Horns

I currently have a 6 core 12 thread Intel Core i7-8700K. I’m considering upgrading to an 8 core 16 thread i9-9900K. If I went ahead and made that upgrade, would DCS make use of the extra cores/threads or does DCS not make much use of multithreading? According to Afterburner, the CPU often appears to be at 80% overall usage, but I’ve also read things in these forums that suggest DCS makes little use of multithreading, so I’d appreciate any clarity you can provide. Thanks :thumbup:

I have Jester working as normal now, but I had to revert to the menu system for giving Jester instructions. For anyone who finds this looking for a solution: reset everything but license data in the Vaicom configurator uncheck Vaicom in the Voice Attack plugin manager, and repair DCS. Please note: this isn't a magic fix, it still takes patience and persistence to get Jester to lock anything via the onscreen menu. I found the most success STT locking "enemy target ahead". Here's hoping that improves and we get a chance to successfully use AIRIO in the future.

Cheers, track file attached. I'm using AIRIO at the moment (had the same issues using default menu system) so I'm afraid the track file won't be too informative. I did check in Tacview and that seems to show that one of the targets was flying to meet us head on rather than notching, but I will keep an eye on that to make sure I don't confuse a problem with normal behavior. Good to know, I hadn't thought of using the wake up call. It hasn't helped yet but it's certainly worth trying when this happens, thanks!F-14 Jester.trk

Most times when I ask Jester to lock up a radar contact he affirms and then does nothing and says nothing of it, despite the contact still being visible on radar. This problem has gone on long enough often enough that I feel confident that these aren't latent contacts that have since been lost every time. Jester's affirmative response suggests to me that the command has been accepted so that is not where the problem originates, but I have still tried using every way of referring to a contact I could (ie bogey ahead, target ahead, contact ahead, target number etc). Has this been a widespread problem? I had just figured this was something that would get sorted out as the module develops, but since I didn't see other people mentioning this problem I thought I'd better check.

Thank you so much! This has allowed me to identify an underlying audio problem I would never have otherwise detected. Thanks again:)

I'd love to be able to select a tacan channel by number and band (x or y). If anyone knows the correct syntax to make this work I'd be very appreciative. I've tried every combination I could think of but I could have missed one...

I think they write the manual as they develop the module, so they probably don't have much to share atm. Dispatch kindly linked this when I asked a similar question... http://www.f-16.net/downloads_F16handbooks.html

I must admit, I hadn't registered the descriptor of "early" or "beginning of" before I posted this thread. I would agree that early Autumn means before the mid point of the season. Beyond that we get subjective (I would think first third because I think of it as 'early', 'mid' or 'late'), and that's before we tackle whether it's astronomical or meteorological Autumn. I can definitely understand why ED might choose not to give ETAs anymore, but since they had mentioned 'early' or 'beginning of' Autumn in the newsletter I figured not having it in the E-Shop listing was an oversight rather than a choice.

I think maybe I wasn't clear... I wasn't asking when it will be released. I'm just pointing out that the EA date has been omitted *from the E-Shop listing*. I don't think we've had a modern module up for pre-purchase without an ETA in my time here, so I thought I'd point that out in case it was a mistake. The further suggestion I was making in the first post was that, if they are going to add an ETA, that they use a date instead of a season, eg 12/21/19 instead of "Autumn". Personally, I don't mind when we get this bird, she will be worth the wait.

No date is fine with me, but with the F-14 some people felt that “this Winter” wasn’t explicit enough...

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but the F-16 listing in the E-Shop shows no ETA as far as I can see. The button does say "PRE-PURCHASE", but there is no comment on when it will become available. If this hasn't been done yet, I'll make a personal request: After the drama with the F-14, please put a date instead of a season. I don't really think you should have to and I know most of us can tell that Autumn ends on December 21 but, it might save some conflict later if you put a solid date now. Just a thought.

Cobra said here that the feature list on the purchase page lists all features of the module and clarifies that the map was dropped. Would have been nice, but then we're already getting a lot :)

Here in WA the Wednesday update is usually available late Wednesday night. I think it's generally between 9 and 11 my time, so 6-8 Eastern States and 4 til 6 NZ I think.

When Airio is released, will there be a bundle deal for Airio and Vaicom Pro with Chatter Themes, or will the cost be the same if I buy the Vaicom Pro/Chatter themes bundle now?

I think you're thinking of that other ED :P

Winter ends on March 20th. At that point you can complain about target dates not being met, we are still well before the deadline. You decided to take time off work that preceded the release date. If you wind up on vacation without the Tomcat the only person responsible is you.

This would be a huge positive change. Searching by user can help, but in this case, official Heatblur information could be coming from Cobra847, Naquaii, BlackLion213 or others, so we do need more. Putting all official statements and only official statements into a sticky thread with a standardized title (eg [module name] Official Release Information) would make sense. Checking this forum should always be more informative than checking a dev's facebook.

It’s in ED’s hands now. The date will depend on how long ED’s testing takes, and even if Heatblur knew the date they would be forbidden from mentioning it until ED makes the announcement.

Oh sure, it's fine for you to say that here, but when I ended my best man's speech by saying that and winking at the bride everyone got all pissed off...

I wonder if the release date will be announced in the weekly news...

Awww, now I want a pet penguin too :cry:

The AI doesn’t seem to do BFM by the book so that might limit how far it could go re counters, but because of the controlled situation at least the initial maneuver would work. For instance, if the mission designer could just get the AI to fly a suitable curve, the player’s a/c would just need to be correctly positioned to be able to execute the high or low yo-yo. It would give the player the chance to understand the basic maneuver, and they could then go build on that through their own learning thanks to a solid understanding of what the initial move was.

Yeah, I think there is an aggressors BFM campaign for the F-5 and the F-15C too. I was thinking more of the application of 4th gen tech like modern radars in one of our DCS level sims, but I should have acknowledged the F-5 and F-15 campaigns in the OP.

Not talking about pvp Probad, but thanks for contributing :thumbup:

A campaign focusing on specific BFM Maneuvers (like high and low yo-yo, flat and rolling scissors etc) would be a fantastic resource for players who want to learn air-to-air. The training missions could start right before the maneuver, with both the player and the target's a/c in the correct relative positions. Like other training, these training missions could start in active pause while a voice over could explain some theory and direct the player's attention to certain details (eg Angle Off Tail). That would give the player the chance to see and learn to recognize the situation where the maneuver should be executed, and it would be time efficient enough that a player could get the reps they need to improve. Further training missions could be included that talk a player through the approach that could create the situation where the maneuver could be used to best effect. Tracks could be included showing one of our RL fighter pilots flying the same mission - but that's getting pretty greedy. The F/A-18 Hornet seems like the best airframe for this application, given that it is so broadly owned and its low-speed prowess. The M2K or the F-16 might also make sense. I'm not sure how closely the mission designer can script AI behavior, so that might be one challenge this would need to overcome. EDIT: There is an Aggressors BFM campaign for the F-5 already. I think that focuses more on skirmishes rather than individual maneuvers, as this one would. I think the greatest benefit would come from doing this in one of our more modern DCS level airframes, with modern aerodynamics, avionics etc.