Worrazen

Well you don't need to literally remove the HDD ... use it for something else :) Yes we talked about it years ago, they made SSD a requirement by official specs a year ago or so ... make sure you guys are reading the official specs I guess.

I figured this was due to JF-17 ground radar usage. ... there's a twist to that, I actually found a workaround and it's the same one I already posted about, but I won't do sloppy TLDRs right now, I'll do a report about it later ... hopefully JF-17 trial doesn't run out as I didn't had plans buying anything yet, but yeah JF-17 is the next pick on my list.

okay so bonus is mostly useless at these times lol, i think it's doing more confusion than helping, it should just be removed then and it looks like that time is coming. I thought if I could snatch JF-17 but nah I'll probably rather wait and pay the supporter-price when my wallet is thicker.

I can't find any way to spend the bonus points. Anyone? EDIT: Coupon Code isn't working I would buy JF-17 but none of the bonuses apply. I don't need it in a hurry so I'll wait until these gets sorted. 10% does not apply, it stays the same at 19% with or without the coupon code.

DCS did some changes to the voice system, also when updating the voice config that is cached in the saved games may also need to be reset (i'm not sure which file it is) because it took me 2 restarts before I heard any audio, without moving to a new fresh profile.

Oh wow that's a rarity, thanks for sharing. Props I guess, can't deny it ... quite surprising tho as Ars Technica is a huge politically-colored Silicon Valley mouthpiece, so my enthusiasm ends quickly after the DCS paragraph :P You can see around they have a weird article almost forgiving/apologizing the COV19 for "bringing us closer to the robot future" ... that's just how obsessed tech-nerds have become.

Unfortunately nothing much you can do, DCS just needs more VRAM unless you manage to put things to low. But still I made this utility which was meant more for performance testing, tho I haven't updated it, most likely may not work for 2.5.6 but you could try because the terrain stuff may haven't changed that significantly since. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3303133/ .... EDIT: that's really not optimal for ordinary user but I did have plan to get into that kind of testing again later, if you ask me or PM I can help with the tool but I don't have plan right now I'm busy with some non-DCS stuff, I'd like to be here doing testing while the free period is going but I just have to take care of some other things i've been delaying. I should really make that program to move files and not delete permanently hah.

Yeah I never talked about this because I have base 1607 from 2016, which doesn't have GameDVR, so I never knew about it existing. You guys probably should turn it off as it's known to be interfeering and causing issues with OBS recorder and probably other places. Oh yeah, you need to check pretty much all settings again if they flipped, updates mess up a lot of things, this is why I run an older 1607 release and never updated ever since, there's no way I'm going to be re-configuring my whole Windows install of hundreds of little tweaks and settings each time, it's a good example to give you an idea why so many people hate microsoft. However it may not flip all of them, I can't speak much because I never did any testing what updates do, usually it flips the unofficial tweaks(registry) and many times other normal options, I keep hearing about that all the time, some big or more obvious settings exposed in the new-style GUI perhaps stay fine.

Check with Latency Mon. https://resplendence.com/latencymon

Seems like there's some extra stuttering, I just installed a few more modules, I love the JF-17 what a great mix of logic and great stuff packed to one smal tiny-enginer ... a fast mission of ground rockets ... I had stutters for like no reason at all and there wasn't much of disk activity either, but this is life, we'll get there eventually :)

I thought my joystick was broken, then 3 months later I figured it's the Wake Turbulence. I turned it off and some time later still happens randomly sometimes, it happens less, only rarely, but still. I'll double check the settings. Talking about the juttery ruder.

If they used RAM before activation it would probably be a bug yes, I haven't thoguht of that one myself previously so I never tested it.

The popup appears only once, after cancel it won't reappear if going to the main menu and back. Perhaps there should be a page of "Available Modules" which one could constantly see and refresh.

Hello It would be cool if this could be possible, to start the DCS updater in seeder mode so that it could assist other installations, this would work great for cases when I have other installs on another LAN computer, not necessairly locally installed. I believe BT tech does have actual code specific to "LAN Seed" detection so it immediately recognized and runs at very fast speeds. However this isn't that simple, if you would like to be a full and equal seeder you would need to host +100GB of torrent files all the time on your PC. This may work for people who would do it just for supporting faster downloads for the community, but it wouldn't work for when I want to ocasionally reinstall or update my DCS on my main PC, but I have another PC with limited space with a couple of DCS installs too, so if you have to download 200GB to become a seeder that breaks the benefit of this idea, it's about speed! What we need is another kind of a seeding method without having to spend time either downloading sources first or generating these torrent files locally, which I'm not sure if it's a good idea because of data integrity, or if the torrent could be made without copy anything just using the in-place files in the install, this would mean some differneces how it is downloaded by the and perhaps these seeders in this mode would be incompatible with the normal seeders to the receiver, so this may be the limitation of only being able to do one type at the time or risk downloading too much redundant copies. We need more seed-only modes then: Seed-only Mode 1: Full seeder (mirror) supporting the community and relieving main server strain. (latest versions only?) Seed-only Mode 2: Existing-install seeder (simple version = LAN only and limited to 1 seeder per receiver) For mode 2 there would need to be some kind of handshake between the peers to establish what does one need and what does other have, it gets more complicated with more as the receiver would need to figure out how to spread the requests among the seeders and tell them to give it only that and then hopefully all of them provide it reasonably fast, if one of them can't keep the speed up and is the last one still seeding while other's have done their parts, there could be a way to automatically or manually drop it and tell another best guess seeder with same data available to try seeding and hope for a better speed. If you need big chunks they could all cooperate for exactly the same module with exactly the same version, it's just that you can't just put one torrent file for the whole install because of the differences in installs in terms of module combinations and so much more, and what about all the mods, so the drive to put mods into the SavedGames dir is ineed better, ... but that actually, if someone has a ton of mods, wouldn't that hog up the system drive. Maybe I'm making it harder by speculating about what kind of way would this work, perhaps there's a simpler way that's not obvious to me ... I admit I just enjoy this thought-digging on purpose, I hope it's not going on anyone's nerves haha.

Oh, heh, don't worry, with those extra 4 cores you can probably record good video in DCS without any impact on FPS, which is also useful for perf testing, all you would need to do is to set the recorder's process affinity to use only 4 Cores so that it doesn't spill over to the rest of them, because recording can be highly multi-threaded and will try to use all the cores. I was doing some testing recently and I couldn't do a demo in a video because the CPU cost of the recording would have skewed the test results. That's because there so much drama with the perf stuff, it would take attention away from the game it self and all the releases if we talked so much about it. Once I got myself deeper into the performance diagnosis tools, I started focusing on actual helpful bug reports instead of just talking about it. Infact you did something I couldn't, I still have at least a year or two before a new PC ... infact your machine may be useful for example if I have a test to do I can do all the heavy lifting myself and then just send you the track or instructions for you to film it on a beefier CPU, that's where those 8 cores would come in very handy. But ... just in case, are those really 8 physical cores, those aren't HT/SMT threads right ????

Sure, this is what I kinda said, but I guess I didn't explain enough here. Cores: 1 Base 2 Significant Improvement 3 Well Deserved Improvement 4 Worthy Improvement 5+ Insignificant improvement So if you had a 4 core CPU and you went to 8, you're not going to see much improvement indeed. And we also got a note from the horses mouth that this is an unfortunate area, it's just not possible or extremely hard to parallelize something that's just can't be, some things will remain serial forever and this is just the laws of physics, the laws of the universe. And as a simulator, at least in it's current state, DCS relies on many things that are serial in nature and will remain so. Perhaps in the future it may be 60% parallel and 40% serial or it'll just but I, I think it's like ... 80% serial and 20% parallel now (very rough and quick numbers) ... you might get down to 30% of the game's stuff being serial way down the line ... but even that could be a stretch, it will never be 100% parallel. The best thing you can do is to write messages, emails, telegrams, physical letters or whatever directly to AMD and Intel and complain about their (almost "criminal") decade long stalemate in terms of single-thread performance.

Ah I knew it's not going to be that easy ...

That's an old and very rough and is not true anymore, it's better now. A quad core should be worth it. Not necessairly, many components that game's rely or happen to use on are performed using windows kernel, particularly graphics and file/disk I/O so there would be some activity by the "System" process, but is infact the sim triggering it, you can see that in the Threads view in my posts. Spreading the work of a single thread does not do anything good for any performance improvement, what you see there is a single thread most likely, it's a bit of a long story, you may check out my older posts, by normal design there is a thing called "IDEAL CPU" where threads would pick a favourite CPU they usually like to work on when they're busy, then there's thread's CPU Core priority which also affects which core's they're going to try to stay with. If those were multiple-threads then they would have been (most likely by mistake) pushed onto CORE 7 on manually, by default the Affinity and Priority is balanced. The Per-Core CPU graph view the kind of basic one we have in Task Manager is prone to misunderstanding, you can't see any thread behavior there, it's all mish-mash, it only serves one specific purpose and trying to speculate about the threads is not recommended, I made the same mistakes in the past. So the spikes you see there, those are single threads mostly and while DCS overall still depends on the main thread most of the time, it's not that bad as it looks. Other games use more threads yes ... but still, how can you be sure those aren't 4 threads jumping around being "load balanced" In the end it's true that there is room for improvement big time in DCS, and we may see something a bit similar, but this is much more sophisticated, the games you're comparing to aren't simulators, the workload depends hugely on the activity you're doing in the game, you'll see huge differences depending on what you're viewing with the camera (FPS increase also increases CPU, which is kinda weird, it's the next thing I'm looking into), simulators depend a lot on the type of calculations that can't be multi-threaded, you'll always have a bottleneck, but it may be much higher up, let's say we might do giant battles up to 100 S-300 missile batteries, after which you'll be botlenecking one of the threads responsible part of S-300 workload, for example missile guidance/tracking, FOR example, I'm not really sure now if that's really a single-threaded type of thing or not but you get the idea. What is possible perhaps, as I speculated earlier, is to split each missile guidance/tracking into it's own thread, that's the kind of multi-core improvements DCS could get into, splitting(parallelizing) what's splittable (paralellizable). It could be even better if each unit group could have it's radar split as well, but because missile tracking requires the radar data I'm not sure how that would be possible from my very limited knowledge. Well, the radar thread could output it's results on it's own speed, and the missile tracking thread would just read the results on it's own and perhaps those two threads may not even need to talk directly or be dependent on each other, IDK, just a bit of food for thought. --------- Windows 10 2004 updates the Task Manager in some ways, but it's a bit of a joke, they grouped all HDDs together to show a single activity graph !?! I hope it can be ungrouped otherwise it's a step backward in every single troubleshooting case IMO. They should have introduced a "Per-Thread CPU Acitvity Graph" or upgrading the "Per-Core CPU Activity Graph" with some thread info, for example separate graph lines/colors for top 5 threads. Yeah, and Vulkan is quite some time away, it's not just an upgrade, it's an industry transition.

Yeah I'm not a car guy. Yes, that's valid ofcourse, I even said that myself in another thread some time ago I think. Yeah, It's different developers from over the years, and ofcourse team separation, it's just normal, all games have things like this, let me remind myself this is a wishlist thread, it's not the end of the world here. It just takes a look every now and then to normalize it together. That's where the helper comes in as we're in a simulated environment, just like the helpers other people want about INS alignment and some kneeboard marker stuff or whatever it was I forgot exactly sorry. So yeah I am actually agreeing that this would infact possibly break official manuals, it's just a question if that's okay with the devs and everyone involved. If the controls system is upgraded not just in terms of GUI but under-the-hood to allow all kinds of tricks we could even have multiple labels for the same control, or combinations, prefixes, suffixes, then you could sort the order by suffix or prefix too. Anything in this area is going to greately benefit the newcomers and as I said in the OP post that if a newcomer gets super bored in the 30 minutes of training missions not by the game, but by the controls, that's very unfortunate and need to do something about it. Example: I'd really like to see the Apply button on the controls options, because hitting OK is the only way to confirm but it unpauses the game immediately. Or modifying what the OK button does, to return to the main pause menu. We can do that, but what about someone who's on-the-fence and wants to get in but hits a wall on a few thing, one of them being controls, those people will eventually set up the controls, I just want to prevent cases where you'd spend 15 minutes on a single control or getting dizzy by all the alt-tabbing. Besides minimizing DCS never worked right at all anyway, the windows is glued on-top of all other windows all the time, at least that's what I experienced on both Win7 and Win10 on the same machine. Kinda ... but I never meant this as a replacement to reading the manual, even tho the thread title is too direct, I had to keep it short, to everyone: DO NOT take the thread title literally, we don't have to normalize everything to be exactly like FC3 planes ofcourse not. There's a ton of controls I have no problems with, it's actually Alt-Tabbing I got fed up with at one point and printed out all of the A-10C HOTAS controls from the manual onto three A4 pieces of paper. I have another bit to the "upgraded controls settings" idea ... what about some kind of system where the 3rd-party could "subscribe"(decide) to use the provided base game controls and labels and assing their things there, and these "base DCS controls" would have their own category called "Basic Flight Controls" only meant as a demo for free flight. Gears Flaps Throttle Ruder Pitch Roll Trim Air Brake ..? They could be colored differently (slightly, background tint) which as I've seen this being used on some other controls now in recent versions. But look guys, the whole thing about setting more than playing, talking more than playing, I don't really mind that myself, I enjoy this stuff and I would enjoy modding too where you have others giving so much effort into that which I haven't explored at all yet, it's just that these cosmetic things are kinda seen as a waste of time but this is what gives the community the strenght, that there's no corner left neglected and that there's someone out there that takes care of even the unpopular things (in this case brings it into attention), and again I had this on my mind for like 2 years, so it's not like it's based on one sole experience from yesterday or whatever. I'd wish I could do more popular things, like modding, liveries, I did only a bit, there's one livery and one testing utility, I have a bunch of stuff that wasn't mean for release so that's all, I use the same nickname on the main website if anyone wants to check it out.

Yes, gamers should care about the game, at least keep the complaints about the game to the game, report bugs, make sensible and realistic wishlist, talk more quality than quantity, we don't need to become NEOGAF where everyone's a homemade expert on company stocks. (even tho I had some "epic" fun times there haha) I was also guilty of this back when I was a teenager, for a year or two ... until I figured out how many hours I wasted on being an unpaid analyst for Nintendo.:lol:

This is the self-funded give-me-only-what-we-want kinda open-source and crowd-funding kinda hybrid model, the biggest and closest attempt at this I think was tried with Star Citizen, it didn't work out so perfectly, the developers just had their own ideas over the pledgers and as time and development progressed the original idea had morphed significantly, I believe, even tho most of the communy just kept adapting. I was never against it really, I didn't really think anything, I was just spectating it normally, I never pledged and was never interested in this classic dude-bro humans-in-da-future kind of game, it's not really how it has to be, it's just one particular culture that thinks like that is the future (the architecture, the transporation, AI) ... then I've read all the lawsuits and read most of the new stories, Roberts Space Industries seems shady IMO. There's been much controversy around it but the main guy there (Robert) has this kind of a culture there that he is considered as a god-like father figure similar to Elon Musk with many fanboys that can never question his ultimate wisdom. The biggest shady thing is predatory and dirty changes of the agreement to avoid refunds and using all kinds of lega loopholes to get away with it, even tho the other party never agreed to a newer version of the agreement. Not saying it couldn't work ... but it wouldn't work here, without pretty much destroying the team. It could only work if you make a new company and start with some completely new game from scratch and do it from the beginning, with developers being emotionally isolated from any of the contact, or the final goal they're working for at all, everything would be subcontract work, piece by piece, no creative input, model, texture, code, there wouldn't be any team behind it as they perhaps wouldn't know each other unless there's multiple people producing one of the materials/components/models, they would have to fix and do everything exactly according to specification no questions asked, all a custom order, that's probably what you would need to do to get exactly "what you want" ... in general custom orders, if a company even offers it, usually come at a premium price, so this model is all about money and premium money. Infact this is how open-source kinda works even now, but with a big difference, it's driven by personal motivation and effort, devotion, emotional meaning, whereas this proposed model would be driven solely by finance (as it's a kind of a"custom order"), but there's one thing left, people that would do this kind of emotionless job, the reason why it's not popular is probably this, but then again I could be wrong, perhaps it's just tradition, perhaps the idea isn't popularized, this traditional model is certainly more human and we're still human not robot, right? This place has a lot of emotional and personal factors so it just won't happen here, at least that's what I've read, the legacy around is built from real passion to fly.

The F10 map can have a lot of draw calls, it saturates the CPU and so can't the GPU do more work because of the CPU babysitting thing. Secondly, because DX11 API has notoriously botched multi-threading support, the whole thing is single-threaded still and nothing DCS can do about it, plus Draw Calls thems selfs just cost a lot of CPU. It could be some off bug and it may be optimized, but for major improvement you'll have to wait for the new graphics engine based on Vulkan API (or get a better CPU in terms of single-thread performnace, that's impossible as there is none significantly better on the market in that field)

I don't understand some of these responses, I'm not for completely changing anything unless you got a better solution altogether, they started the consistency in the first place, in FC3 in particular, I'm just pointing out the individual cases where there's just obvious that the label is standing out and not following the other consistent cases, why not do it all the way if you're at it at all. Either you are consistent or you're completely different, I just don't like to be somewhere in the middle where you can't tell if it's one way or the other. We had similar dicussions about "helpers" vs "cheats" ... I was more on the "cheat" side there, while others wanted "helpers", artificial things in the sim that aren't realistic, and wouldn't consider them cheats, there were far more people on the "helper" side, they don't have the time to sit 5 hours a day when it comes to some of the time consuming tasks so I completely understand, but if so many people were pro-helper why are then so many against this, this is clearly one of such helpers is it not, and it's not even poking into the gameplay whatsoever. I know making some cases hold is hard, so yes, these are propositions to discuss not conclusions. I know comparions with non-aircraft may not be valid but picture this, a Hand Brake in a car ... whatever the Official Manual calls it, do we ever hear anyone call it anything else, an instructor, the TV presenter, a passenger ... for example when you drive a Ferrari the instructor would tell you to "pull the Speed Lever", when you drive a Mazda he would tell you to "extend the Brake Handle", when you drive a Mercedes he would tell you to "pull back the HND BRK stick" ... can we agree that something like this and similar would never happen? There's already things like "Special for Joystick" so there's some helpers out there already, so that's cool.

^^ Process Lasso does not support per-thread CPU affinity selection the last time I checked, which was a week ago. To my knowledge so far only Process Hacker can do it. I literally made this thread the "moment" I found about it so I didn't spend any time looking for any other utility, (as you may or may not know I've been posting about performance here for quite some time but without any such experience prior so DCS was my learning test-bed for all of this, which means some old posts are probably wrong and obsolete, I kept going and correcting things as time passed. I've eventually dug in deeply to figure out quite a bit and then I figured in order to attempt certain tests one must be able to have per-thread CPU affinity control, which I kept "searching" for many months, until now, and this is my first report with the help of that feature.) You can't attempt this trick with only per-process CPU affinity, it only emulated how many CPUs the whole process and all of it's threada can use, kinda as if you installed a diffrent CPU. You were seeing correct results, 3 cores are indeed better than 2. This report was still rushy a bit, I'll organize myself next time and I'm probably going to get another SSD so I can have both Release and OpenBeta installed at the same time and other things, I have already figured I need a good template in photoshop in which key details to explain the context of a screenshot are pre-entered and then I can just paste in the appropriate ones, because this can get time consuming and complicated once there's a lot of test cases to compare with, keeping things sync in one's mind can take effort heh, if it's not well documented I also started thinking about a hardware caputure device, but I don't expect price to be easy ... because there's no video to see the difference here, I can't make it with SW because it would modify the behavior and render the video invalid, taking screenshots is much better but still leaves those drop-spikes which can easily get confused with if one forgets about it just for a moment. Sent from my phone SM-G900F

ˆˆ From all the ucrtbase threads, only like 5 or so are usually active when traversing terrain or moving the F10 maps, is what I saw later on but I wrapped up shortly after. I didn't actually plan to do this but I just had to stay with DCS to get the most out of the trials and getting some bug reports in. Maybe with a 12 or more core CPU this may just work and a workaround wouldn't be needed, but what if the game spawns even more I/O threads haha, DCS simply needs to detect amount of cores properly, whether HT/SMT is enabled and adjust amount of I/O threads if that's possible, however it is designed, perhaps not all threads produce the same type of work. Whatever the threads are, streaming textures should never interrupt execution, that is the whole point of streaming, that you can continue while things gradually come in It's clearly not suttering because of draw-calls and driver and API overhead if that were the case the sutters would be everywhere all the time, but it's like more specific and random-seeming sometimes (that's because the loaded radius area moves with the camera 360 degrees, don't need to look at something directly to trigger things behind scenes) Sent from my phone SM-G900F