Worrazen

I knew I wasn't going to get away with it so easily ... ;) The comparison between A-10C and F/A-18C may still be a stretch in some ways, but still HOTAS is HOTAS. Yeah, I forgot to mention the biggest argument, that with the TDC not being abbreviated in the Controls doesn't go against of it's E-A manual, so I was kinda stemming from that argument mainly but I expanded it as I thought about this overall with all the other stuff. Then again, do real companies and armies have a Control Settings page? Do they have space concerns, well it's them which coined these abbreviations anyway, the F/A-18C manual it self uses the TDC abbreviation so it's not like I'm making things up by saying "Fuel Dump" should be called "FD". So they also ofcourse on the A-10C have the long versions of TMS and DMS so it's probably just ED that happen to use the short version of the Controls page to save on horizontal space perhaps, or it was just random, I'd say from the manufacturers point of view both are correct. I'm not saying it has to be only abbreviated, perhaps both, but it would be kinda long, but our monitors are bigger these days too: HOTAS TDC (Throttle Designator Controller) - Left HOTAS Throttle Designator Controller (TDC) - Left At least the inhouse modules perhaps, I thought about the 3rd-parties, can't just force them, but who says rules for 3rd-parties can't change, if it's determined Control Settings/Options are important enough across the whole community then it may be some rules for them too. But this is a serious thing, it's part of programming placeholders, you don't want some quickly made up placeholder to use it in a final product right, I think a few instances reminded me of that but I forgot which ones. EDIT: Update, I added the paragraph about the unabbreviated "Sensor Control Switch" to the main post.

For example with US aicraft that share some of the common tech like HOTAS, there should be a normalization in the control names/labels we see in the DCS Control Options across the airplanes that share that tech or similar functionality. I think the Control Options should be renamed to Control Settings, the term options in my ( non-english) ear sounds more like something that you choose that is a ON/OFF switch like the Graphics Options (but it's called just "Options > System" in DCS) On the ESCAPE menu we got used to "Adjust Controls" but I kinda miss it sometimes even to this day when I'm in a hurry, I always misclick to "Options", so I think the label there could be "Control Settings" as well as on it's page. But I need english-ear people to give me their opinion if this makes sense. ------------- ------------- Okay back to the point. Now I'm not sure what's the right term for this, it's not about changing the actual term away from what the manufacturers used but in terms of label feeling consistency, labeling format, naming style, abbreviation/prefix/dash rules, but for example: Fuel Dump Dump Fuel Fuel offload Offload Fuel Drop Fuel Fuel Drop Empty The Tanks Tank Emptying System Purge Fuel Tanks Fuel Emptying Pump You get the point, let's pick the best format/style and stick with it unless there's a valid difference in the function/feature behind it. The other thing is simply abbreviation and word ordering, so all of these rules would combine and make something that makes sense for DCS because we use multiple planes unlike the pilots which train for only like 1 or maybe two military planes in their career as far as I know, they don't have that problem. There's also this with the unit selector inconsistency. A-10C Game A-10C Real F/A-18C Game F/A-18C Sim For example in A-10C you have "HOTAS TMS Aft", but on F-18C there's no "HOTAS TDC - Up" because it uses no HOTAS prefix and it uses the long name "Throttle Designator Controller - Up", and on the A-10C there is no hypen/dash/minus between "TMS/DMS/CMS" and "Aft". The question is how much this has to be by the book of the official aircraft manual, or how much can we standardize it for DCS, I think it shouldn't poke on the reality aspect that much when it comes to HOTAS and other quite standardized systems like that where that same system should have similar or same labels even if on another aircraft, IMO. Ofcourse where applicable and where the functions are similar enough. And it doesn't have to all be like A-10C is now, pros and cons could be analyzed and the best of both worlds used, and other aircraft too, the dashes between "Throttle Designator Controller" and "Down" make sense and should be incorporated in "HOTAS TMS Aft" as well and the rest of the airplanes. And I do know TDC isn't equivalent to TMS, but rather to the A-10C Slew and many A-10C switches aren't abbreviated too, they would make sense if they were, or in other words, more complicated and harder to remember. The A-10C company just didn't have any special for what F/A-18C calls the TDC and just called it plainly "Slew", if that label is by-the-book, but isn't it really doing same or very similar kind of HOTAS style function. That's to be debated but I hope we get some favorable results, if possible by the manual/accuracy rules. A side note is the SOI, Sensor Of Interest, the equivalent in F-18C is "TDC assigned to the ? Sensor", kinda the other way around, if the E-A manual is correct about all this, in the end it's just different ways of doing the same thing IMO controlling the selected/assigned/interested sensor. ------------------ Then there's the "Sensor Control Switch" - and it happens to never be abbreviated to "SCS" in the F/A-18C Early Access manual, unfortunately, hopefully it is by the manufacturer somewhere and it'll make it in the final manual, otherwise it puts ED into dilemma whether to stick strictly by-the-book or not. Even tho the "Sensor Control Switch" is an equivalent HOTAS thing to the TDC and is also capitalized, and there's instances where it's uncapitalized but I think that is most definitely an E-A thing, in the A-10C manual as a comparison of a full module, SOI is never uncapitalized, you will never see "sensor of interest" but rather "Sensor Of Interest (SOI)" Perhaps such things were there are dillemas sorrounding sim reality accuracy and what makes sense in DCS and for an digital version may actual aviation field, or even ex-employees, to kinda add some credibility of sense to the mix, but this would be pretty funny to ask them about a label, but still, it's simming about getting the details right. So if we would get for example an ex-F/A-18 engineer in contact and ask him why they didn't abbreviate the "Sensor Control Switch" perhaps he has a favorable answer of "yeah good point we forgot about that" and that would give some extra credibility that would make it less guilty to go "over-the-book" on this one. ------------------ Things are fairly standardized across FC3 planes, with additions or omissions wherever needed, there may be a few cases with inconsistencies but I won't go over FC3 planes right now, since I'm really focusing on A-10C and getting some deeper skills I haven't got before, plus the F-18C on the side. If there's a Shkval system on a unit, it should have the same name in the controls. I do not have the Ka-50 that I heard apparently also has the Shkval. For example: Shkval Shkval TV TV Display TV Display Electro Optical Sensor Optical TV Display Display Sensor :joystick: Also what about grouping things with prefixes that are part of the same sensor, for Su-25T there's lot's of things on the sensors category that are part of the shkval, I think it should be prefixed better. SHKVAL Display Zoom - In SHKVAL Display Zoom - Out SHKVAL EO System On/Off SHKVAL Target Designator - Left SHKVAL Target Designator - Right etc Perhaps there could be subcategories, but that would just complicate things and perhaps require newer user control profile format, not sure tho, perhaps it works in a way to allow such expansion. I've thought about it for some time but admitted it wasn't that important so I focused on other things but I did it now after I was plesantly surprised with the recent GUI updates for the Controls which are indeed a big deal and we spend a quite a lot of time in that screen. Making sure the Control Settings are as welcome and pleasant to setup is quite important because it can be the biggest hurdle of a new player IMO and a bad experience may throw them off right there.

Update: Same thing with F-18C Launching from Carrier It went on for 8 more minutes despite me pressing F1 and trying to get away or out of F2 view in the first minute. (I went AFK after that) Accidentially screenshotting with MSI Afterburner made it to the F1 view and stopped the "freeze". Update: I managed to do it with the F/A-18C but it takes a precise spot and gunfire onto the ocean, it only did it once and it was frozen for 5 seconds or so. The F/A-18C bullets don't make that big of a splash.

Ah, it's semantics, it still counts, it just fixes the problem in another way altogether, from a bigger point of view. That doesn't mean that little fixes shouldn't be made, if at all possible to be done in a better way then it's still kinda wasteful to draw the grids and other things in F10 AWACS View with so many draw calls, but I'm not concluding anything, I would have just thought a static grid wouldn't need that much to bog down the CPU like that, perhaps it's necessary due to scalable vectors and not being static texture.

The drone thing is a shady shady topic, it has a lot of corporate interest, law enforcement, intelligence and surveillance. And FFA after the 737 MAX thing doesn't look so good either. The whole thing around 737 MAX being still out of action and planned to be up only after summer 2020 and going through so much testing as slowly as possible is, aviation experts agree, an FFA trick to restore it's image, of how to-the-book and strict they have to be; that they partially lost due to Boeing's influence.

Oh that's why the link leads to the same thread there. Perhaps the forum should have some indicator that a post was merged or some kind of note somewhere.

Maybe there'll be a brand new mission file format with the new Mission Editor update. Also I'm not fond of extension-less filenames :P Even tho it's just a label, I went "yuck" when I first saw that on linux, never liked it ever since.

Oh, I bought it long ago, but it's all fine account wise, the shop button doesn't reflect that I already bought it, but it does say I already have the serial yes, I checked out the manager ingame and I guess it's because the A-10C and FC3 still use a serial so it's a different indication on the e-shop, unlike the others. Nevermind now, it's not a big deal.

Update: Try firing the Gun with a sizable spray 5-6 thousand feet before impact into the water, and crash into the splash created by the gun rounds, if you didn't try that. Update 2: I can repeat it. Seems like it's a GPU thing? Right, it doesn't happen if I don't shoot at the water first, oh I should have put that on the video too.

Seems like it's similar to the thread I'm writing about, 7 PM right now, maybe i'll finish it tonight, midnight ... hopefully earlier. Thing is, the thing I'm working on, we can't solve it our selfs I'm afraid, unless some trick is found but that's pointless it's easier/faster for an official remedy.

yes, not that much tho, most noticable is startup to main menu.

Yes it didn't happen to me all the time either, I forgot to mention that. Oh and the track file ofcourse: DCSTempFreeze_A10NosediveOceanCollisionESCKeyPress_256OB_25Feb2020.trk

The freeze lasted over 2 minutes. 2020-02-25 10:26:57.375 INFO WORLDGENERAL: loaded from mission Scripts/World/birds.lua 2020-02-25 10:26:57.375 INFO DCS: dbox not found , skip 2020-02-25 10:26:57.423 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41: surface5 gc() LOD 0 0 squares 2020-02-25 10:26:57.423 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41: surface5 gc() LOD 1 0 squares 2020-02-25 10:26:57.423 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41: surface5 gc() 0.053888 ms 2020-02-25 10:26:57.495 INFO VISUALIZER: Preload() camera=-300694.331877, 7998.859772, 527736.939375 radius=150000.000000 2020-02-25 10:26:57.495 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41: ITerrainGraphicsImpl4::forceLoading(): pos=(-300694, 7998.86, 527737), radius=150000 2020-02-25 10:26:57.722 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41: surface5 clean up LOD 0: left 1 released 0 2020-02-25 10:26:57.722 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41: surface5 clean up LOD 1: left 1 released 0 2020-02-25 10:26:57.722 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41: surface5 clean up 0.057595 ms 2020-02-25 10:27:01.780 INFO VISUALIZER: Preload() finished 2020-02-25 10:27:01.794 INFO DCS: Screen: mission_offline 2020-02-25 10:27:01.794 INFO Dispatcher: precache units resources in slots 2020-02-25 10:27:01.867 INFO Lua: Lua CPU usage: metric: average mission loading: 22.6778 % 2020-02-25 10:27:01.867 INFO Dispatcher: loadMission Done: Сontrol passed to the player 2020-02-25 10:27:01.899 INFO GRAPHICSVISTA: Creating Resource "Unicode" of type 1 2020-02-25 10:30:28.365 INFO Lua: Lua CPU usage: metric: average mission execution: 0.2889 % 2020-02-25 10:30:28.365 INFO Lua: Lua CPU usage: metric: average mission execution: 10.6707 % 2020-02-25 10:30:28.366 INFO Lua: Lua CPU usage: metric: average mission execution: 10.1911 % 2020-02-25 10:30:28.404 INFO Lua: Lua CPU usage: metric: average mission execution: 99.2485 % 2020-02-25 10:30:28.404 INFO Lua: Lua CPU usage: metric: average mission execution: 10.3550 % 2020-02-25 10:30:36.611 INFO Dispatcher: Stop 2020-02-25 10:30:36.907 INFO Config: netview stopped 2020-02-25 10:30:36.922 INFO TERRAIN: lSystem::CleanScenes() 2020-02-25 10:30:36.926 INFO VISUALIZER: StopSimulation 2020-02-25 10:30:36.926 INFO VISUALIZER: Stopped collection of statistic. 2020-02-25 10:30:37.051 INFO EDCORE: (dDispatcher)enterToState_:3 2020-02-25 10:30:54.929 INFO DCS: Screen: Mission 2020-02-25 10:30:56.144 INFO DCS: Screen: MainMenu 2020-02-25 12:16:53.303 INFO INPUT: Device [TrackIR] created deviceId = -1 2020-02-25 12:43:28.062 INFO DCS: Screen: Settings 2020-02-25 12:43:35.838 INFO DCS: Screen: MainMenu It happened between somewhere between 10:26:20 and 10:31:30 which is the time of the last write/change of the original recording that is 5:10 minutes long, youtube version is shortened, then the freeze in the video happened 1:52 minutes into it, so that puts the freeze starting at 10:28:12 lasting to 10:30:30, that is 2:18 minutes.

Yep, writing about it, at least one aspect of it, not necessairly the thing behind all the performance issues, trying to finish it for 3 days but just keeps on going I don't want to half-ass it, made a little mistake in screenshots and I have to redo some parts completely, but I'm not fond of TLDRs either so nope :p

Oh yes yes, I forgot to add, not so fast, it just didn't crash, but if there's any bugs that I cannot guarantee, the debriefing info in the end may not be correct, I do not know. I have seen replays do things I never did myself first hand before, but it was 1-2 years ago, things may have improved now. The thing is, it was a fluke really, I probably spoke too soon, good thing that the actions file is not actually CPU instructions as we might have assumed, it doesn't have recognizable ASM code, so it's a lot more simpler, but happens to be in hex aka binary. The track file is a "PK.." file, it's a renamed ZIP. There seems to be a lot more metadata to a track needed such as options, the mission it self, and other things that are packed into a zipped track package, the modifications I was doing pertain to the extensionless binary "action" file you find inside. Yes this is what I was thinkering over with the header about this continuity concern. If there's some kind of an intitalization procedure that should also be moved along to the later position for example. But it keeps changing, headers usually don't change for a given format, it maybe is just lack of data in the beginning, it could break the debriefing or desync it. Thinking debrief info is probably not in the action file but it has a direct relation, and I don't see any debried files in the TRK elsewhere so it must be inside there IMO. For the EOF bit, I don't even know if that's a real EOF (end of file signature) I'll try more combinations and even tihngs like just deleting what I think is the EOF, and seeing what happens. I was not sure it would work because of the different patterns toward the end, then I figured, well those may just be actions when you stop controlling and press ESC and quit game. ----------- ----------- UPDATE1: Yep, I was right about the EOF bit: Without it the sim crashes to desktop without any error message during the loading of the map. 2020-02-25 10:14:47.951 ALERT DCS: Unhandled exception: Unexpected end of track fiber track/action UPDATE2: What I'm hoping for is that it just teleports you to the next location ... if the middle is missing, but I'm trying to make it so to avoid that and start right from the middle. We'll see how it goes, but something else just came by, I have another bug report to fill out and the other stuff, so I'll get back to this a bit later today.

I have successfully shortened the ending of a test track, repeatable, no crash, however trying to shorten the beginning may be a different story because what looks like to be the header keeps changing and the patterns are a bit trickier there. Too late today, report tomorrow. Please send your track.

The feature has to be built into the API in the first place. I don't know why why the API demands all over the place. Is there an explanation thread?

You may be able to do that manually and unofficially, I'm looking into it, it appears if I move the ending ... err header because you want the the ending, but it's going to take some time figuring out how long the header is in HEX exactly, and then to do some tests to see how much filesize does one minute take and that can be quite a big trial and error to hit your 3 minute mark, because it depends how many buttons/actions you press/do, I can only simulate it roughly/average but it's probably easier and faster to just eye-ball it, and then to test it, standby. EDIT: Heh, oops, if the subsequent actions depend on the previous ones ... it wouldn't make sense, but I don't know, I'm going to try it anyway.

Waaah! I thought about exactly that yesterday. If the Super AI RTS Dynamic Campaign will have some kind of infrastructure layer to it as well, not just cargo transportation and management. But not that much infrastructure, just electricity, radio towers, "repair shops" (sounds too gamerish but I don't know what level of depth they're aiming so I don't want to set expectations too high with only speculation), stuff like that ... the most obvious thing are the trains, to use the train system as an alternate and sneak way to transport cargo and possibly even ground troops.

Still writing the big post about my finding, it's not that special it was in front of our noses all the time tho so anyone could have figured it out, it has to become a new thread as it stands on it's own for other cases not just this one, I'll post the link here but it's going to be in the same forum section. I'll give you guys a hint: it's a plot twist ;)

FC3 page on the eshop tells me to BUY it, not BOUGHT. But it does say "You already have a serial number for this product" ... probably some stuff because a switch to the new DRM system was made for this module recently.

I'm usually more silent when my favourite stuff happens, but I think I should voice the thanks otherwise it could send a wrong message of talking about it then "forgetting about it". No, why did it took me over a week to say thanks, because I wanted to pay a visit to my good old friend C&C Generals Zero Hour with a video of the King Scud Launcher, which was a my little fun modded version from way back in 2009 as I was heavily involved in modding Gen ZH in general. It was a game that introduced to me to many of the aircraft, in a very basic way ofcourse, but little things can grow big, in a larger interest that I ever had before at the time, this is where the root of my interest in DCS probably comes from, it was being formed for over a decade, at least Gen ZH contributed heavily. I was scouring through my +10TBs of archives to find the files for this old mod, I didn't had the original game installed/setup on Win10 (since DCS grabbed the SSD after my broken SATA 3Gbps ports corrupted my Win7). So there it is, it's finally going to look better out there, and right here with DCS :) Something for us look at while we wait haha. Just as the scud launcher operator says himself: I've been waiting for this! 0:57

Hold your horses guys, if the info was posted here, that would make attraction here, so they place the magnet there where the nails are. Besides, the info is an explanation to those who just don't know basics of game building and running business, which you probably do. They came from those cheap online "be a tank engineer", "pilot your ship" games that have exploded in popularity on PCs, I think they're mostly children, and the modern children are filled with all sorts of toxic culture these days, not to mention gorging on unhealthy food and sugar, so in a way it's not really surprising, I just hope they can learn and grow up. Sugar and bad carbs is just a killer, the amounts that are marketed to children and young adults are insane, and all the drinks, it's all sugar, half of the supermarkets when you first enter are filled with bazillion of chocolates and snacks from grains, probably the biggest irresponsible thing ever from grocers, but I think it's adults of those children that don't know the danger and it's all wrapped under this sweet and cute cultural thing as if it's some award, well if it was healthy it be fine. This is a huge hidden health crisis far far bigger than any of the infections or other recognized diseases, because this all leads to that, you wouldn't even get infected (that much) if your health was top notch IMO, that's why you have youth acting erratic and agressive, because the sugars are irritating the gut lining and causing changes in gut bacteria which are not healthy, those bacteria which are good but malfunctioning produce wrong substances and coupled with other effects of sugar makes the person impatient and easily irritable especially once you are on this diet for a long time, sugar is only energy and nothing else, it has no anti-viral, anti-microbial or anti-oxidant property, and it's the primary fuel for all the bad actors. If you're sick in winter, the last thing you would do is put sugar in tea, and if you put lemon juice in hot tea you destroy all the vitamin C because it's temperature intolerant, even on room temp it will lose it's potency, leaving it out in air will oxidize it quickly and it's gone. I'm well recovering from a condition in which you cannot resist to eat sugary foods and other stuff, so I know this stuff first hand, but I won't go into it right now because it's such a huge can of worms in terms of details that can't easily be summarized. (It's not that special, millions of people suffer by it borderline without even knowing, I can over PM if someone is in serious need of some tips that you can research your self but it would take a long time, and you'd have to know what to look for in the first place, but ofcourse in an objective fashion leaving personal stuff out). But most of this stuff is outside of DCS and the devs, they can do is to provide understanding on why some thing are like how they are, I said in a few threads back, I agree with the fast module development, before the Core Upgrades come, because it's something to be busy about, I explained how much there is and we shouldn't feel that we don't have enough to do, the modules are finishing and some others are developing, I even proposed to put a brake on releasing modules for a while to let this digest, or at least when the core modules drop to kinda avoid having a major module at the same time around that time, some may be picky only on their favourite one aircraft and perhaps don't want to explore the DCS in whole and would complain until they get their pick but that's just being ... forgot the word, a bit greedy? So that's the talk, to talk to those kinds and try to establish some understanding, the question is how long will it suffice for, will it work for 6 months and they'll be back at it again? ----- I think the trailers must be doing this, several hundred thousand of views on the "DCS and Beyond" ones on youtube ... I just missed the events of those weeks when the community here was discussing MAC and DCS relationship, I made a few posts I think but I wasn't watching the discussion that closely, then I came back to see MAC spinned off out of DCS and I totally agree, so It's great to the the rest of the community here on the same page, so I guess they'll migrate to MAC, but that said, will it be any different in the behavior? The question is how differently will be MAC managed, I got some ideas floating but I'm not going to speculate because I got my hands full with 256OB bug hunting!

If the DCS is on another SSD, track write shouldn't be the problem because it's writing to the OS SSD. I just came independently across one side of this thing thing, I'm doing vairous bug hunting and this is the next report I'll be posting today, but it probably is not limited to 2.5.6, it's a general thing with memory/disk/terrain loading.

What I think is going on is that the vehicle is spawned by the same default fixed offset away from parent unit just like without using road snapping. So I guess road snapping works by instantly moving it to the snap position on-road so the first step becomes invisible.