with it's big update ... but I hope or rather I expect they mean LOSSLESS optimization, without lowering the fidelity, graphics data is going to get bigger and bigger in future with 10 and 12-bit HDR and WCG and sizes are going to get bigger and bigger. This isn't some way to avoid not even trying some liveries and I don't want it every having that effect, but perhaps a person would try a set for a while then replace it with another set and play with those for another while, so I hope this feature doesn't promote "livery lazyness" and the default to install them all is what should help, people who are into liveries won't just forget about them that easily. The prompts in MP shuld be good, because then it could really be silly if everyone's seeing placeholder liveries for months before noticing they didn't had them installed.

Indeed I have to remind myself of the psychological aspect, because even I wasn't looking for the stutters when I just wanted to relax and watch the primary content/story of these videos and I think so do most of the watcher and the makers, but that's normal and that's actually correct, otherwise nobody would enjoy anything in any game/sim/product, so the third option is that they know but they just disable their beta-test sensors aka ignore it, I do exactly the same when I decide I want to have a serious experience flying the campaign missions for example. Nice catches there, this may indeed be more prevalent and I just wasn't looking for them, it would need a few sample videos from each of the youtubers and go frame-by-frame to get an idea how many of them have this bug. It doesn't seem like much but it does matter if those HW configurations have the bug it can mean we can talk more freely around the scope and also more confidence that our results are on point and not some edge cases on our systems.