Mr_sukebe

Have you tried taking the cold start nice and easy, i.e. - Power on / turn on the engine - turn on the GM first and give it 2 mins to complete - initiate alignment once the GM is finished. Wait until the count reaches 999 AND the Green light pops on next to the amber light - once completed on the above, arm up and turn on the radar, not before I've just tested the above again on Sinai. Works for me. If you still have an issue, please attach a log file for ED to check.

As already stated, DCS is not about balance, which is the remit of arcade games. DCS is about accuracy to whatever is currently possible. If it happens that this results in an imbalance, then that's just tough. That's not any different to most historical wars, e.g. either of the Gulf Wars, Vietnam etc. Within say WW2 we had great examples within the Pacific theatre. At the start the Zero was easily the best aircraft as it was as fast as it's enemies and could also outmanoeuvre them. By 44', the Zero didn't really improve much. Whilst the Hellcat and Corsair couldn't outmanoeuvre a Zero, they were significantly faster, and with the use of appropriate tactics, ie. boom and zoom, ripped them to pieces. I don't believe that the Zero was ever really on "equal" terms with any aircraft that it faced.

Sorry, but that’s not correct. For lower calibre units, even without wind, there will be the ballistic trajectory of the round. At say 400m, that might not be a big deal, but if you’re trying to shoot at an aircraft that might be a half a mile or a mile away, it becomes much more important. The larger calibre weapons are single shot, and without proximity fuses, far less effective

No, mine kept stalling fairly early into alignment, resulting in it not correctly aligning and setting off the associated red warning light. I tried it again a little while ago on Sinai in both single player and multiplayer. Worked fine. So I’ve no idea if there was just something weird going on, or whether the recent patch included a fix. Either way, seemingly all good now, which was great, as I’m really enjoying the F1. I think it’s a great combination of complex and antiquated. Sure, it’s not ever going to be as effective as an F16, but I find it so immersive to fly and incredibly characterful. An amazing job for a new 3rd party creator.

I’d like the throttle

I’m not a fan of connecting power hungry peripherals directly to my PC motherboard. I’m currently using 3 Anker powered USB hubs. I also replaced the stock USB cable with a high quality USB 3 unit. For comfort, I use these: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Zeltauto-Management-Reusable-Fastening-Organizer/dp/B07K7DGKHN/ref=asc_df_B07K7DGKHN/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309904160813&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3469704349076634024&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1007135&hvtargid=pla-663954981355&psc=1 I found the QP to be terribly uncomfortable stock. The above are really cheap and are stretchable bungee straps. I’ve got 3 on my headset going side to side. Made a huge difference

It appears that we might have an issue with F1EE alignment on the Sinai map. Anyone else got the same?

If you create your own missions and you’re using a map with few default TACANs, it is possible to add a TACAN beacon as a unit. If you put that vaguely near the front line or on the way to the target, it can be used as a reference point.

Personally I’ve taken the slightly more hardcore approach, and have happed the controls that disengages the fuel flow for the afterburners. It’s a switch to the right of the throttle and has a cover. So for normal flight, I switch off the option to engage the afterburners and use it only on take off and combat

Chances are that most are unaware that we now have settings to avoid “some” of the areas of opportunity. Encourage the server owner to investigate the use of min altitudes for big Flak units

Are you mistaking CPUs for GPUs? I found that MT has very much made my GPU the bottleneck in VR. I’m hoping the Vulkan and being able to use DLAA instead of MSAA Will both help performance

Wow, that’s cool. Does it have any weapons or defensive capabilities?

what’s more realistic? From what I’ve read most small arms fire and non radar/computer guided AA has been pretty much ineffective against aircraft unless there’s lots of it. For myself, my intent is to: - Set a min altitude for big Flak units, to reflect that they weren’t used against low flying aircraft - disable AA fire for most armoured units (eg tanks, APCs). That will prevent T55s sniping me at 2-3km away with their main gun - have dedicated smaller AA fully enabled, eg boffors, 20mm units, dedicated smaller calibre units such as Shilkas Whilst it increases the complexity of mission design and build, I believe that it better reflects what I’ve read over the years. Whether you choose to use it is your concern.

Update: Just tested the settings. i.e. within Advanced Waypoint/Options/Restrict Targets/ then chose the option of Engage Ground Unit Only. With that enabled, I was able to fly my Huey right up to a BMP3 and park next to it without being shot at. Without that setting enabled, I was being sniped by of all things the 30mm cannon. On checking, the BMP was unable to hit the Huey with their machine gun (sorry, not sure what it is). However, flew it twice and all of the hits and damage were from the 30mm cannon. What would be cool would be if we could apply the setting of Engage Ground Unit only by weapon, e.g. such that we could enable it for the 30mm cannon, but leave the machine gun free to fire. I'm guessing that would require significantly more effort. On a positive note, we have a partial workaround that does work. Excellent.

Good shout ref the ME options to limit target type. I’ll take a scan later. As feedback to ED, can I suggest that these changes are mentioned in one of the upcoming weekly updates. Clearly Shargat and myself were unaware of the new capabilities which have been added at some point and either they weren’t in the Change Log notes are we’ve missed them. The key point being that we’re probably not alone in being frustrated with this game logic for a long time, and not everyone is going to spot and read this thread. On top of that, sing the praises of your dev team that we now appear to have a fix.

It’s very easy to setup, give it a try

Sorry, that’s my fault for partly dragging the thread off to one of my own pet peeves. On a positive note, at least we now appear to have a solution for the big AA units. With regards to BMPs and similar, I wonder if we could use similar logic to discourage them? Maybe we can do something with the ME settings.

Better than that, I can provide some feedback. OK, just been out testing. Open flat ground, bunch of Flak36s with one of their visual spotting things. They now respect minimum altitude settings, as set within the mission editor. I'm sure that they didn't previously. That minimum altitude for engagement appears to be above ground level, NOT sea level. It would be good to include that in the ME somewhere. I checked it out by testing on NTTR. For example I set a min altitude of 100'. Flew in with a Mossie and at any sensible altitude I was being shot at. On the deck, I could cruise right over them at 150knots whilst taking NO evasive action and was not being shot at. As mentioned, I was sure that I'd checked this out a little while ago. It was the reason why I'd avoided many of the campaigns, though if they don't have those min altitudes in place, that would be nearly as bad. Either way, my apologies to the dev team. Either I failed miserably on my previous testing, or something has changed in their logic in the recent past and hasn't made it into the change notes. Whatever, it's a great result, just remember to GO GET THOSE SETTINGS into your Mission Editor. Based upon my reading, my suggestion is a min altitude of 8,000-10,000' for the big Flak guns. Flappie> My thanks for encouraging me to re-test.

One thing to try, is complete removal of Tacview. I had a massive frame rate drop I game having joined someone else’s multiplayer server. In the DCS log, there were a number of references to Tacview, despite it being disabled. I’ve now completely removed Tacview, ie all of the files and hooks and that seems to have solved my issue

My understanding is that a Flak gun will typically have a 10 man crew, with tasks subdivided down, eg carry the shells, arming them with the correctly timed fuse, loading, aiming etc. Additionally, the Luftwaffe didn’t have proximity fuses, only times. The implications are that you need to plan maybe a min in advance as to where you intend to shoot, such that there’s time to coordinate everyone, aim the gun, set the correct fuse, load the shell and then fire it. Quite clearly, what we have now in DCS doesn’t reflect that at all. It is possible to set a min engagement altitude for Flak units, and also have them shoot at specific zones in the sky. That would be perfect, if not for the fact that when you’re close to a Flak unit, those limitations are overridden by DCS logic which allows them to direct fire at targets. There’s a number of threads on this already. I’m just hoping that ED will fix this sometime

Looks like it could have been Tacview. Interestingly, I'd already disabled Tacview in the "special" menu within DCS. Seems that disabling wasn't enough. I completely deleted it, including the hooks, folders etc. That seems to have worked as I certainly didn't have the same frame drop issue.

As per the title, I was out in MP yesterday with an OK frame rate in VR. Part way through the mission and had a frame rate drop from in the 30s to 5fps. Log attached. The issue appears to be sometime in this time block: =========================================================== 2023-08-07 20:26:10.281 INFO TACVIEW.DLL (Main): The average frame rate of 33.1fps would have been 33.1fps if the flight data recorder was disabled 2023-08-07 20:26:10.281 INFO TACVIEW.DLL (Main): DCS World simulation is taking 100.0% of CPU 2023-08-07 20:26:10.281 INFO TACVIEW.DLL (Main): DCS GetWorldObjects is taking 0.0% of CPU 2023-08-07 20:26:10.281 INFO TACVIEW.DLL (Main): Tacview recorder is taking 0.0% of CPU 2023-08-07 20:26:15.866 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.7ms 2023-08-07 20:26:45.934 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.5ms 2023-08-07 20:27:16.241 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 28.6ms 2023-08-07 20:27:46.379 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.1ms 2023-08-07 20:28:16.400 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.4ms 2023-08-07 20:28:33.061 WARNING Mission (Main): register_unit(1000142,17785601) : db.units['1000142'] table is missing 2023-08-07 20:28:46.456 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.9ms 2023-08-07 20:28:51.415 INFO FLIGHT (Main): procCrewAssignAircraft client id 4294967295, crew_id 2, hot_start 0 2023-08-07 20:28:51.415 INFO FLIGHT (Main): crew 2 wCarrierCrew::reset_LA() 2023-08-07 20:28:55.005 ERROR FLIGHT (Main): error syncing anim 251 2023-08-07 20:29:16.537 WARNING LOG (13436): 7 duplicate message(s) skipped. 2023-08-07 20:29:16.537 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 26.5ms 2023-08-07 20:29:29.530 ERROR FLIGHT (Main): error syncing anim 251 2023-08-07 20:29:46.631 WARNING LOG (13436): 3 duplicate message(s) skipped. 2023-08-07 20:29:46.631 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.1ms 2023-08-07 20:30:16.780 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 26.2ms 2023-08-07 20:30:33.202 WARNING Mission (Main): register_unit(1000144,17796865) : db.units['1000144'] table is missing 2023-08-07 20:30:46.820 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 26.1ms 2023-08-07 20:31:16.997 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.8ms 2023-08-07 20:31:47.048 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 26.9ms 2023-08-07 20:31:52.809 WARNING Mission (Main): register_unit(1000146,17797377) : db.units['1000146'] table is missing 2023-08-07 20:31:52.809 ERROR APP (Main): Error: Unit [F-15C]: Corrupt damage model. 2023-08-07 20:31:52.811 WARNING Mission (Main): register_unit(1000147,17797633) : db.units['1000147'] table is missing 2023-08-07 20:31:52.811 ERROR APP (Main): Error: Unit [F-15C]: Corrupt damage model. 2023-08-07 20:31:52.812 WARNING Mission (Main): register_unit(1000148,17797889) : db.units['1000148'] table is missing 2023-08-07 20:31:52.812 ERROR APP (Main): Error: Unit [F-15C]: Corrupt damage model. 2023-08-07 20:32:17.099 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 29.0ms 2023-08-07 20:32:33.076 WARNING Mission (Main): register_unit(1000150,17822465) : db.units['1000150'] table is missing 2023-08-07 20:32:33.076 ERROR APP (Main): Error: Unit [MiG-21Bis]: Corrupt damage model. 2023-08-07 20:32:33.088 ERROR NGMODEL (9584): Can't load lod ptb-490-mig21-collision.edm of model ptb-490-mig21. Reason: More distant lod must not have more arguments than closer! 0 < 1 in ptb-490-mig21-collision.edm ptb-490-mig21 2023-08-07 20:32:33.113 ERROR NGMODEL (15408): Can't load lod ptb-800-mig21-collision.edm of model ptb-800-mig21. Reason: More distant lod must not have more arguments than closer! 0 < 1 in ptb-800-mig21-collision.edm ptb-800-mig21 2023-08-07 20:32:33.117 WARNING Mission (Main): register_unit(1000151,17822721) : db.units['1000151'] table is missing 2023-08-07 20:32:33.117 ERROR APP (Main): Error: Unit [MiG-21Bis]: Corrupt damage model. 2023-08-07 20:32:33.119 WARNING Mission (Main): register_unit(1000153,17822977) : db.units['1000153'] table is missing 2023-08-07 20:32:33.119 ERROR APP (Main): Error: Unit [Su-34]: Corrupt damage model. 2023-08-07 20:32:47.118 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.3ms 2023-08-07 20:32:47.983 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() LOD 0 34 squares 2023-08-07 20:32:47.987 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() LOD 1 72 squares 2023-08-07 20:32:47.987 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() LOD 2 96 squares 2023-08-07 20:32:47.988 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() LOD 3 127 squares 2023-08-07 20:32:47.988 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() 16.973300 ms 2023-08-07 20:33:17.161 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.5ms 2023-08-07 20:33:47.198 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 27.3ms 2023-08-07 20:34:17.298 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 28.1ms 2023-08-07 20:34:47.352 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 26.5ms 2023-08-07 20:35:17.431 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 26.4ms 2023-08-07 20:35:29.605 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() LOD 0 0 squares 2023-08-07 20:35:29.606 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() LOD 1 3 squares 2023-08-07 20:35:29.606 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() LOD 2 8 squares 2023-08-07 20:35:29.607 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() LOD 3 127 squares 2023-08-07 20:35:29.607 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (4108): surface5 gc() 3.892400 ms 2023-08-07 20:35:47.477 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): Current ping: 26.6ms 2023-08-07 20:36:10.354 INFO TACVIEW.DLL (Main): During the last 600.1s an average of 0 units objects and 0 ballistic objects have been active per frame 2023-08-07 20:36:10.354 INFO TACVIEW.DLL (Main): The average frame rate of 5.2fps would have been 5.2fps if the flight data recorder was disabled ============================================================ I'll go disable Tacview as a starting point and try again shortly. Any other ideas? dcs.log

Agreed. linked to that, I’d like to have min/max altitudes that are always respected for AA weapons. Right now, we can add a min engagement altitude for AA, eg 2000m. However, it’s ignored when you’re close to the unit in question, making it nearly pointless

Are you asking about accuracy, or balance? They’re not the same thing. Balance in a game is about whether two items are similarly capable. From that perspective, you’re not wrong, the 105 is an utterly awesome weapon and definitely gives the F16 and F15 a real edge over the F18. The core point here is that DCS is not about balance and never has been. It’s about accuracy. Historically, most air combat was not “fair” or balanced. Typically, one side had better aircraft at a singular point in time, whether that’s the Zero in 1941, the Corsair in 1945 or the F14 in the 1980s. As for the F18 and not using the 105. That was just the choice of the USN. They clearly didn’t believe that it was necessary for whatever reason. Maybe their targets in the last 2-3 decades have generally not included armoured vehicles, which is what the 105 is for.

Whilst the example of an Ak hitting a target 3km may be a little overzealous, the core point that the OP is making is correct. Right now, AI and in particular ground AI don’t function like their real life counterparts and are much too effective. That has massive impact upon combat operations in choppers and warbirds. For example, I’ve previously reported and provided tracks of big AA eg Flak38s engaging targets within a couple of miles of range and at just above treetop height. The reality of a Flak battery is that they’d have: - a spotter potentially with a radar/radioman to identify inbound bomber formations - the spotter relays details to person calculating speeds, altitudes and where to anticipate the donation will be in 60-90 seconds - those details are used by one person to set the timer for the range at which the shell will explode (the Luftwaffe didn’t have proximity fuses). As I understand it, the fuses typically didn’t allow for usage under nearly 3000m - the calculations are then used for the trajectory and angle to fire the battery at As you can see, bears little resemblance to how a big Flak gun will happily and accurately engage a lone fighter that’s just above treetop height