Worrazen

I also wish if there could a variety of these with Anti-Air guns or some mortar contraptions, but also transporters, to work with the supply and material mechanics, convoys could transport, fuel, cargo, weapons, in their pickup trucks.

Rats, I almost couldn't recreate it, for some reason, I weant free flight in A-10C over Nevada. I was flying with F-18C earlier some weeks ago and yeah it did kinda pop in and out, it wouldn't for 30 mins, then it would kick in, I think it also has to do whether part of the engine is under load or not. Actually it's weird, I've been playing with 100hz mouse for years so I didn't knew it may have improved in the meantime, I did try new mouse and I got a bit better results but still. It's definitely not completely gone that's for sure, I'll test more putting some load on it. This is a bug, get your specs, maybe it's due to similar CPU/Motherboard/USB chipset who the heck knows, we need to get to the bottom of this!

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: :lol: Okay a bit of a half joke there, I just had to do that one, but let me explain, I understand you may not be aware of this problem ... because you use TrackIR for camera look or the bug is simply not present there. I see the OP didn't point it out well enough. It's not about the mouse pointer, it's about the player camera look movement, all view modes. The camera feels like it has something holding it back, some kind of an anchor that gives and grab, gives and grabs, gives and grabs, the higher the pollrate the stronger the drag and loss of signal effect is, it's not a smooth drag, it's an incredibly annoying buggy broken gibberish in-and-out drag as if part of the input signal isn't detected, as if you shaped your hands into claws and tried to forcefully scrape them on rough gravel road full of potholes, your claw hands would get caught in one of the potholes and it would momentarly stop you and then you would roughly kinda go a bit and another pothole would stop you, alternating.

I don't think MAC planes are full fidelity, wasn't it said to be FC4 which morphed into MAC? what's the point of DCS if they would be full fidelity!!!!

Yeah, this is the biggest problem I have with DCS. I can't believe it tho that it seems to happen only to some people OR most of them never notice ?!?!? It can't be happening to the devs, the staff, otherwise it wouldn't be acceptable, it be fixed ages ago, or they just all use either 100hz mouses or TrackIR or VR ??? Or that, for some reason after that time of trying to get to the bottom of this issue I finally found it's the HZ, I made hacked drivers to switch HZ on my older mouse, that one broke so same thing on Razer Mamba. I'm kinda blinding this issue away probably because I want to remain polite. TOO MUCH !!! I never see it happen on official videos, on other's peoples videos, I think it's a bug, but hey I never looked so closely, maybe by coincidence ALL the youtubers/twitchers use TRACKIR??? DCS needs some input improvements overall, often times key presses won't register on certain actions, enabling sys info, control info, flaps, airbrakes, pause, etc. In my case I can only adjust HZ in driver and think it requires windows reboot, this one does not come with pollrate button physically on the mouse.

Yeah this has to do with the way how this is done under the hood when it comes to rendering efficienty and methodology, perhaps newer APIs might open up some techniques that would make such thing including mirrors and video feeds less of a resource hog.

I think they got spooked by a random internet voice calling for them to "stop this project or else .." which I think is completely ridicolous they would listen to, such low threats I wouldn't expect from government agencies, it could be someone doing it unofficially, but that makes it totally invalid. They should have demanded that the threat is formal with the complete disclosure of who is sending the demand and that it's filed through proper letters/legal paper, otherwise have the finger. Such a thread could have been made by a random street thug, you can't take it seriously. EDIT 2021: Reading back my 2 year old rants sure is amusing, when I was so pumped for C-130 debates. The above text is full blown speculation that I believe I have read in some thread and just repeated it here.

And it should use Async Compute on day 1 IMO. Which is what makes Doom 2016 stand out so much. If the release would be postponed because of that, I'm fine with it. :smartass: I do not agree such a new core type of change should come with an Early Access type of deal, new things when there is certain uncertainty should come in their best light at the beginning, instead of a gradual thing, it would all be bitter sweet after the update comes, it just makes drama too. Except if, it's a big enough thing that would push back the release too far, like 2 years, or if a new big version feature drops shortly before release, ofcourse, within reason. EDIT: Here's interesting thing, if Async Compute is still rare, and DCS focuses on it, maybe it'll be somethig that sparks interest with benchmarking, if some big channel does one benchmark that would give DCS some exposure it deserves, I'm not saying it as some hype trick, but it's so unfair that serious stuff like this always gets the WORST share of exposure with this gamer heads out there.

Now this isn't that big of a deal around here where so much explosives are found every year, most of it grenades, mortar shells, mines, etc, and most of it unreported by the mass media, except the really big ones. But it's the first time I have ever witnesses such a thing myself so close to my vicinity, so I took the opportunity to share such an event happening right now, to possibly get some of the opinions or stories about these bombs over here if there's a bomb expert flying in DCS :) Two such big-ones were found one after another in 2 days respectively last weekend, but these two, while practically inside the city, posed less danger than the one (which I didn't mention here) that was found much further outside the city in 2017 which had a chemical fuse and was unlike any other found before in my country, I may do a separate post on that one later. https://english.sta.si/2692181/two-wwii-bombs-found-in-maribor-to-be-defused-this-week ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- The first bomb is on the southern side of the river, near the railway bridge, where a new shopping store is being constructed, right beside a big shopping center. As of a few hours ago, first bomb got deactivated.

I would like to warn everyone of the fact that there is a lot of fakery in the UFO scene, despite everything, it always was, many monetized channels are claiming always something when some blob is in the air, it's always the crappies of video qualities. If the video quality is very bad or extremely good, that's the first clue, the video is intentionally crappified to hide editing artifacts, any criticism of the authenticity can be blamed on compression artifacts, but it's also compression artifacts that sometimes cause video to look like it's been edited, so it's a perfect smoke screen. Reviewing video evidence is a scientific job analyzing every aspect to get an opinion whether it's good or bad, but anyhow, a blob on a video can't prove anything in court anyway, unless it's super-duper HD that and that would have to go through the painstaking data verificiation, which means the SAME EXACT Camera would have, along with the ORIGINAL video, submitted for scientific analysis, to forensically prove that was the camera that produced that video, probably even more checks. One channel, routinely takes live ISS and NASA footage, takes a chunk, modifies it, and makes it appear as if NASA "cut the feed" because he abuses the fact there's not a lot of active fake-ufo hunters watching those feeds which could double check if the event actually happeend, plus if there's a viewcounter, he can just take a portion of the feed when there's the least people watching, this is just one such example, along with the doom-gloomy music, these videos are made for various children who are the weakes and vulnerable to such scams and these videos are watched by the millions. Many of these fake channels, were are totally fake anyone can see it, I mean, a giant spaceship in the middle of Iraq or Syria, are routinely featured by mass media sources, are the media dumber than a 10 year old? I guess so. When there is real sighting, usually, people that catch it are simply too unsophisticated with handling the camera, have low quality cameras that can't be of any proof by themselfs anyway, and not really thinking about the circumstances and pretty much anything how evidence is gathered properly, the videos are usually short, not the original file, re-coded, uploaded, re-uploaded, cut, zoomed or otherwise manipulated, the details aren't logged properly while they're still fressh, and video can also be full of other noises, it's just a pity.

This is only a minor issue. Nothing big. I have FC3 since 2014 - and the E-Shop correctly shows individual FC3 modules as "Purchased", however the Su-33 and Su-27 don't show as purchased.

So a while back I started coming up with forward looking ideas and things the community should start thinking about to give everyone a better sense of sureness going forward, ensure the future is even better, rather than only some of the popular hot topics. I actually made quite a big post months ago and I'll probably have to go find it again as I forgot all the points I made, but that's for another thread. I do remember one clearly, it's the question of the direction/focus/gravitation DCS will be going in terms of realism and difficulty, what really are considered cheats and what are genuine helpers/time reducers, whether DCS would go more hardcore in a serious fashion once MAC launches, etc, But I'll keep things simple otherwise it's too overwhelming, so I'll just start out with one of the easiest, whether easy modes, game modes and arcade stuff would be removed completely when MAC launches? This includes all the crosshairs and radar-helpers in the F view modes, but does not include the actual view modes them selfs, nor the real cockpit screens if they're shown up in first person view mode (no cockpit, only HUD) so those would be okay. Some of the reasons: I myself am for it, to be removed, but it's not the strongest opinion, if a decision is made it would be supported and maintained then it's not affecting me directly at all either way. While I could talk all about the maintenance burden, programming code, complexity, possibilities for buggy behavior, it's probably not such a big deal in the overall simulator, it probably doesn't affect the devs directly if they don't deal with it routinely, it's not that of a heavy thing so it probably doesn't do that much harm just sitting there, so these aren't big enough reasons. However I got brainstormy and figure some future possible effect, so that's why my personal biggest reason for removal is that it would prevent some evolving MAC players or just the influx of new players who would ride the MAC hypetrain and kinda jump in the middle of everything, from causing unwelcome behavior in the community, drama, by trying to act tough while emulating a MAC or lesser (F2Ps, etc) experience by abusing DCS's game/arcade modes. The last thing we need is people abusing DCS game mode to brag about their "DCS skillz" to their MAC or external friends, or similar, right? That's what MAC is for and they can have all the fun there and I don't look up to them not at all, but then DCS should be DCS. TLDR: The purpose of this thread is that as many are on the same page ahead of time, and that it hopefully prevents remorse when the feature is removed, while they didn't use or knew about it in the first place, or rarely, but would want to try it out after they learned it was removed. Which I myself was not immune to either in my past with some unrelated things, but DCS is a place where I strive to suppress the subjectivity. What's also not covered in that GR video is the fact you can actually use much more camera modes with Shift+F? and CTRL+F? to get some of those features of the arcade/game mode, even without game mode. That's how the "3rd person" view mode is achieved.

I don't agree with half of what the guy says, and I forgot whether I already commented on the thread, or I did on youtube, or on reddit, but if I did one more time wouldn't be too much, it seems contradictory in some cases as well, it can't be both. The attitude is also unneeded, they direct nature of accusations without actually supplying any references, if anything, the devs could be suffering from effects of sad passing of Igor Tishin, and other things, the F-16 situation explained it well, it was a campaing to get things going in this area and get it over with, to start the particular tech with F-18, get F-16 in when far enough, simultaneously build upon the both, now that hoop is over with the the core tech develop comes along with the models improving, but less models as more people work on the core, so it's kinda, let's get a few more models in for the core crunch, I believe there will be a few years when new modules will be less frequent, but that's okay and totally expected, it's a worthy tradeoff for all the core upgrades. And about the apologists, In reply to a popular hoggit thread, it's actually because half of the stuff is not completely watertight what the haters say, if they don't want EA then why did EA almost crash the servers, ignore the EA then?, it's about self-analysis of the criticism as well, it goes both ways not one way, the community should keep it self up to standards. Some remain in autopilot and treat DCS/ED same way as one of MOBA/BattleRoyale developers or whatever the nonsense teenage gaming fads are these days.

Yes. Yes, best news ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because if it was a replacement now, IMO it would probably be fast tracked and rushed the design, the airframe would probably be a gimmick into something uglier and too sci-fi looking, I rather have nothing than some joke that wouldn't improve on the original, there's no historical or cultural factor when they kinda build new versions, and no simulator commuity consideration (:clown::punk::music_whistling:) , the most aerodynamic design isn't the most appealing one, so the classic will stay for longer that's better than some half sour happy replacement, now there's more time to cook up a worthy replacement. The real life A-10C is way thinner than I thought, this seemingly fanatic need for lowering weight is just not worth it in the end, I would just give it, it doesn't have to mean more space would be used for heavy armor, and all that extra would be handled by much more modern engines, so I would simply make it like 50% larger in every axis at minimum, for this type of setting to make pilot comfortable because there's a big gun, larger cockpit, even more redundancy by basically duplicating everything that isn't, this means double APU, double GUNs, there would be special hardpoints for attaching double sensor/fuel/EMC pods without taking space for weapon pods, larger wings for even more lift and glide ability, the modern powerful engines would blance and power through that drag, and probably some slight 5-7,5 degree fixed backward wing sweep, additional armor around guns and underbelly, deployable airbags incase of many layers of landing gear failure (this aircraft would be able to go slow and still fly so it's not too far fetched some military-grade airbag would help save airframe and prevent damage and save repairs, if you bend or skew the airframe who the heck knows what could be affected down the line, the whole thing is a writeoff then more or less), additional armor around APUs and (not mentioning the main engines and everytihng else being buffed) Each APU would be able to power up any engine, and each APU would have , the APUs themselfs would be bigger and able to power more systems, perhaps some kind of engine cleanup procedure, which would require main engines shut down, the APUs would keep power on and feed some kind of debris-clearing but also fire gousing capabilities, ... And I would strap another engine on top at the center, perhaps a smaller version, like a 60% the size. There's a hundred more things I could think of, now this is from some imagination, if I had a deeper thought I would be a bit more realistic, but I'm not considering financial status, timeline, and any such factors, only what's the best for the other factors. The realists could borrow a few thoughts ... double GUNs BABY!!!

Windows 10 is a mean machine, updating is brutal, this is not the kind of model suitable for such software. That large update probably did a whole lot of things, including the GPU drivers most likely, I never liked such ways and never will, they ALWAYS cause problems or increase the risk, as they cram so much changes into one ball of mess and windows isn't designed to deal with it, it's not linux where you can update so much stuff without even rebooting the machine for months. I hoped there would be an edition of windows suitable for gamers and professionals alike, but there isn't. Anyhow I still run 1607 Anniversary Update and I have remained completely unaffected from anything regarding Windows, it wasn't hard to foresee this, getting experience from Win7 days. Only when major things stop working that I require, will I update. I don't lie I kinda "pray" a bit every day for 1607 to keep working into the future.

Yes the potential with Vulkan is high, but id software people are the bleeding edge when it comes to that stuff, Doom 2016 is heavily multithreaded by it self, not just the graphics side of things. So Vulkan alone may not rasie the bar as much as if both the Vulkan and the whole engine would get a revamp in the CPU area.

I agree. There's many more things in the play, and comparing DCS to any multi-million dollar hollywood-style game out there is incredibly unfair, to expect every single part of the game completely developed, with the modules being 100 times more complicated than the arcade stuff in usual games. People forget this is first and foremost something that wasn't meant for pure entertainmen value.

Exactly, in general, many things could be done with splitting the splittable serial workloads that are still kinda together. I've done some more testing though I kinda didn't yet get back on it, and I think there's more than just 2 cores being used as I previously thought, because I tested with a pure bareness with nothing happening, no missles firing, no airplanes flying, no sounds playing, no weather, just a mountaintop view, this time around I was actually analysing the practical gameplay session and it's quite a bit different, but I won't disclose any findings because of the exact same thing what this does, makes more speculation which would just contribute to trolls, by the time I go look at it again it might not be worth it any more if the new Vulkan API engine overhaul is just around the corner, and talking about the old state would kinda be pointless and would just distract from the excitement of the future.

- Escape key having some kind of a function, exit dialog? - A generic out of the box "Patrol" setting for movable units in the waypoint options, without having to setup separate triggers to tell them to go back to the opposite end of the path when reaching the last waypoint. I'm going to post my big list of ideas in a few moments I hope there still is a few hours left. ASAP. (Still writing ..)

It doesn't mean people were actually sitting for 10 years +8 hours a day making the current graphics engine. The move to newer APIs by the industry was long overdue infact, and it was indeed a major industry evolution/transition, wasn't a surprise for tech followers but it took many people by surprise IMO. However I don't think it's that bad for DCS, the newer DX11 engine is what's powering us since IMO early 2014 and it's just what happened, things evolve, and there's no rush on vulkan API as it's anew one I rather let it be polished well. Plus there's PBR stuff which most people seem to be forgetting, the engine has evolved since 2014 and some of these features aren't that API centric, even if you have to write majority from scratch in theory for Vulkan, it's not completely scratch, code can be modified, recycled, adapted and it's a bit easier, it's probably better with the experience and skills rather than if they just went to vulkan without the other graphical bells&whistles in the meantime. Part of multi-core CPU improvements is the new graphics engine based on new API, to get the weight off the CPU, because older APIs use the CPU as a babysitter, you are hungry to eat more but you can only eat as much as the busy babysitter is feeding you.

With opensource projects the community is not so demanding because of the general perception that it's "a bunch of amateurs that donate their free time to the project", so the users are more respectable by default toward the staff, subconsciously even, as it's a perception that their peers work on the code, their friends from the other class, or another school, another home, which is still half true, even tho some project these days have pretty good people doing really complicated work and many of them are actually genuine employees in large business position (but they usually dont disclose or it's noted low profile), the perception stuck because it all started from people at home and the cottage way of just some fellows in a garage, that perception will probably stick for a very long time, ofcourse the free natrue of it also helps that a lot, it's all free, even tho they're not interchangible, and under the hood some devs get paid, but it's not directly known by the community, there no PR about it, so these realities get unnoticed. Some console emulator projects seem to be trying to get commercial and closing their source code down, so as more people get into some of the projects and more grassroots people than there is, more who want to work full time, but the commercialization makes it morph out of opensource completely technically, but practically, if they don't embrace the corporate business model facelift and PR with fancy logos, then those projects will most probably have the (unfair) advantage of a laxer community to almost everything they do (wrong), as that opensource perception will remain in their users. Now the other side: Because Razbam started as a traditional studio with a central entity name, a cool name that really does sound grandiose, I find myself sometimes singing "RAAAZ-BAAAAM" to myself when I would do random chores totally outside of DCS away of the computer while not even thinking about DCS; a company logo, sort of the basic corporate business model face, it makes things looks more official and authoritative, did I mention grandiose, while still it's just a studio and not as over-the-top as the mega corporations, while employing people that are hundreds of times more passionate, rich in legacy, down-to-earth, etc than any "get-rich-fast no-morality employee" (half of that is the perception by outsiders) working for profit hungry conglomerate. However it's again half true, the employees of the mega corporation conglomerates aren't that bad as they are viewed by the (certain) public, still it is true that in a lower-profit industry it's the passion and genuine interest that drives people to work so it at the same time true by some extent, which would have been a good advantage, but the corporate model perception cancels that out, instead of getting more respect, it's the opposite, less, well that doesn't make sense right, it doesn't seem fair right. This across the board customer expectation/perception ofcourse isn't Razbam's fault originally, ofcourse not, this societal perception originates from the big corporate business and the PR side of it, traced back to the authoritative structures, the old kings and castles, medieval families and monarchs, that had their mottos and shields and flags, and all the bling to make it seem royal and godlike.; It has been responsible for the idea in the general society that everything great and everything big can only come from a big corporation, they can provide on-time updates, fast tech support, armies of babysitters, but behind it is a big mad industry with stress, overtime, all kinds of human problems, health, morale, satisfaction, etc, it's hardly reflecting normal civilized life, and as more and more businesses provide more and more basic life services the more customers are dependant on these giants, if one of them lacks the established pace, they'll immediately notice, but it will also drastically impact their practical life, it's dependency. On this last note, DCS is an entertainment product, it's not a basic need of life, so that should be taken into account by the community. The problem for Razbam is that, promises were made, hype was made, all the corporate PR was made, while using the corporate model image, so customers get the idea to expect something big big big, and if hype is not realistic then it ofcourse, as it should, has an opposite effect later on the way back, that's why the company sort of has to expect the backlash and walk into that risk with knowledge of the consequences. This swings it into the customer favor in this case, when promises are made, and when it's about getting Early Access finished. But it's not like black-and-white, I don't agree being so doom-gloom about a few weeks, so exaggeration can discredit the valid stuff; but more than 2 months is starting to be on the side of "hmm, what's cooking" and not a doom situation, 4th month would be more serious, over 6 months would be doomy, because traditional, down-to-earth and passionate non-profit-hungry employees tend to want to work less hours a day, have other hobbies and interests, and generally have a slower paced life style, unlike the big big corporations, at least that's the idea if it's necessairly in Razbam but if they do work as long maybe they should think hiring more employees, there could be passionate people hiding out there that would be of great fit but it takes effort finding them!!! Then posting specific criticism on unrelated videos/posts I think is not appropriate, a video is like a specific thread IMO, if it's a video about M2000C, then it shouldn't be valid to post talk and opinion about AV-8B N/A on it, among other things. I think this is sort of abuse to get message out via a shortcut, but this is kinda expected human behavior trying to find shortcuts for everything in life (well that bites back eventually, you don't want to turn into a robot), everyone's susceptible to it and it's easy to get unconsciously into such shortcuts and bypasses, because it's convenient, but here's a twist, I can see how it may partially go back to the authors, the company, a new video posted is like a heartbeat (a ping for submariners), as soon as the angry apples in the community detect what they percieve as a "heartbeat of life" from the company they will immediately respond with the most pressing issue on their mind that is big enough to in their mind override the topic rules, subconsciously even. While they may be indeed technically in the wrong, it's offtopic, it's also in a way the author's, the company's problem for not taking care of the said topic, and/or not providing enough appropriate heartbeats (in the appropriate sections) for that subject the angry apple and other customers are raising.

Yeah I don't see these things as replacements for official support, with social media adding video and other features, the quality has decreased significantly, on twitter everything's all thrown around in these low quality puzzles and short videos without head or tail, it's a total mess.

Yeah, I concede to AI being higher on priority than ATC, while I'm personally more for ATC than AI. And they say we're not tolerant :lol: Edit: For some reason, I think it's that I'm so interested in radios and signals, I'd be running HAMs and FR24 feeders if I could afford, I did a bunch of some RTL-SDR tho. I did infact post wishlist ideas around here about signal simulation, radio antenna types and RF emission pattern, which means range affected by frequency, antenna position(rotation,etc), environment (rain), obstacles, terrain, and reflection. MP Voice being integrated with the actual in-game radios, and then the voice audio quality affected dynamically by signal quality, integration/interaction with F10 map view, ground forces and CA. And ofcourse this would also go for datalink, emergency beacons, commands from Battlefield Commander to ground units, between units and AI-to-AI too, you may contact ATC, but if ATC will hear you should be another story, except excluding comms that go to satellite uplink. Another example is ground units having datalink and/or comm ranges to faciliate target sharing and sight perhaps, to the extent it works in real life ofcourse, but if a minor effects are simulated for DCS it's going to be good enough, not necessairly target/sight sharing directly like getting exact position, but maybe some kind of "group awareness" which would make some effect on the realistic F10 View as well (the one that commander or other players could see) But separately I had the idea the Battlefiled Commander and similar positions being a playable slot, not in just commanding troops like in the GUI, but also being able to talk to other players with DCS Voice over the actualy in-game radio mehanic, but that Battlefield Commander would ofcourse have ATC and all kinds of units at his disposal to get the message through ofcourse still limited by relays, if relay (AWACS, Ground HQ Radio Tower, Captured Civilian Radio Tower, etc, but could be almost any unit with comms right? (with exceptions if some old don't have proper radio/freq)) is destroyed then some units may not get their orders through. In the Dynamic Campaign perhaps Battlefiled Commander would appropriately be somewhere physically located at an airbasem HQ, forward command post (we need new models for all that stuff too) , having some kind of datalink and comms with the AWACS or other units to relay, he could be on the AWACS or equivalent (doomsday plane) himself, and he would be destroyed too if the AWACS he's on goes down, but, should still be parachutable, IMO this would happen in reality even tho there is no ejection seats most likely, if there was damage but not broken up, spinning going down, basically if systems damaged and destroyed to certain level that is considered critical and while structural integrity ok it would determine OK for parachutability, then the timer would start, perhaps randomized between 25-40 seconds, then they would parachute out the back or side (cool animation opportunity) (possibly idea for all non-ejection-seat wide body aircraft), ofocurse if altitude high enough, if not then they just wouldn't be lucky, moreover then you have another big reason for SAR stuff to come into play, to rescue the Battlefield Commander (or how does DCS call it, i just made it up for this example) then presto another twist to the gameplay. So I think this signal stuff could be one big addition to the depth, but sure it doesn't need to come with the inital release, maybe I'm too optimistic, reflection of signals probably isn't easy on hardware so it would be simplifed/simulated, but really not necessary that much, if theres only like one bounce it's enough. However I'm impressed it's really going to do with all the supplies and materials, very good, that'll keep us busy enough, it's good this gets first as it will make a good reason to bring helicopters into gameplay even more to balance things out, it may not load as much as a big transporter jet, but it can sneak unnoticed some crucial supplies through the valley.

Back in those times it was the latest, remember. I pointed out the ground model stuff many times, not just the fidelity but the amount of them and the types of new ones, for long time, to balance that out I have see some moral responsibility so I hit the brakes with the comments becuase I respect DCS enough I can't just diss on the old models like that. Be easy guys ;)