Worrazen

Proper minimization to taskbar and that it would stop rendering when minimized instead of burning 100% GPU and heating my room :)

I think this is reasonable indeed.

The whole thing around texture streaming, loading, is too complicated for users to figure out exactly. I'm kinda interested to fiddle with this, but ultimately the solution is to just get more RAM, and with the recent advances in memory, hopefully we'll finally see the rise in capacities that are long overdue. However for PCs it's a bit complicated due to split system RAM and graphics VRAM, system RAM can only work as a cache while the key thing that do have enouhg VRAM to fit everything that you would videw in a normal mission, without causing any trashing, the DCS engine needs to have good system between RAM and VRAM so that VRAM doesn't hit limit, which means it's okay if some things are streamed in later, and this does happen as I've seen, but it should not stop engine execution like I've seen DCS do, it sutters when it's reading off the disk, this may be even a clue if there's a code issue or a thread issue that when reading from IO is busy it stops execution, that is for sure a bug except if the content that has to be loaded is important, but the map tech needs to be done for streaming in mind so the parts of the map are split in loadable chunks and not into too big of an area that the engine needs fully loaded to be able to run it. that's the rough idea, but I would need to dig into it again to see if it changed or not in recent months. It's more worthwhile if we post suggestions on how it should be working, not that we know best ofcourse, but DCS has huge potential and core DCS improvements would go a long way, but I totally understand the module development at this time, people are stoked for F-16 it seems, let them have it I say.

Yes I have water flickering too. Doesn't seem to always happen and may be graphics settings specific.

Well, you need to consider time it took for us to even notice this. It's a sneaky one, it's not THAT obvious. It was probably happening for like 2 weeks (for me about ~10 play sessions) before I even took to the forums to see if anyone's talking about GCAS as I only had like a minor hunch at the time. Then time it takes for messages to get to the devs, queues, priorities, scheduling, time fixing, testing, put into the next release timeframe, and time for that release to come, and etc, the general idea, but that's enough, trying to brainstorm deeper wouldn't be much of help for anyone, this isn't open source duck hunt, can't expect that, it's best to just hang in there while providing the necessary diagnostic information, the usual sob stories why the bug is so important to you, you're all raising that diplomacy with the opinion from the initial posts so no need to get angry, and let them prioritize it and sort it out themselfs. It's not like I don't share the slight nuisance but I'm understanding the situation, able to tolerate it. Due to technology-code sharing benefits and other factors it was focused on F-16C. That's how they, Russia, built the bridge to Crimea and the whole tavrida highway and railway, a Moscow expert said that they weren't happy about Putin's diversion of federal funds to Crimea away from other road maintenance projects, but being understanding of the immense national and historical situation, while with mixed feelings they were not hostile and did not take any action to oppose or put any legal obstructions, and the idea was that "we'll hang in for 2 more years over here but we'll have a cool new bridge as well".

Re: The stores on DSMS look green and selectable and missiles work, but it's just an empty box.

The weapon labels seem to have been updated, probably other changes under the hood, the label in the DSMS is empty for 2x AIM 9L, it still works, but it looks as if the slot is empty.

Hello I've set up "Unlimited Weapons" in a Caucasus mission with one user flyable F-18C Hornet, with full aircraft of ZUNI MK 71 rockets, they are never reloaded once the initials are depleted, but AA missiles reload normally.

The Photoshop source file for the F-18C Hornet liveries has a few dots improperly layered. The file is F18C_1_DIFF.PSD There is a series of horizontal dots below the upper NAVY text which is not layered inside the "details" layer, but it's part of the "diff" layer, while the same dots on the other side at the bottom "NAVY" text side (aircraft side) they are part of the details, so it seems inconsistent. It's not a big deal so it can be added todo and updated once F-18C releases out of EarlyAccess.

Depending on what your idea of a "replay" is. Starcraft 2 replays are quite advanced, replaying CPU instructions mainly AFAIK, they're not videos, small file size, ability to rewind. The mood at the time was, as explained by the devs at Blizzcon, not an easy programming job. PS: The Patch Changelog thread was being viewed by 726 people at one point, I think it was more than that as it was tapering down as in the next refresh second later it was 600 and 500 already, so I missed the peak, a couple of minutes before it was going steaduly up from 280 to 300 ... then I got caught up by something else, but the forums were half broken, so some requests timed out, well done Viper! And it just happened that my Print Screen key didn't register or I hit the wrong key when that 726 number happened.

because Vulkan API engine is on the way, effort for things like AA is probably going into that, that's better and worth the wait.

Exactly the way I speculated, if the radius is larger the total area it has to constantly load into RAM is larger therefore it would in theory mean more disk reads as well. I'm not sure if it works that way. I might go ahead and find those 4 year old posts I think I never posted, but not sure if it's worth it as things may have changed and we'll figure it out fresh. But I think there should be a revamp of the settings and more control over how things behave, I think people including me are just more comfortable when they understand and can fiddle with it even if it doesn't do that much versus changing settings without knowing or seeing any noticable difference except having to test things over and over which is too time consuming for everyone.

"Nobody" is really an exaggeration. B-2 or B-52 is infact quite high on my sort of awesome-sights wishlist. I come from the RTS community first and foremost, always wanted something more out of those B-52 or B-2 carpet bombs in Generals Zero Hour ... kinda waiting for this moment *all* my life to have it all in detail and Hi-Def! I mean, B-2 Spirit was my desktop wallpaper for like ~5 years once upon a time. Even another wide-body jet would do, the first thing that has more usage in DCS is ofcourse transport planes, I talked a lot about this in the past, transport of supplies, paratroopers, rescue, scouting, etc.

Power line collision I think it would be supported in the damage model eventually? ... hitboxes would need to be very fine, hopefully not a big hit on perf.

Time when we'll have enough RAM for the PC There was an attempt by one HW manufacturer maybe Samsung, they wanted higher capacity so instead of a 16GB standard you'd be getting 32GB but that didn't pan out right in the past, it's another thing that the HW industry has been sluggish at. The base has to move from 32GB standard for a proper gaming/work PC. However this isn't unified memory, so GPUs have to step up their VRAM as well.

Oh!!! That's one thing that should be simulated by damage model when it arrives, this should give some very nice effects and moments in a match when someone makes a mistake and it blows up like wa wa waaaaa and everyone ghasps, exploding from the inside and blowing metal apart and a fireball with some smoke and spiralling down that would be some great feel of reality. Oh and I'm talking about the destruction in an geometry-graphical artistic way, not in the gore-death type of lust, if anyones wondering.

Two separate things happened by a few days apart or someting yes, two totally different places, if you're not basically glued to the newscycle it's easy to get confused as different sites report different things with different latency. I definitely need a few weeks or a month or two of vacation from the stresstronics hehe, so I'll be fresh for the A-10C Cockpit update :) And some other built them on tectonic fault lines and tsunami flood zones ... :doh:

Funny but I didn't exactly demand anything. I'm just saying how it's fitting that old modules get a refresh every now and then, except I'm a fan of the slow paced "service pack" style updating versus fast paced trickle-by-trickle, but either way it's no big deal. Nothing wrong if improvements come later, 6 months, 1 year, it's just my subjective thing. I don't mind if the inoptimalness is due to mistakes, when it gets found by community or internal or anyone else, it get's fixed if possible, no drama needed, and I think I read that in the new rules it's still ok to send docs confidentially to devs, as long as it's not forum, right? So it should be fine and remove any tension. Yeah I'm not hiding that I don't really have a good overview of what's missing I'm wasn't even meaning the more sensetive things that were said to be completely ignored, like not even mentioned in manual with a name of what it is, that's fine but The other thing is, it's natural progression, as the community grows older, established, people skills go up, naturally the standards will go up and the bar would need to raise, so we're really acting normal even tho it feels as if we're not satisfied, not at all, it's unfortunate that it does indeed feel as if I don't do anything other than spend time focused so much into various minor discussions, yes it feels like that to me too but still when I'm playing, and currently I'm doing A-10C campaigns, it doesn't bother me, I enjoy it when I play without thinking constantly about these discussions, I let my self enjoy it and as long as there's no tiny-iny annoyance-type bugs then it's great.

Whatever, but it should support 1000hz mouse right !?!?! ... I just bought Razer Mamba Elite and on 1000hz I get the same jittery camera movement issue I got before. I don't know if it's a freak bug with my HW/OS that more people aren't reporting it or what but the bug is still there. It's interesting to debate whether it be restricted to a "game mode", but isn't MAC itself "the gamemode standalone client".

Oh don't get me started, hehe, but no I won't go the "putin letter" way of discussion on this one, I'll just add that if there's no any change of the agreement whatsoever, not even a slightest update for some OFFBALL non-sensetive parts, then I guess at least there should be some kind of a general update of polish, optimizations, and a package of bug fixes along the way, like a "service pack" if you will, I mentioned that some time ago, that would settle it and make the update feel better. But I agree with the OP, I would pay the upgrade price no hesitation ... like around 20 dollar sounds good IMO considering lack of details currently. If it's just an upgrade of a few systems built upon this one, not a whole new one from scratch. If there's a 2007 F-16 why then should A-10C be stuck *way back .. wait I actually don't know which era it is, but if these things are in dev for ~5 years I'd say it's not over 2003 level. I rather go with what they're thinking about with a new A-10 replacement, a SUPER WARTHOG !!! As some of the media called it AFAIK, so the A-10C programme was extended which in general means it's less likely for info to be relaxed, but that's okay I take the sacrifice there with the longterm benefit of seeing the A-10 design being improved upon and kept (I can not express how happy I am with that idea, vs one airframe to rule them all, makes it boring doesn't it)

A few things that would make controls adjusting less jerky is that the OK and CANCEL button should go back to the escape menu and not resume the game, and/or an APPLY button would be nice to save the changes occasionally during some cases. When I test, I continously change and go back and forth, but sometimes I just want to SAVE, but the function of the OK button isn't optimal for such a purpose. Saving the controls regularly is a good idea when doing other things like viewing files and images of controls information, manual, saved profiles outside of DCS, and even going AFK during that. With so many controls I think any such things around the management of them are justified, should be made as smooth and clear as possible, losing the changes can mean a lot of lost time, it happened once and I lost about more than an hour for sure I think, sure on the second time I had it more memorized but still.

I've brainstormed on this in my early times (last months of 1.2 and start of 1.5) but I kinda never got to the bottom of it, I think I did a bit but it's still speculation. Might give it another shot some day. It should be about loading things from HDD but it's relationship with Visibility Radius is kinda not fully clear to me, it's not that simple so I rather not conclude anything rather than being wrong. It's also about naming things, labels could be used in a specific context that we may not immediately understand.

Right, and there's so many variations, but the big dev issue is, there's no standard, proper simulation would be a guess, only the types that have official stuff put together would probably count, and if there's enough tech data on them, but I think it should be possible to figure out what kind of gun they strapped on, it's about identifying, trucks shouldn't be that hard since you can just get toyota, but ground vehicles aren't as simulated as full aircraft modules anyway so the standard is lower so I think it could work out just fine initially.

More in the direction of having a pretty big delay in knowing about it and responding, I would say. Also that was a bad choice analogy there hehe, in my previous post, ehm, Teletubbies don't talk at all. :doh:

I listened to all of that indeed, and because it wasn't totally clear to me in that timeframe I avoided pondering on the speculation what ED thinks about it (which may include genuine reasons weighted over and over again) and focused my attention to just assume they're somehow blocked by some kind of reason, either access or demand or not enough docs or a few stubborn cossacks standing in the way, whatever it is something has to be negotiated before all history is lost due to heavy upgrades going on and the previous ERAs are going to disappear, I have no idea how russian law on museums works but I'm afraid there might not be operational, sure the model would be accurate but if you can't fire it up or they don't allow it then you can't record any audio, forget about afterburner. In the past dedicated threads people said I'm exaggerating with the "lost forever" argument, I tend to agree, as I'm not that experienced with the real-life collectors and private owners of airplanes all around the world that usually get their hands on leftovers, if it works like that then okay but I still rather not depend on it because of the "someone will take care of it" phenomenon and even the people who do collect might think "well someone's going to do it", what if they all think the same and nobody does it. I guess I'm entertaining the worst case scenario here, not to be fearmongering or annoying, but to illustrate what's at stake and that we face the possibility more vividly and realize it and then try harder avoiding it, something like that, hopefully it helps. Also the whole "clear" thing is also relative, usually we don't tend to talk in super simple language broken down into telletubies talk, so do watch out to not jump to conclusion just because an answer isn't broken down into the sun is shiny and the flowers are beautiful. That's what I'm afraid of that it could be clear, but it could be just a few guys in the forum not getting it? Maybe the airshow people who meet in real life maybe they understand more given past experience in the community. It surely can't be some kind of an ubisoft thing like it was rumored to be with Crimea ... rrrrright? BTW: Maybe due to allegiance change of Crimea not being the same legal entity it was before, the contract could be obsolete/invalidated? Worth a try.