zerO_crash

They made a good choice with regards to LUA´s being locked (my personal opinion). People have to start asking themselves if it is really realism that they want. Sure, a fictional livery should not be permitted, but due to the low amount of aircraft, so be it. That is not intrusive. Custom systems and loudouts, that is however something completely different. But yes, they have diverted from their strict rules and policy recently, something that I am not too fond of, because again, it just creates confusion in the long run. At the same time, one has to remember that hey have a business to run, and if 6 vs 4 mavericks will get them that many more customers, then sadly, that is a decision overruled by the business-model. Sad but true.

It is unfortunate that ED gave into this, based on a couple loud children on the forums that have no idea about practices IRL and what was permitted as valid loadout. Kids posting pictures of test-aircraft from Eglin AFB (tail prefix "ET" and "OT") with 6 mavericks and proving to the experienced how f*** clueless they are. This is what forums become when the sim becomes accessible to the average Joe, as sad as that sounds. More is not always better. The ridiculous threads that start infesting these forums are practically mostly by inexperienced and new members that really have no clue what DCS is and what it strives for. Their whining and stupid suggestions are what´s making the IRL-relevant mechanics, pilots, crew chiefs and others stop bothering to engage in open discussions and rather join their closed enclaves. These SME´s have much valuable info that get´s lost between tons of irrelevant and idiotic posts which bring nothing more than "I want x", regardless of whether it´s realistic or not! Even if that is the case with F-16 and F-18 (Mig21Bis as well), we should strive for realism, not claim those cases as an evidence that ED should expand on the practice and include each and every loadout for each and every aircraft, no matter how unrealistic it is. The idea is only stupid for you if you don´t understand it. This can definitely be corrected with time, and it ought to be said that the module still is in Early Access, therefore, let´s wait until it´s finished before making any final statements. As to Mi-8MTV2, you really don´t understand the significant difference between a fictional paint and actually altering loadout of a given aircraft thus changing, expanding or shrinking it´s combat abilities. It gives a wrong perception of the given aircraft, its doctrine and what role it was meant to fit. No, restricting weapons or systems to what this specific aircraft carried IRL is not stupid, it is realistic. Read what that word means. It has nothing to do with your unfulfilled wishes of flying an aircraft that was run in a different configuration with some different systems in other countries. What it has to do with, is finding manuals and actually confirming that those were the only differences between them. This is precisely what was made wrong with the Mig21Bis as a third party module. Half of the weapons on this module were never used by the PVO Mig21Bis. The weapons were initially added by Leatherneck simulations because they believed that this was the only Mig21-model that would enter DCS for a long time to come, if ever at all. Thus, allow "us" to pretend like we are flying a different Mig21 with different weapons. The amount of confusion it made with weapons that physically cannot be guided by that radar (Saphir RP-22 SMA), or pylons that lack wiring for certain others is criminal. The intention was good, but for a study sim where IRL SME´s and pilots are asking about the color of each wire and how a system interacts with another is just asking for problems down the road. Instead, from the very beginning, a foot should have been put down to create a specific bort Mig21Bis and no imaginary loadouts. Half of what you write are assumptions, not anything specific, besides the comparison with F-16 and F-18. I for one am partly Russian, I speak and write Cyrillic. My grandfather worked at a factory creating Mig15´s and Mig21´s, specifically the tail-units, in Poland under a certificate known as Lim-15 and Lim-21. I have a pretty good idea about what I´m talking about when it comes to Russian/Eastern modules. Whatever I don´t know, I search it or ask relevant people (either online, or F2F) and get my answers, instead of assuming anything. You have to ask yourself if it is DCS at all that you wish to fly, and nothing something else, more arcade where all your wishes for imaginary loadout will be fulfilled. This is a mil-sim, not quasi like Arma. (No one stated anything about what the "V" stands for. In case you don´t know, "M" stands for modernised (in practise, TV3 engines, among some other general improvements) and "T" for transport. That is not the discussion here.)

No! Neither S-5 and S-13 were mounted on this revision of the Mi8-MTV2, in the Russian Armed Forces. It is not just an Mi8, it´s a specific one, and everything is up to spec on this version, also whatever was used in service on it. Realism is about what was mounted on it. Also, you do not just "google-search" content like this. Info relevant to the Mi8-MTV2 can be found in the Russian language. As to skins, in a sense they should. However they are kept in to be able to participate in fictional scenarios. What you don´t distinguish is that there is one thing to have a fictional skin, and it is something completely different to modify the aircraft or put loadout on it which was never used on it! No, ED´s policy is not to allow loadouts that are "physically" possible. Their policy is to allow loadouts that are permitted IRL and were used IRL. The Apache will not get the APKWS, even if it´s the same pod as Hydra 70. The specific block Apache didn´t have it, and thus this won´t have it. The russian Ugroza-system (which came before APKWS, -kor) is also supposedly compatible with standard mounts. However none of the aircraft we have, ever used it, therefore we don´t have it. It´s that simple. There is really nothing more to discuss here. You cannot change the fact that Mi8-MTV2 never used S-5 and S-13 in the Russian Armed Forces IRL. This Mi8 represents a Russian specific one, and therefore it will not come, unless a different variant is made. That´s it!

It´s time-restricted because on the outside, it might seem like the only change to this specific Apache was only the addition of the APKWS any maybe something else, but irrelevant. That while IRL there could be documents and info that is classified and talks about further software updates or more added functionality. In that way, you fly neither one or the other. What really shines with DCS is that what we fly, as closely as possible resembles a specific aircraft with it´s build, capabilities and lacks. Not some imaginary "I´ll take the best from each tranche and show them how it´s supposed to be done"! That is the difference! Making an Apache with all its iterations depending on the year would be rather difficult. If anything, go for a Heatblur variant of a F-14A+ and F-14B+. At least they are specific frames which are realistically time-separated but represent a concrete airframe. If ED decided to make an Apache that represents the one which doesn´t have APKWS, then they did and it shouldn’t have it. Now it´s up to the mission-designer to make a relevant scenario. If they released an Apache AH-64A, some people would prefer that as well, while others want the AH-64E with lasers on them because "in the future, we predict that lasers will be mounted on the same Apache’s". At the point ED goes that way, it loses all its credibility and this becomes a game. It loses its charm and becomes nothing more than Ace Combat on steroids. Arma has went this way and turned out completely arcade, even on the most realistic settings. No one who has been with DCS since its start, wants to see it come to end like that. That´s why the disagreement. The ruling principle of DCS is "REALISM", not "quasi-realism" or "almost realistic, but not quite". Even if we have many other maps, that is something different, because each and every one of these aircraft could be flown in other parts of the world. The air is the same all around. However that not all INS-instruments would work, is indeed a truth, and should be simulated as well! Making a realistic mission-design is up to the mission designer. But restricting loadout on an unrealistic aircraft is not! It´s simply wrong! EDIT: Just for reference, Ugroza (suffix -kor)(Russian APKWS, came before APKWS), is as well a upgrade that doesn´t need any specific changes (at least as far is known), but still we don´t have it on the Russian-side as it´s not realistic. None of the aircraft of the RU-side have it (as per block), and thus it´s not available. Precisely the way it should be.

Your understanding is flawed as always. Just because we have other maps, doesn´t limit one to run it realistically on only NTTR. For us who care about realism, apache should only be used there. When it comes to the systems, that´s something else than even an imaginary scenario where you transported your Apache AH-64D fleet in the back of a C-5 Galaxy to Europe or middle east. Adding systems that were not there at the specific point of the specific tranche is false in every way. If they made AH-64A, "just adding a radar and a couple of MFDs" would be just as wrong to bring it to the “D” standard. Even when pilots do simulator training of a certain aircraft in the military, they will be tested in different scenarios (depending on the education level and point), in different climates. Although their fleets are not there, they still train for it to know the aircraft and fly it well. The aircraft however stays true to its real-life counterpart. Without any imaginary weapons that "should work just like the normal ones". You forget that things like the laser have to be programmed to allow for latching and auto-lasing, something that this apache-version (and specifically block) does not have. Be it a software update or not, this tranche does not have it. That´s all there is to it!

No, that has nothing to do with it. You comparison is just purely wrong. A10CII can have it, as it is an 2008 updated version of A10C. However A10C does not, because back in 2005 it wasn´t used nor certified on the aircraft. It´s not the production year of the actual aircraft, but which batch is being modelled.

Might be, but that myth is even on Russian websites for a long time now. Someone got it wrong once, and since then it´s been repeated like gospel I suppose.

No, it does not. Some of us have run the same installation for many years. In that case, although performance never suffered, the were many leftover files from before. When I recommend reinstalling, it´s because it might fix your performance if you are running an old installation, like me. From update to update, there will be folders left that aren´t used. If you don´t get better performance, then at least you cleaned your installation, made some more space on your HDD/SSD, and can check it off. We all have to wait for further patches that will resolve many of the issues that will NATURALLY be introduced with such big updates. You should ask yourself what are doing on Open Beta when stability is all you want. Downgrade your installation to final and wait there. Otherwise, respect that this is a beta and issues will come up, especially with such big updates and new introductions! I cannot guarantee that it will work, it might, if you have an old installation like I did (before 1.5). It´s worth a try though. If this doesn´t fix it, keep looking, otherwise I`m sure that there will be many performance improvements to come.

That´s wrong. Many places keep quoting 750 rounds on Mi24P for some reason. It has 250 rounds. https://books.google.no/books?id=tlW1CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=mi24+gsh+30k&source=bl&ots=l7rn-JPZ6N&sig=ACfU3U2HBqRQajzdTwAbCmMg2IrCSWKtfw&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkoNbZyYzwAhVriYsKHSnuDz8Q6AEwD3oECA0QAw#v=onepage&q=mi24 gsh 30k&f=false http://vimpel-v.com/guns/avia/avia_helic/811-mi-24-rossiya.html

Just finished reinstalling DCS from scratch. All the stutters are gone, frame rate is better than in 2.5.6. and I even gained some 80GB in sheer space on my SSD (apparently there were many leftover files from old DCS updates). I can definitely recommend everyone to reinstall their DCS, the effect is amazing.

Tested it with 461.72 Nvidia driver, somewhat better, but still far perfect. At this point, I notice that the frametime is very high (15+ ms). Having also compared FPS, yes, it´s much lower than it was before. This has to be priority number one. - Intel i7 8770k - Nvidia 1080 Ti - 32GB RAM - SSD (Samsung 980EVO)

I see, well I can absolutely recommend to hold back with the driver update for now. I am running the newest and it definitely made things worse. Also, if Syria ran good for you before too, then there is something with Caucasus indeed. I notice some of my clan-mates have the same issues with it specifically. Makes me wonder if it could have something to do with the high amount of trees and how they are projected, or simply that the map needs an optimisation. I´ll check later 461.72 and see what I find. Also with deleting the options-file.

I am really curious if this driver, pluss deleting the config-file, will remove the last stuttering, and give me actually give me as good performance as I had in 2.5.6 with better visuals. I wonder, do you notice any difference between Syria and Caucasus in terms of performance?

It´s kind of weird, but upon testing more, the framerate is not a problem at all. Really what is, are the high frame times. Pretty much what @Harlikwin noticed. I will try 461.72 driver and see if I notice any improvement. I am feeling that this is a matter of optimisation, as my hardware is simply not getting used to it´s fullest. We are hardware-wise rather similar (I7 8770k, GTX 1080ti, SSD) and for me it runs great in VR, except the occasional stutter (in Caucasus). - Try 461.72 driver and see if you get any improvement. - It might be worth considering a fresh-reinstall if you are like me and have run the same installation for the past 7-8 years (save input-file such that you have all your keybindings). - Wait for the next DCS update which should address much of what is being discussed here.

You can always roll back to a previous specific version. Don´t worry, update it

Haha, I had to repair the install, and indeed it improved my framerate on Caucasus as well. The other maps were great from the start, but it was Caucasus that could cause small jitters, that is mostly gone now. I guess the little that remains, has to do with the optimisation of the map

Absolutely amazing, it is simply stunning. Aside from the few minor issues, which are to be expected, this is yet another milestone for DCS. This is a whole new approach to "Photorealistic"

Sometimes, however sometimes it used to occur that the aircraft that used a special skin, turned pixelated in three green colors. I haven´t tested this for a long time, so I would assume that it might be fixed. Regardless, seeing different skins depending on who has a non-standard one becomes wrong. Each module ships with a couple of skins, and it really ought not to be a problem. We have tested this before, and it just doesn´t work well. Therefore, it is a good thing that aircraft ship with new skins, at the expense of taking more space. Same goes for CA and all the ground-/sea-units. If we want to get the best quality sim, then at least secure some space. It´s not about having your own opinion, but how you express it. Do it kindly and with respect. We are a community that knows better than calling each other out. Cheers

- Fixed -

The version of the specific Mi8MTV2 that we have, is a Soviet version, and this one didn’t have S-5 rockets at any point. This is not a quasi-version, but a specific one from Soviet Union. That’s all there is to it. Realism, that’s they keyword, not “almost-realism”.

Absolutely, but just to keep the simulator installation clean. Also a matter of compatibility with users that don't have it. It looks good for you, but not them.

Very well said Rudel_chw! There are already enough of missions requiring specific skins, which turns off many people simply because one wants to keep a clean installation with no mods, and thus possible issues. Furthermore, not having a skin causes others to see you glitched. This is certainly not the solution. Regardless, show some maturity when arguing with others!

One question, are you doing a proper warmup as per manual? I know for sure that an engine that isn´t correctly warmed up before flight, will explode on you when you run it up to the limits defined by the manual.

You are definately generalizing, it´s not true at all that precision and cleverness were not considered valuable. I am speaking from the other side of the curtain. Cleverness has always been a prime asset. Much of the soviet equipment was multi-use and thus cleverness was used in order to employ it in any situation (take for instance documented use of R-60 on Hinds on ground vehicles). Our cultures build mostly on cleverness. Same goes for how advanced certain systems were, take for instance SAM units. The whole umbrella covering the air above Soviet Union was an elaborate and advanced system, easily being on par with the western, if not more advanced. What you state is partly right for the ordinary army, just like in any other country. However, all special missions were left to special operation units such as Spetsnaz, MVD, KGB and all the other GRUs. This is also the case for any other country. The western picture plays on propaganda that everything was square and dumb in USSR, but that´s definitely not true. You cannot generalise and simplify it like that. It is also completely wrong to state that Red Army remained a 1945-type of army until 1980´s. With new systems, improved training, lessons learned from their elaborate history, including WWII, it was definitely evolving at an accelerated rate. That´s also why the west got so worried. Not only that, but the rather elaborate war on intelligence during Cold War. Many western books and media depict the Soviets as a machine of magnitude where nobody has their own mind, but rather think collectively as one and thus it´s a form of mind control when you are on "that side". In reality, nothing could be further away. It seems like that, because the Soviet military was very strict, in order to control an army of that size, you needed everyone to follow orders. That´s also where the difference between airforces come into play. Whereas a western pilot would often engage what he spotted during his flight (unless the mission was specified), the Soviet pilot went out for a specific task and goal in mind. Even if he/she would spot enemy combatant units underneath, often their own mission had higher priority. That´s not to say that targets of opportunity weren´t engaged, of course they were too. In reality though, everything was planned rather carefully and each mission had it´s priority. It wasn´t as random as in the west, if you will. Although Soviets came later to the digital computers (mainly because it remained untested in war time), they always used many analogue ones, as well as automation. There has always been much focus on that. Take for instance autoloaders of T64. It´s one of the first tanks to feature a fully automated autoloader (I believe it was the first), and thus skip a 4th crew member. Additionally, there has always been much focus on interoperability in different climates, from snowy and cold Siberia to hot deserts of ´stan republics. That and quick deployment of units, often automated mechanisms to reduce the amount of personnel needed. This whole topic is really too big to discuss over a forum, because going into detail, one notices that nothing is as black and white as media would have it to. People lived, and well too, on both sides of the curtain and while there were some differences here and there it mostly came down to who was in a commanding/leading position. Be it a general that was hungry for power (didn´t care for his troops, there are examples of this on both sides of the curtain), or one that cared for each and every and thus sent no-one to situations that would account for high loss of life.

That is a wrong way to think about it. If ED was supposed to adjust itself to you only, or the masses, then we should have every possible loadout on every possible aircraft. And every possible aircraft should have the possibility to take off it´s wings, take out the engines, swap with a propeller and make a lawnmover, just because "my scenario". This doesn´t make any sense. This simulator strives for realism, and even as Art-J mentioned, there have been some liberties (3-4 modules), however they were heavily criticised for a good reason. Hopefully with an understanding that people want ultimate realism here, not fantasy. This is a simulator for a good reason, and not a "build it yourself" game.