Redglyph

It would probably help them if you gave some details, you are very vague. Which DCS version, what hardware, do you have an SSD (asked previously)... ? Have you tried to lower the preload radius as suggested?

Fantastic! For a permanent fix I don't think they currently have the time, I've been proposing a fix for the switches for one year (fully tested, no impact on missions and so on, like the one for the A-10C) and they haven't had the time to integrate the new file. However, they have recently added the possibility to put custom textures which are not removed on each update, which is already very good. Unlike the switch fix, you just have to drop the new textures once, and select it in the main menu, then you can forget all about it. But frankly the current default English cockpit is very good, the gauges that were still in Russian in previous versions were replaced, perhaps the only remaining text that is not translated is on the stick but that's not an issue. The only annoyance is the list of radio channels and beacons.

You can use the default English cockpit, it seems to be correct.

Sounds perfectly fine to me. The very purpose of those subforums is obviously to report such problems in beta versions, they are meant to the devs or who reports to them. What is not fine is other people who feel entitled to claim nothing should be reported or said because it's a beta; unless they give helpful information those posts have no place here IMHO. Just don't pay attention :) Hopefully that won't spoil the thread and you'll get a reply or see the problem as [reported].

Crisp images are usually uncomfortable to the human eye below 30 FPS. The problem also comes from the inconsistency of the framerate, it's very noticeable and annoying because you see the sim is slowing down. Then there are the freezings which is of course much worse. Another aspect of the low framerate is the relatively lower responsiveness, which is critical in a combat simulator.

It clearly depends more on the hardware than on luck. Clearly with an overkill setup of 1080 Ti, i7 8700, 32 GB and SSDs you are better off than with a 4-year old system. Not everybody can afford that though, or is willing to just for a sim ;)

It is, sort of, thanks! Both settings determine how far the trees are drawn, but it's confusing.

That slider is for the quantity, isn'it ? Has this changed? The visibility range does have an effect on how far one can see them, are both settings combined somehow? Thanks for the tip, I'll tweak that when I have the time. :)

You should post your log, it may contain useful information. Also, specify your settings and what your hardware is, otherwise I don't see how they could help.

Even on visibility range set to Ultra, trees seem to "grow from the ground", the visibility is way too low, I have to set "Extreme" not to have those annoying trees poping up all the time, and no tree visible at all from even low altitude. But extreme allows other things to be visible too early probably, which causes frequent freezes as the sim has to load objects (and since those are apparently blocking reads...). Perhaps a separate slider, or balancing that differently helps? Or are there other problems doing that?

Of course, that's only the flywheel. Makes sense :D

A few pointers to add to what HiJack posted. This wiki is a good reference for scripting: http://wiki.hoggit.us/view/Simulator_Scripting_Engine_Documentation http://wiki.hoggit.us/view/Mission_Scripting_Tools_Documentation Be aware that many mission features cannot be accessed from scripting unfortunately (like any R/W interaction with the aircraft systems). This is a great tool to do some interactive tests: (but it's a bit awkward to set up, there are two modes depending on what you want to do) https://jboecker.github.io/dcs-witchcraft/ There are libraries like MOOSE and MIST with a fair amount of code, reading that helps a bit to understand how scripting works in DCS.

I tried again the first mission, 1) There is still a lot of static in the recorded instructor's voice. It's really on the whole spectrum, including high frequencies, which sounds completely wrong in that environment. I think filtering the instructor's voice as if it was heard in a headset (so through a band-pass filter) would have both advantages of removing the weird HF and making the bad quality legit, and to make it more immersive at the same time. 2) Instructed to switch magnetos M1+M2 before asking the mechanic to turn the starter. We just don't do that :) Even during WWII, original operating manuals specifically mention to switch those magnetos after the mechanic is clear.

When we do navigation estimations in aviation, we use the wind speed vector, but we take that from a meteorological service which uses the common FROM convention. You never indicate "wind 045" for a wind coming from the SW, it would be too confusing. On my log I only report the FROM direction of the wind and its magnitude, as given by the tower or by the METAR. If you draw a speed triangle to someone to explain the principle, you will of course use the wind speed vector, but you label it "wind speed" or "wind vector", which is not the same. Wind direction is defined as the direction the wind is coming from. As proof of the confusion, the many threads about this wind direction issue :D Also, as it can be seen in the screenshots I posted in another similar bug report, the weather information given in the briefing is wrong, I doubt anyone would try and argue this one. And starting from there, wouldn't that be best to have the same direction used everwhere, which happens to be the international convention? A good principle in programming is to keep the same convention for parameters, to reduce the risk of error. Designing those missions already has its share of challenges :)

+1 The MiG-21 is in need of some love regarding textures, gauges and lighting in 2.x :)

The Bf 110 would be interesting as well, though probably not as much as the Ju 88.

I'm not sure which post you are referring to - or coming from ;). Yes, according to ICAO or meteorology in general, 045 would mean wind coming from the North-East, but that's the point, in the editor (and I think in the briefing) 045 means it's coming from the SW. I'm not sure there's any field in which it's customary to indicate the TO direction, it must simply be a bug in formula used to display the wind angle. It's problably a 2-minute fix, the problem is just that they are not aware of the problem (or I missed any reported thread about that, it's quite old).

But neither of you give any log or any information that would help Belsimtek find the cause, not even the DCS version.

That wouldn't require any modification in the existing missions, what is wrong is just what is displayed, in the mission editor and perhaps in the mission briefing - I don't know anymore because of this confusion. It was funny to see the other day that IL-2 has the same bug in its mission editor. Still, quite annoying because one never knows whether the wind displayed is correct or reversed.

Thrustmaster, further details in my signature. I'm using both the beta and the alpha, last time I checked (not so long ago), it was the same behaviour in both branches. Perhaps it's the real behaviour, who knows? It's not blocking at all, the Gazelle is pretty fun to fly and I can live with the weird "slow before accelerate" part since I'm not using that mode that often :) It's just a bit frustrating when one takes the time to report issues to help with the beta/alpha, and not seeing any hint that the devs have registered the problem. That's what is bugging me the most in DCS, I don't mind if it takes 4 months to fix, it's a beta, but posting PR's for nothing is both a waste of time and a problem which is most probably not known to them. I guess I haven't understood the logic of how it should be properly reported ;)

I never got any reply from Polychop on that strange behaviour (nor on the other problems for that matter), it seems they're not interested. I haven't tried anymore, to be honest. Thanks for asking anyway :) Yeah, I saw that, glad your problem was fixed and you could fly the Gazelle normally again!

For those who never tire of watching movies and documentaries on the subject... This one-hour documentary retraces the origins and shows most of the variants of that fantastic airplane. It gives quite a few interesting details on the systems, and the main modifications that were made. It's not exhaustive of course, but interesting enough. Some comparisons with its main opponents are also summarized. Near the end, at about 50' there's a pre-flight, take-off and a short flight of a well-known LF Mk IXb in which one can hear the sonorous engine we all love, both from within and without. Be warned, fairly high risk of goosebumps ;) for the impatients :)

Happy New Year to you, M3!

I don't feel it's outdated, nor in need of any upgrade, the only part that annoys me is having to patch the switch logic on every update. Otherwise it's a great module with a really deep modelling of the systems, and plenty of quality DLC. It will be an interesting comparison to the Harrier. What upgrade are you thinking about? Anything specific? Perhaps the feeling some have is coming from a need to see something new because it has been there for a long time. Personally I'd rather see new DCS features to enrich the overall experience like improved AI, ATC, mission possibilities, realistic weather and their effects on aircraft, state persistence, or maybe even new aircraft, than refreshing a perfectly well-done module. Unless on some monitors the textures begin to appear too low-res (like the Black Shark's), but that'd just be a simple texture replacement.

They rely on common libraries, scripts and other files. Though for individual fixes that are independent or living on the same common version, I'm wondering the same, just assuming it's safer and much easier to manage.