Worrazen

Yeah but computers really don't like curved earth, calculations get a lot more complicated, it goes down to the core engine support and I think many other components of the sim have to be aware of this(support) to work correctly, so don't expect it soon, unless they were developing it for quite a while. So it's not a bolt-on like AMD FSR could be. I don't even think other free 3D engines in the gaming world do it either yet, but I heard something is moving in that direction, but it wasn't addressed yet what will happen in UE5 in this regard, AFAIK. Something more here: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/k9a8g5/game_engine_with_round_earth_support_unigine/ Leadwerks 5 site just mentions 64-bit Worlds, if it's about the solar system I hope they also mean the curvature of the planets but ... who knows, maybe they just mean a really big flat universe plane and the planets are actually just "round" 3D models/meshes.

My take is that cool tech can be cool, up to a point and some areas are really not where I'd like any changes, low tolerance of, apart from the "I actually want to fly the airplane", I'd like to keep those analog A-10C gauges, sir, thank you very much The digital gauges, unless the manufacturer puts their artistic soul into them, mostl likely (will) look very basic and technical/mathematical in nature. Tho I don't know how A-10C's will look like, is that suite even out in real planes yet? Continuing: That is all fine, it's not a game, it's serious business, it's an indicator, design must take into account that it must be easily identifiable, reliable, and show information in many situations clearly, subjective esthetics are avoided as they could interfere with the operation and these requirements .... that said the old school gauges look far better given my simming-in-unserious-mode requirements haha. So this is the very unfortunate way this debate could go, DRAMA IN THE CLOUDS, ... if the flying community sort of picks up on the simming community and kinda realized how cooler the old school gauges are, there may be actual real pushback and they may actually do something to the real planes just because the digital indicators look astronomically unappealing. Secretly this is exactly what I want to see happen, the gauges that is, with as less drama as possible But are you thinking what I'm thinking ... the possiblity of the simming community literally influencing multi-billion dollar warplane manufacturers to make the digital gauges look less unpleasing, yes, improving the digital gauges, they'll never bring the analog ones back for no good reason. Is there such a thing like "pilot morale and capability factor gained from feeling cool". Haha. We need a study if some esthetics improve capability, if they have an impact, I do sound jokey, but hey, this could be deep psychology, like a team leader with a bullhorn kind of effect, and there might be something too it. But seriously, for backup purposes, if a new SUPER WARTHOG really gets made, I'd put the full set of smaller scale analog gauges somewhere off to the side, and I would make the aircraft much bigger so it's more comfortable, with the space there wouldn't be such a need to squeeze everything in.

Wait, if that's actual in-game cockpit display rendering .... no effing way ?!?!?!??!?! Actual in-game display "rendering" "simulation" at the pixel level to replicate the way those special displays with much different technology and color/brightness/behavior than your standar LEDs or Incandesent lights your used to work ... that's the holy grail I always had in the back of my mind ever since getting into DCS, the holy grail I was always pushing back to mention as a wishlist, afraid it's way too of a spoiled wish for gameplay-wise quite low importance. While there's obviously no need to simulate under the hood workings of the display, but the visual part, the depth and layers and the way color emits and feels, the way the hardware paints the picture and the refresh rate (but for practice to limited lengths), it's going to be even a bigger deal with WCG and HDR taking off and then those screens will really be a big deal if they look really good, with reflections and lighting all interacting with the cockpit lighting, making preparations for that and planning ahead is a very good idea indeed, it's going to look amazing if true !!! Display has to be simulated so that when other lights have reflection on the displays they actually reflect off the first glass layer of it and the display having an actual depth to it would probably look and feel different and if it was all just a flat surface with traditional texturing IMO, but I'm not an expert so I don't want to get too deep into speculation, I just think there is something there to this and hopefully they research and look into it, if my hunch is correct. If they do this seriously it will be absolutely amazing when you get up close, I'm absolutely blown away, please it's not cinematic right? (but no I don't want an answer, no, shhh!!!) But hey even if it is, this is just my thingy, overall it's really low priority ofcourse, I understand, it's just a visual thing at the end of the day, compared to the whole project, so no it wouldn't be a big deal to me personally if the displays aren't simulated to that depth I have in mind.

DCS frozen later in the mission when lots of bombers were having casualties, I saw a lot of parachute icons on the F-10 map, moments prior to performance dipping hugely, it was about 7 FPS. I was chasing a stray A8, not viewing the bomber action and I wasn't sure if they were dropping bombs or not yet. I went in and out of F-10 map just viewing myself and clicking on my icon. Out to F2/F1 view again, back into F10. That's when it froze. The "main" DCS.exe thread is fully occupying the CPU (one CPU core ofcourse, out of 6+6), no other threads show any meaningful usage, only a few have a tiny bit. EDIT: I've given it 30 minutes, and calling it a freeze, in practice. Process Hacker reports DCS.exe! thread stack with the following being almost constant: Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x65929 Effects.dll!Effects::GraphicEffect_Impl::undock+0x17175 Effects2.dll!Effects::OPSManager::updatePSystems+0x4d Effects2.dll!Effects::OPSManager::update+0x34 Visualizer.dll!smSceneManager::regLua+0x4774 Visualizer.dll!smSceneManager::CreateSceneManager+0x5886 DCS.exe!SW+0x4f9fd0 DCS.exe!SW+0x50fafb DCS.exe!SW+0x4e0974 DCS.exe!SW+0x4e0d4d DCS.exe!AmdPowerXpressRequestHighPerformance+0xe70773 DCS.exe!SW+0x717bbe kernel32.dll!BaseThreadInitThunk+0x14 ntdll.dll!RtlUserThreadStart+0x21 The only thing that keeps changing is the first line. Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x65909 Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x65878 Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x65838 Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x658f8 Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x65915 Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x65970 Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x65929 Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x6593d Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x65915 Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x65921 Effects2.dll!Effects::releaseParticleSetCB+0x658b8 The numbers seem to be limited to a set and are repeating. DxDiag_Worrazen_ASUS_Strix-X570EG_09-07-21.zip

I haven't heard or missed the water being mentioned as an upgrade. Where?

Really? Why? I was looking for this for a while. Some technical issue or reason? EDIT: I'm asking this from a single player scripted mission perspective, where I know there will be no other unexepcted spawning ontop. Otherwise I think the automation there is probably good, I read some time ago about that.

@BIGNEWYHowever, I still doesn't make sense to me why does CPU usage increase significantly (relatively speaking) when looking at the sky, away from the terrain, the whole thing would be understandable that it is some kind of a monitor that keeps trace of terrain zones/tiles and happes to take this amount of CPU and it could currently be the optimal solution, no problem with that, but at least this breaks that idea IMO. Sorry for speculating so much. Now if I dig into this rabbit hole, then such a monitor/tracker wouldn't really have to respond to that precise view in 3D of where the player is looking at, if it's about terrain surface, the direction on the 2D (X/Y) plane would be the main importance, why would the empty sky matter (unless it's also doing some sky stuff, stars, moon, sun?, but then why would that cost more CPU than all the stuff on the terrain). Or rather it would respond the other way around, I would have expected the CPU usage to go lower. Could also be that it's doing it backward, thinking the player is looking down when it is looking up.

This thing barely just got released ... what's the rush. Sorry if I'm spoiling the excitement a bit with a different take on this.

Oh, allright ... However this is out of my understanding ofcourse, I can only speculate that the thread perhaps needs CPU resources to continiously monitor and update something that makes the asset streaming work. I didn't think of this idea before unfortunately, oops.

That would normally be okay, but I'm afraid not with DCS. You will experience significantly longer load times, delays in texture streaming and possible stuttering in the middle of play. In additon, the external hard drive can be unreliable in terms of connection, the USB3 it self may not be an issue, but if you mess with the cables you could temporairly disconnect as the USB-A connectors can be loose already brand new from factory, including vendor specific error margins in the connector dimensions will make some very tight and some very loose by design not even counting wear-and-tear. I think USB-C is much better and the standard may also be more stringent. I'm not sure about external SSDs, never looked into that, but if you do, you make sure to get USB-C and make sure the motherboard also has a USB-C connector as well. You should first check if your motherboard has a second NVME M2 slot where you could put another NVMe SSD there, however make sure if that slot goes to the chipset or the CPU, this should be explained in the motherboard manual, if it goes to the chipset it may work at a slower PCIe generation and thus you should buy a new one that's just enough for that, a faster SSD in that slot won't work, unless you swap the two SSDs around, the first slot should almost always be routed to the CPU for fastest performance. 512GB should be enough for DCS but you could go for a economic 1TB SSD as you wish. The minimum DCS requirements now list a SSD device, HDDs are below the specs. That said, you may have a lot of static data on the SSD currently that could very well be on a HDD, in that case yes you should get a HDD (or an external HDD), but not for DCS, for the data that you have on the current SSD to move there.

Hello There seem to be duplicates, zipped and unzipped copies. Unzippped: C:\Games\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods\aircraft\Christen Eagle II\Liveries Zipped: C:\Games\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods\aircraft\Christen Eagle II\Liveries\Christen Eagle II Probably one of them is redundant I would assume.

@-Rudel- Ah okay so the liveries template is out there, good, it's just not posted on the official DCS main website in the downloads section.

The first step is actually not needed. That old plugin will not work for BC7 I think, well, I'm not sure if I opened a BC7 texture, but the ones I tried didn't work. Texconv and the python script plugin does it all.

Yeah no tracers for me as well, looks like it's not just me. So is it a bug or the defaults have changed to no tracers? EDIT: Seems like In an earlier custom mission my ammunition is set to no tracer, I don't remember setting that, might have been a coincidence or something. Works fine and defaults are with tracer, tested in a new fresh mission file.

Tho was there ever any word of DCS's intent to be a staple multiplayer experience. Who says it has to be? Doesn't have to be, and there is no pressure to twist the gameplay in that favor. I'm glad MAC is happening, so that exactly those kinds of mindsets have a place of their own and leave DCS alone. Other "sims" are nothing like DCS and those players brinding those attitudes here and trying to create multiplayer experiences that are inappropriate for DCS has the potential to be and why not when almost everything else is not it. I understand that in a simulator you can use it to simulate what could happen, if it happened in real life, but in reality things, as we said so many times, are not balanced at all, countries don't commit all their forces to a fight at the beginning, they may have limited goals, they may even keep things secret for very long, or they may not want to use some of the known tech and it just plays, none of that is accounted for in most games, they're just arenas where gear and machinery gets thrown in. We are litterally talking about a kindergarden level here, comparing it to a training academy and then the real deal, we need to remind ourselfs of that. In reality complaining about why reality isn't like kindergarden isn't going to work, it may work virtually but then there goes the SIM part. /late night rant

"Osa" not being able to make it long enoguh to experience history in the making with the legendary Mi-24P debut in DCS, is also very saddening if not a tragedy in itself. I'm not sure too much about the helicopter community in DCS but this even struck me, right as DCS starts expanding big time, so unfortunate. I'm not sure what to suggest but I'd feel bad if I wouldn't say anything ... I guess stay healthy people and recheck if your lifestyle is too stressful, recheck the diet, too many fried food, too many refined carbs, too much bad fats, now is the time to not fool around, and sleep is as important as air and water!

Yeah I wasn't able to do it either anymore.

Yes the other in-game FOV adjustment factors in the size of the screen and distance for accurately replicating how human would see if the monitor was part of an HDM. I tried to avoid mixing this in, this may be the "optimal" or "realistic" FOV setting recognized by some, while the other one is regarding the monitor as the eye, both may be valid and work better for different cases but ofcourse no need to agree with me what's optimal. I kinda never played with trying to set the display-as-a-HDM FOV in DCS yet but I did try once in other offtopic games, but it was a long time ago. I just kept using what my eyes were roughly most comfortable with and that was it, but I never liked the console-style 60 or 50 FOV, that made my crazy, those were the times of console ports. With DCS I just never messed with the defaults, particularly because Zoom/FOV is something I would adjust a lot more frequently throughout a session than in any other game/sim. I just never got the idea to do this in DCS, I will sometime. On the other hand, if that helps in general.

^^ It definitely is different when resolution is taken into account. FOV being adjusted in various games when you're not touching the resolution will affect both the vertical and horizontal screen area and work like the DCS Zoom function does. This is how I always remember it working, irrespective whether the game provides only horizontal or vertical (I'm not sure of a game that you can independently modify both, but perhaps there was a case, but more importantly whether that allowed you to independently modify one FOV without modifying the other, Usually I think it works that when you change one, the other one changes appropriately in some fashion, it may not be necessairly so, I don't know, but when you change resolution and you only see more horizontally, but not vertically, then I think something else must be going on in the background that may have to do with FOVs, and it's different from the behavior of the Zoom function. So here I used UE4 with a camera actor to modify the FOV, they say the FOV is horizontal there. It behaves just like the DCS Zoom Function. But importantly it doesn't have a resolution property, so it's not a display monitor simulation. Obviously things may be specific to engines and the way they do things for technical reasons, but I'm providing this for comparison if it helps. Which FOV is DCS using there? Because when you use the Zoom, you're changing both the horizontal and vertical areas (FOV's I guess) Therefore I think the Zoom function must be doing something else besides just the FOV value we see in System Info overlay. EDIT: The WSGF Source Engine FOV Calculator gives both horizontal and vertical FOV values and when changing just one dimension, only one of the FOVs changes, which is what I expected would be happening. https://www.wsgf.org/fovcalc.php So I guess, games that properly support a resolution / aspect ratio, know how to set the default/human-optimal FOVs for that resolution/aspect ratio. So if the FOV wouldn't change ... the aspect couldn't either now I'm realizing if my thinking is correct... because now I tested changing only the Aspect and keeping FOV the same and yes it surely does not reveal any more area in the verticals, only horizontals for the whole range of aspects, because FOV So yes, hFOV and vFOV are independently adjustable and don't have to be in some kind of a balance. It just happens that the ordinary Camera Actor in UE4 does not expose vertical FOV only horizontal. Cinematic Camera Actor is a big more complicated with all of the stuff for making movies so that's why I avoided mixing those things in, because for display monitors we usually don't deal with camera sensor sizes, focal lenghts and such, and DCS probably doesn't either, for the display output at least.

It's not that simple indeed, I'm probably not going to add much to this right now, as I have my own questions as to how it is and how it should be ... There's two kind of FOV's yes. From traditional games I remember many exposed one and some exposed the other to the user to modify, but under the hood perhaps both were changing based on the other, or not, I don't know that part. I remember is that in every case it would affect both vertical and horizontal space, or I haven't paid attention and I didn't play BF series too much which I know has the less popular FOV setting commonly used. In my casual DCS experience I only know about one FOV that is used for the Zoom controls, I still didn't get into the gut of DCS modding so I guess more could be possible there as others mentioned. I'm not too sure if the FOV should change once resolution changes, in theory you don't change your type of eyes you "just see more" to the side, but seeing more should require more FOV I guess ... that may be because a different FOV value is changing under the hood ... but perhaps only the horizontal FOV changes. This is kinda interesting as I've never though about it and I'm looking forward to a clarification on this, I'll actually go read through the thread now.

Hello Twice now I have inadvertently clicked the "Start New Topic" Button which exists in a very awkward position at the bottom of thread pages, when the Submit Post button usually is and it is, it's just vertically spaced. One time the forum recovered my text, another time it didn't so I would need to rewrite it and sometimes I'm not in a mood to do so and it's a pity. Thanks for consideration, I don't think I'll ever need such a button in that location when reading a thread, hopefully this is an optional functionality that can be disabled in the forum software (or needs a deeper modification).

Pfff, ... "Start New Topic" button nuked my post, I'll have to rewrite, recovery didn't work either.

Actually, I later heard him say he flew both ones, that's why I dismissed that and didn't mention it here. But I should go double check, I think he did say in more than one video he flew both ones ... he retired only a few years ago AFAIK. EDIT: He says, if my ears are correct, at 3:12: "I have flown both" However that doesn't necessairly mean this info is directly useful either .. several questions like which model was he accustomed to more and if he used different procedures for different model (I would suppose most likely) then which one is he using for this video. That said it's not like ED doesn't have a F/A-18 advisor/contractor for this type of stuff already, but I thoguht it could assist if it makes sense, while the manual/training is likely in active development right now, or polishing the finishing touches. In an effort to catch small details similarly how it was on the A-10C when the audio beep wasn't suppose to happen, only the master caution light was suppose to shine in one case with the APU or some other system operation, I forgot which one. It's minor stuff but it's cool to have it accurate too. I'll give him a headsup to redo this video after F/A-18C is fully released.

However, the source imagery, the automotive "dashcam" footage isn't the best example to use for reflecting realism, these are fairly low quality cameras. An image from a professional grade camera or some advanced imaging system should be used if you actually want full blown realism to the strictest sense. Full source quality without compromise, taking in factors such as the accuracy of the imaging sensor chip it self and as close to the full color gamut and dynamic range of human eyes as possible, however you're held back significantly by the display technology your using to view any of these samples/source files, let alone the end-user consumer displays. Most monitors still display only sRGB color gamut which is actually quite poor. And you would need to have comparable high equipment when developing this stuff so you can actually see the higher color gamuts, the whole pipeline has to be up to speed. While yes it does make it appear to look more realistic, no doubt, video games are many times stylized and dramatized, but we kinda should keep in mind it's not quite there yet, it's still just poking at realism. It's worth pointing out that the developers weren't even trying to make it look scientifically realistic in the first place. All those display panel tech and manufacturer differences and calibration differences will provide for an endless bickering among internet communities back and forth, until everyone has a perfect high gamut and HDR monitor that's perfectly calibrated, if ever. Just a comment, but otherwise ofcourse even a dashcam footage that is real is going to make a difference.

Starting with DCS 2.7 a new startup behavior is witnessed, the mouse focus is stolen some 30 seconds before DCS launches into full screen window, so I can't do anything on the desktop for that time, but I think I can alt-tab out tho to regain desktop control. However since I temporairly put my DCS installation on a HDD, (moved onto a new Win 10 version/installation) the loading times are obviously affected and this could simply be the consequence of that longer loading time extending the mouse-to-full-screen period, which would be kinda my fault as I do have many SSDs now .... but I have like 3 computers and I used it all for many windows / linux boot drives. I'll eventually put DCS on the new NVME drive, but still didn't finish installing Windows there and setting it all up and then, get a load of this, swapping my old GPU from this PC out to get it running at all, GPU shortage is really a freaking thing affecting me as well right now. So I guess I'd appreciate if something could be done about this in the meantime, but it's a really minor thing so no rush.