Czar

I'm seeing the same discrepancy with the Hornet against all my jet modules. F-15E, F-16C, F-14A&B, F-4E, A-10C, M-2000C.

That can't happen, I fly the viper often. Any chance you have a mod installed? Visor down and up needs a few seconds to finish an animation until you have the HMD back on or off. DMS AFT needs to be pressed LONG or it does something completely different. Check your stick or controller if the input command is indeed constant on that long press. We need a track to see that happening. If you have any steps to reproduce, will be faster to fix if there is a bug.

I guess OP meant the Warthog HOTAS as the peripheral Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS. I think that was my bad, actually. Sorry. I posted based on the Warthog module but it works with any module. The hornet also has a too far back default POV and its HUD has no zoom functionality either. @Vol4Ever any steps that are easy to reproduce the issue? I flew recently with the A-10C without issues but haven't flew the Hornet in a while although never seen such bug if there is any.

The Hornet HUD has no zoom function. It is projected into infinity as collimated HUDs are in real life. I'd suggest you to place the default POV where you find the most comfortable with the outer HUD information in mind. RALT + Num 0 (zero on the number pad) is the keybind to save the default view in the current position. Num5 is the default to reset the view but I don't remember if it is useful with track IR. source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3320507/ Missing from this sheet it seems: RCtrl + RShift + / or * -> cockpit view forward or backwards. Good for the A-10C because the default is way too aft. Move it forward a bit and save with RAlt + Num 0. This is the default center point I use Did you check the box to use Track IR in external views? If you haven't, maybe is you physically moving out of the center position. TrackIR center command would bring you back to the default position.

I own all 3. 16s and 18s don't make the 15E superfluous. Neither 16s to 18s and vice versa. Reading the list of advantages as the larger payload, fuel, A2G radar, etc... that you wrote, one by one as individual advantages is one thing. The actual practical effect is all those things together. The 15E is a BEAST without comparison to the 16 and 18 with its capability of time on station and payload combined with its avionics. You're basically inside a medium bomber without having to think about fuel for quite a while with also being a self escort platform with those huge engines and Aim-120s. F-16s doesn't have the legs to do that with such heavy payloads, and the 18s doesn't have the ordinance capability for the amount of different tasks in one go the 15E takes. So, the question of: I'd say it is combining the advantages in one instead of knowing the advantages separately. In practice they stack impressively. I love what this plane can do. With a full load of CBU-97s, you can basically delete anything remotely hot in a town size radius like if a platoon of explosive Predator Paratroopers dropped from a plane above. "But F-16s also have the 97s" Not in this payload size. The thing is wild, man. Although I prefer LGBs and some Jdams.

Yes. It was called "Strait of Hormuz". Product name changed.

Yep, around the same horsepower here too. SSAA is a no-go for me and likely will continue that way. I'm happy with DLAA and can live with the ghosting that, at least, doesn't affect combat here. Maybe a card that has DLSS can be a good bump in image one day to enable DLAA.

Thank you Perhaps you would be looking for SSAA (available in DCS) instead of MSAA, as the later is a lower budget solution as always been. SSAA weights are much higher than MSAA over the GPU side, keep it in mind.

For comparison, these are with DLAA only (recent, un-edited), perhaps it is what's been expected MSAA to be:

Hi. I've been following this thread for a few weeks now and I think some complaints about MSAA at 4x are a bit unrealistic. MSAA is a 'not so great' anti aliasing method. It is expensive and, since DCS pre World, it produced shimmering. All these images you're running with MSAA on. Notice that MSAA can't cover some angles with geometry, while others, especially the shot on the tower, MSAA successfuly makes a smooth diagonal line on that lower rail section. MSAA has been always like this. Its algorithm makes that effect. I can't speak about the lower center shimmer on that lens rim in the Apache cockpit, as I don't own the module, but the rest is on par to what MSAA had provided throughout the years. The method is quite old, although one of that preserves image quality best, trading a few shimmering here and there. SSAA in the other hand is much more powerful than MSAA, if I remember correctly. What I wrote is not related to be unable to turn MSAA on. Either 2x or 4x. I didn't had this issue. What I point out is how MSAA lacks in the anti aliasing department. It is still good for pixel perfect spotting dots, but you're not getting Temporal Anti Aliasing or Downscaling solution like images. Personal preference, I'm running with DLAA, even in 1080p with the sharpen slider just on the right spot. It produces a better image that what it would be with MSAA 4X, imo. If you apply any sharpen filter on MSAA the problem of aliased geometry worsen. This is a good read: https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/31801/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-anti-aliasing-multisampling-set https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Glossary:Anti-aliasing_(AA) A few examples un edited with MSAA 4x. Old shots, circa 2020-2021... I never played DCS without MSAA before DLAA arrived.

I think it would help that you post this on the FC2024 bug section and link this thread there instead of necroing this one. Visibility wise.

You mean this shine effect? Perhaps you're right! They are pretty rugged to have this effect present. (the best reference I could find of the bomb I have it on the screenshot.)

Not my opinion. Read it right. I disagree on the overlap issue. What I wrote was to show the discrepancy between arguments and the difference between products. Knowing well the general public entitlement, going as far as wanting discount for owning something released 14+ years ago. This is easily predicted.

One product ownership shouldn't warrant a discount on another product for completely different goals, like as stated that FC and FF levels crowd overlap very little. If the customer base overlap very little between these two levels, means the products are for very different for different purposes with very different characteristics, making weaker the argument of owning one would warrant a discount on the other. Before you notice, things will be like: if that plane has the same radar as the one I own, I should be offered X amount of discount because I already paid for the module that includes that radar. You only need one module to enjoy this game. I'm not saying everyone should pay for everything developed here. There is a tragedy of people with too many modules and overwhelmed by them unable to enjoy them at their best depth. As long as content licenses are not removed from customers because of another product existing, I see no issue here. You'll be able to fly your older Su-25A regardless.

Oh, heavens... the empire. We're about to blow up... Seriously, though, this is likely a large star shinning through the sky even though is daylight. The object/sprite/effect seems the same to the one that portrays starts on the night sky in DCS, but I'm taking it from memory. I don't own Kola so I can't see it from myself with the date and time posted. I don't know if planets are modeled in the night sky, but this thing needs adjustments (the whole night sky in DSC perhaps) as it looks too big.

When was the purchase? This week: Ouch². Try to get a refund, or at least contact support with the case of 'unfortunate timing'. Last week: Ouch. Same as above. ~1 year ago: meh. You've probably already had enough fun in it to warrant the purchase. And if you like it, a new one is incoming 'yaaay...' (sucks, I know) >2 years ago: Man... come on now. Worse things happen that are much more expensive in 2 years time and the new free one will serve to draw more people into DCS which = more core development. There isn't an completely smooth method of opening content for free to draw in more people and it is long overdue for DCS, BUT if this thing were announced before FC4 and FC4 not featuring it, it would be smoother. I understand OP in the moral sense although, for me, it balances out on the new update and more players... ...but financially: This are pixel planes. Don't break the bank buying them, ever. If you like the sim, consider more of a contribution. yay...My favorite module free from DRM online checks and I'll be able to store it on an external drive for ever.

Sums it up perfectly. If the E and the upcoming C had two FM each and the CFTs were removable, the threads would be about wanting something else with the same traffic and the same engagement. People are addicted into watching the neighbors grass 24/7.

I don't know if you guys are referring to a mod for the 14, as it can't carry JDAMs in DCS. I get the advisory, but to add, you can loft the GBU-31 reliably from other planes. It doesn't need to be 1G level flight. 450kts, gentle pull at 3nm (low level)/5nm ish high level, holding the pickle button.

Iraq map is the only map besides South America that I had no CTDs. And both are the hungriest ones in VRAM. Perhaps the CTDs are caused elsewhere. RTX 3060 12gb, i5 12600k, 64gb ram, 30gb on pagefile on another NVME SSD, DCS on a NVME SSD, 1080p, Windows 11, latest drivers of everything. HAGS 'off', Game Mode 'ON', track ir app 'on', no VR. DCS standalone version, or non-Steam.

OP....you're overwhelmed by the amount of modules you own. You're not the first person which I hear this. It is understandable but I think it is the source of this imaginative and constructive.....construction you've posted of the need of a virtual flight instructor. It is unfortunate to be discouraged by the many buttons and systems, even more so when having a backlog to go through in DCS, which seems like you have. I would try to fix this by have only one module for a while and forgetting that other modules exist. No matter the actual time will take, until you're comfortable on jumping into the aircraft at any day and not thinking about grabbing the manual anymore...or a browser to look on the internet any answer to a question. This last part is very important and I fear the AI doesn't have that capability of telling you: dude, hop on the thing and just go have at it. Many things you learn by doing it, and also is the only way to develop a technique of your own. I bet the last time you had the most progression on learning an aircraft, was the time you had only one or two 'new one' to hop into when having a free time, well, at least it was for me, but now you have 6, 7... . I tend to block any new AC purchase before I can deploy the last new module I have in a dynamic manner without having to look to the manual.....and get back to the base in a good regularity. I was lucky to be 'stuck' with the A-10C as my only FF for years, and the the F-18C as a modern 4th gen fighter multirole for 5 years straight before I bought the 14, 16, 15E, 4E... The Apache purchase is waiting my learning of the Phantom currently. I don't mean to disrespect in any way, and your post was a good read. It transported me to a sci-fi reality which was quite interesting to imagine. Btw: I hope you can start clearing that backlog no matter the pace. Any progress is good progress. Soon may what discourages you can transform into the actual reward of flying in these pixel planes. I think one learnt, speeds up the next as some hotas philosophies are interchangeable. ________________________________________________________________________________ About the AI Stuff (technicalities): In all honesty, any of this are not really replacing a well written manual and proper time with a single module. The experience of learning to hover, for the example shown, is much faster at doing the thing than hearing someone/somebody else explain. IMO, at the mechanical part of flying, seems the same as someone trying to teach another person to fly by saying words while it is much faster to boot up the plane and spend some minutes in it at the actual thing. The theoretical part, the one that a well written manual already does a fine job, could be injected on a AI system (which really is an automated delivery of a database) that you could 'talk' to when being in doubt of something technical. That I would like quite a bit. I like the peace of the cockpit while already feeling at home at my current modules while only wanting to hear a human friend, with whatever their struggles are or resolutions to an issue. I think this all ain't for me, but at the same time I don't think this AI stuff will properly cure lack of time flying a bird. That's well put.

BRIGHTNESS SUBJECT: Man, just by looking at the screenshot, gives me a bit of an eye sore. I wouldn't fly like this for more than a minute. A lot of blown whites. Reduce contrast if you changed something at the GPU control panel level, reduce gamma (ingame default value is 2.2). You have blown bright values and the darks are not really dark. Bellow are some examples of a readable output that will help a lot on projected displays such as HUDs and HMDs on any condition. Of course, these displays have limitations on top of bright areas just like in real life. My gamma is 2.0, on a calibrated monitor used for graphic design. Tips: Avoid aiming for a bright cockpit, it will wreck your image fidelity against bright clouds and HUDs and external areas. Leave contrast levels as close as possible to default positions at the software level (GPU control panel, post effect overlays etc...) Only adjust gamma levels in the sim as a starting point.

Just done it.

It doesn't have anything to do with the monitor. The ground textures haven't loaded for some reason.

Not a trade, but the Su-25A/T in full fidelity would be awesome.

Even with 24Gb of VRAM you would see similar allocation. Edit: It is often hard to tell how much VRAM is actually being demanded for some reason. It is a lot indeed and it is a good investment on cards with high amount of VRAM. I wish DCS had a better memory budget management, given the upcoming 5060 will have less than 12Gb and a card that most newcomers will probably own.