sc_neo

On my 16gb system DCS 2.5 is pretty much using up all memory it can, and that on the most simple instant ''takeoff'' missions. NTTR as well as Caucasus. And i can't really make heads or tails of the memory readings i get from sysinternals or the resource monitor, see attachment below. When i have nothing running except for DCS NTTR A-10c takeoff instant action mission, physical memory is filled up to 12.5gb. If i kill dcs, it drops down to 2.5gb. Thus DCS alone sucked up 10gb. But i kinda fail to see how those 10gb are represented in those sysinternals memory readings shown below. And, i have tested all my more memory intensive games and DCS 1.5.8 legacy build as well, and none is showing this weirdly high ''working set shareable'' memory load. Working set shareable with other games including DCS 1.5.8 is something between 60 and 500mb. DCS 2.5 uses at least equal and most of the time more memory as working set shareable than working set private. If you add up WS shareable and WS private you end up with the overall 'working set' memory usage. But this is still far from those 10gb that are emptied as soon as i close DCS. What is actually included in private bytes (commited bytes), working set and so forth seems rather complicated as aproximated by this discussion here, especially the first answer; https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1984186/what-is-private-bytes-virtual-bytes-working-set ''The short answer to this question is that none of these values are a reliable indicator of how much memory an executable is actually using, and none of them are really appropriate for debugging a memory leak. Private Bytes refer to the amount of memory that the process executable has asked for - not necessarily the amount it is actually using. They are "private" because they (usually) exclude memory-mapped files (i.e. shared DLLs). But - here's the catch - they don't necessarily exclude memory allocated by those files. There is no way to tell whether a change in private bytes was due to the executable itself, or due to a linked library. Private bytes are also not exclusively physical memory; they can be paged to disk or in the standby page list (i.e. no longer in use, but not paged yet either). Working Set refers to the total physical memory (RAM) used by the process. However, unlike private bytes, this also includes memory-mapped files and various other resources, so it's an even less accurate measurement than the private bytes. This is the same value that gets reported in Task Manager's "Mem Usage" and has been the source of endless amounts of confusion in recent years. Memory in the Working Set is "physical" in the sense that it can be addressed without a page fault; however, the standby page list is also still physically in memory but not reported in the Working Set, and this is why you might see the "Mem Usage" suddenly drop when you minimize an application. Virtual Bytes are the total virtual address space occupied by the entire process. This is like the working set, in the sense that it includes memory-mapped files (shared DLLs), but it also includes data in the standby list and data that has already been paged out and is sitting in a pagefile on disk somewhere. The total virtual bytes used by every process on a system under heavy load will add up to significantly more memory than the machine actually has. So the relationships are: Private Bytes are what your app has actually allocated, but include pagefile usage; Working Set is the non-paged Private Bytes plus memory-mapped files; Virtual Bytes are the Working Set plus paged Private Bytes and standby list. There's another problem here; just as shared libraries can allocate memory inside your application module, leading to potential false positives reported in your app's Private Bytes, your application may also end up allocating memory inside the shared modules, leading to false negatives. That means it's actually possible for your application to have a memory leak that never manifests itself in the Private Bytes at all. Unlikely, but possible. Private Bytes are a reasonable approximation of the amount of memory your executable is using and can be used to help narrow down a list of potential candidates for a memory leak; if you see the number growing and growing constantly and endlessly, you would want to check that process for a leak. This cannot, however, prove that there is or is not a leak. One of the most effective tools for detecting/correcting memory leaks in Windows is actually Visual Studio (link goes to page on using VS for memory leaks, not the product page). Rational Purify is another possibility. Microsoft also has a more general best practices document on this subject. There are more tools listed in this previous question. I hope this clears a few things up! Tracking down memory leaks is one of the most difficult things to do in debugging. Good luck.'' If i understand this correctly, 'working set shareable' includes memory pages that are not DCS specific but are common to Windows and could in theory be shared with other programs and games running at the same time as well. But what and why would DCS 2.5 load non DCS stuff like Windows libraries and such to the amount of 3-5gb? Again, i don't have any other game that shows this behaviour. And how come DCS obviously uses up 10gb of RAM when which i can't really account for in those memory readings shown below?

So it works indeed when placed in the saved games folder as described by leonardo_c. Actually, the same behaviour happens with the 476th range targets.

to add to this bug: when jettisoning the canopoy, you get the same closing sound like it was still there, and the outside sound levels are tuned down like if the canopy glass was still there.

i have the same problem like Fishbed-21. And i thought of the savedgames folder as a alternative install location as well, didn't try that yet though. But doing it the OvGME way works in that the mod shows up in the ingame module manager. So i am curious, how can it show up correctly ingame in the module manager but still not work as intended?

Oh...thats unfortunate. I am pretty certain a lot of people would appreciate a campaign for the Gazelle, even if too few voice that here. May i ask, how many missions have you finished?

So, one thing i hope will become very useful is the planned online manual for the F-14 that was mentioned in the October reveal trailer. Not only do i hope that users can help maintain or enhance it (there might always be some special knowledge sleeping that you don't come across in the literature :thumbup: ) and fix typos, that sort of thing. Additionally, i always found the 4:3 pdf format not very practical for reading manuals on screen. Chuck does it way better by formatting his guides in 16:9. Yes, not as easy to convert for the kneeboard, but so much more ledgable on a computer screen or smartphone. So, an online document should hopefully provide for some adjustability concerning the formatting, so we can switch stuff around a bit to make best use of our 16:9 screens. So, will the Viggen get its own ''living online manual'' as well, like the F-14 will?

Maybe it has a bit to do with how development works. From a knowledge base it makes probably sense to develop the US 4th fighters in one push (even if that push takes 4 - 8+ years overall). Devs are just people and probably remember and forget stuff like the rest of us. Thus making the F/A-18....than eastern aircraft in between of same fidelity level and than going back to the F-16, wouldn't make as much sense as developing those back to back with all the research for common systems fresh in devs minds. And, maybe its even a question of how much research and contract stuff they can devote energy into at the same time. Like if the channels are open with some aircraft manufacturers at a time, and ED has just a few people who can engage in that sort of work, then they might invest all their time on that side.

Hrm...i have been waiting for this for a long time as well, and have always been under the impression that ED really intends FC3 and standalone modules to be perfectly equivilant. I just wonder, what would be the selling point if standalone guys needed to buy this? By the same logic, the Mig-29 variants, at least the german Mig-29g should be there own module. And only a handful of people would buy that in addition to the Mig-29A or S. This sort of thing does not seem to earn a lot of money but might rather leave a sour taste in a lot of users mouths.

I applaud you for not going full Tomcat even so close to release and keeping working on both your modules!

At least for helicopters i think this would be really great. Cause there i can see a bunch of mission types i actually would like to play myself. Fire-fighting, sea rescue ops, general accident rescue and relieve ops....food and immergency goods delivery for UN type of missions. I guess it wouldn't be really hard to implement this, but it needs to be fleshed out with a good amount of surrounding assets.

Both, an upgraded T-50 version that has a 4 way + push down head like on the Warthog (a single button seems like wasted space) and a modern western style sick. And an upgraded gimbal base with adjustable friction for helicopter flight. This friction mechanism should be easily adjustable from the outside and have a switch which activates/deactivates this so that switching between helo flight and planes is just a switch of a button and does not mean loosening or tightening of screws.

@joca133 I ''nyogeled (good to know this is a thing) my TWCS throttle'' as well like 6 months ago and yeah...that thing was not usable before, and now its a dream. It actually feels even better now than it did a couple of weeks after applying the stuff. Still need to do it on my t.16000m and Warthog stick. Nyogel really is a saviour.

hrm...i have not even scrached proper mission making just yet. I simply set up things in a quick way for training certain things on NTTR. What i miss is a proper sandbox type of mission as a base template. Sort of a base mission that makes Nevada a lively place, with properly populated airfields, and various flights coming and going, helos, big and small aircraft flying around, taxing, taking of and landing. Best would be trigger based so stuff is not happening up at Tonopah while you stay around Vegas. Is there a thread that contains such missions? I didn't find a proper ''immersive stuff is going on'' mission template in the user downloads section.

Rudel, its fine as it is. Take it as constructive criticism. Many devs are looking for feedback or ideas to further enhance or refine their work. Would OvGME maybe even better if it was capable of deciding whether to simply move or whether to copy? Probably. Would adding this be worth the time and effort, maybe not. Not my decision to make. I am just trying to point out that there might be some benefits to it. It is a great tool and really makes ones live easier.

Thanks for the detailed answer. So is there any benefit that i don't see to always use copy instead of move? Provided everything happens on the same drive: First, it should be a lot faster to simply move all the original files when backing up and the same goes for enabling/"applying" the modded content. And, a lot of mods don't even replace original files but simply add new files or entirely new folders. Less writing ops means less room for errors and its faster.

So i got myself a new 500gb SSD and yes, i am aware total bytes written is practically never an issue for normal dudes, but i still wonder whether OvGME moves or copies mods and backups when activating/deactivating mods or entire profiles when DCS and the OvGME's mod folder are located on the same drive. Right now, i have DCS on my new SSD and the mods folder from which OvGME pulls the mods as well as the backup folder are located on my old hdd. Thus, enabling/disabling of mods must be a copying action which means writing to the SSD every time. Fair enough since its different drives. But if both DCS and the mods and backup folders are located on the same drive, is OvGME just moving things around instead of copying them? I.e. no new writing operations to the NAND and less wear on the SSD?

yes, this is true. Campaigns work in folders now indeed. Last time I organised user made missions and campaigns, it didn't or I must have been an idiot and not got it to work properly. So scratchthe first part of my feedback :)

Yep, i have created per aircraft folders under saved games as well, but i use it for single missions only. But i'd like to have the campaigns under the porper tab...maybe ED is gonna make this possible in the future. Shouldn't be a big task, but it still must be asigned to a dev though.

you are absolutely correct, my bad for not rechecking that. I installed a bunch of user made campaings this spring and i was incredibly sure that this did not work back then. Either i screwed up rojally back then or this was added since then. Anyway, i'd still like to be able to organize user made campaigns inside the c:drive\user\saved games\... folder and have them displayed under the proper campaign tab for each individual module and not all compounded under the 'My Campaigns' tab. I don't see how one can set this up atm in c:drive\user\saved games\. Am i missing something?

So i would like to see two things changed about how user made campaigns are handled by DCS. I really like user made campaigns being displayed under the proper campaign tab for each individual module instead of being located under 'My Campaigns'. Afar, right now you need to place the individual files or campaign folder inside the individual module's campaign folder inside the main DCS installation (for instance under :\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\A-10C\Missions\Campaigns), where as usually normal missions are being handled in 'Saved Games' on your c drive. This leads to the user having to maintain two different locations for managing missions and campaings. What i'd like to see: DCS creates a folder for each owned module under ''Saved Games\DCS.openalpha;beta\Missions\Campaigns\'' and displays campaings stored in there NOT under 'My Campaigns', but under the proper campaign tab in DCS World's main menu. It's probably a good idea to retain a My Campaigns folder as well for stuff that doesn't fit under one single module or what have you.

Hey mate, didn't try the campaign yet but on first glance... It would be great to have something more jucy for the campaign thumb nail picture when you put all the campaign files into the proper campaign folder in the main DCS installation folder. And speaking of that; since DCS only recognizes a campaign when one dumps the individual files in that folder and unfortunately not campaigns that in a seperate folder, it would be great if all files kinda begin with a unique identifier so they stay grouped together and don't mix up with the files from different campaigns. Yep, not that big of a deal, but it would keep things tidy. For instance, all the files of your campaign could begin with ''Adjara''. Looking forward to playing this!

@Oldcooltronix Kind reminder that there is a dedicated bug section here just two more clicks further. I know it might seem to be more visible where you posted it, but the bug section is there for a reason; one comprehensive place for the devs and everyone else to check which bugs have been reported and whether theres a dev response/acknowledgement.

hey, how often do you guys plan on doing this kind of mission and event?

Again...let them take their time and do this properly. I just hope we eventually get a very detailed post what went into making this transition and what has changed under the hood. Yes, doesn't really matter to most of us. Still it would be nice to get a better under standing how DCS's engine works!

+1, this should be absolutely consistent across all aircraft. If there is a reason for this inconsistency that represents what is happening in the real aircraft, please let us know. Right know, it feels like this is just an oversight which should be corrected. Generally i feel a right lick increases and a left click decreases a numeric selection. If numbers run in the opposite direction, left and right click should indeed be reversed. So, i think the rotation direction of the actual knob or dial is not the crucial point here. The rotation of the actual selection you are trying to make is. For instance; if a knob turns left, but the numbers on it increase in the opposite direction (as it is with the aforementioned weapon selector and w. mode dials), then this should really be a right mouse click (as it is now). So it really depends on the design of the dial or knob, i.e. whether the markings are on the knob or on the panel. For the weapon mode selector for instance; left mouse click and actual left turn of the knob would make sense if the numbering was reversed looking like 10,15,20....,60. Only makes if you go look at it in the cockpit in game i guess. Again, right lick should increase and left click should decrease a selection, indepent of the actual rotation direction. The one still inconsistent dial i found is the 'base selector' on the radio panel. The group selector to it's left behaves correctly, i.e. a right mouse click turns the dial righthand side and increases the numeric selection and the a left click does the opposit. The base selector is reversed. A right mouse click turns the dial to the left and decreases the numbers at the same time. This is the only dial i think which needs correction atm.