Mr_sukebe

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

I’m currently using x3 Anker 10 port units. It’s called 10, but 3 are charging only (not data). So in reality it’s only 7 per unit. None have failed as yet, which is why I’ve ended up with multiple units

If I remember, I’ll upload a mission late that I use. That mission has: - no air threats - a bunch of static ground targets - a flight of 4 aircraft for each weapon type for each aircraft already in the air, roughly 20-30 miles from the target The implications being that if I want to practice say laser GBUs in an F18, that I just jump into one of the 4 of that flight called F18 - GBUs. It’s already in air, waypoints in place. So all I need to do is jump in, ready the weapons and drop them. No mucking about with startup or lengthy flight times. When that aircraft is out of weapons, just jump into the next aircraft of the same flight, which also has the same weapons. It takes a bit of setting up, as some aircraft have upto 10 ground attack weapon types and I have a lot of aircraft. However, once done, it’s done

Isn’t that what FC3 are for, along with the “game” mode that is in the options?

It’s worth remembering that whilst it’s possible to absolutely load up the A10, that it typically wasn’t used that way in for example the Gulf. From what I’ve read, during the Gulf war, loadouts were often limited to no more than one weapon per pylon. The reason was to maintain a level of agility that is lost when loaded to the max

My first suggestion is to run a search. Others have experienced the same and there’s plenty of recommendations. As a starting point, limit the preload to around 45% and set you Textures (scenery) to low

+1, pretty please

Cfag> Fair enough. As long as that’s the reason as against to use it to batter the developer for not meeting proposed deadlines, then sure.

If you have a scan in options/controls you can see all of the bindings for devices (eg joysticks), keyboard and mouse. in my bindings and for most aircraft, I had a red notation against for example the Screenshot command. My assumption is that this keyboard setting is used elsewhere, eg for the UI Layer or General. Chances are that it’s not important. I’m curious enough to ask

A question for ED. Yesterday I conducted some maintenance on my control bindings, partly to remove the unwanted "default" bindings that have been applied to my new joystick. Whilst cleaning things up, I couldn't help but notice that most modules had several "conflicts" within their bindings. e.g. - Screenshots keybinding in many - Change weapon using an Oculus controller on some The worst appeared to be the SA342, which had maybe 6-10 conflicts. As mentioned, I've deleted all of the potential conflicts. My question is whether we should be concerned about these? Clearly not for myself as mine are now fine. However, for others who might be completely unaware, could these conflicts result in any logic issues, e.g. whilst trying to update controls during flight?

I use MSAA x2. No, it’s far from perfect. I’m hoping that when DLSS arrives the option of DLAA (a sub mode of DLSS) will help. DLAA made a huge improvement to shimmering in another sim and for me was much better than MSAA.

Unless the comments like “spaghetti code” is from the devs themselves, I’d be careful about the assumptions. After all, most of us have little genuine understanding of building applications and systems and the implications and typical processes. For all we know, the MT update is a clean sheet rebuild of parts of the code and unless a dev says otherwise, it’s just speculation. What I do know is that I also have other aerial combat sims and a couple of the best know Civ sims. From my perspective, DCS: - looks better, eg significantly more detailed than the other combat sims. I was out in the big Civ sim yesterday and in helicopter, low to the ground, many of the buildings like like melted marshmallows. Sure, it looked great at 10.000’, but it was awful low down. - since the MT update, runs better than the others in VR, even more so with dynamic foveated rendering. I’m amazed that there’s not more noise about the big Civ sim for how badly it runs. Quite clearly it needed MT. At least DCS players won’t have to wait until 2024 and then pay again to get it - we know that Vulkan is coming and will hopefully further enhance things - I assume that I’m not alone in loving how much effort it takes to fly an aircraft in DCS. I find it quite confusing to jump into other sims where I can’t touch things in the cockpit In short, I also own most of the other flight sims currently available, and for me, they look worse, run worse and feel a bit pants to be in when compared. Don’t get me wrong, I really want Vulkan and other things (eg AA accuracy to be resolved), but generally, I think that we’re in a great place

I was thinking much closer to our south Atlantic map. I know some don’t rate it, but I think that it’s really good

My thanks to those who’ve included their timezones

I already have a centre mounted stick. Ive just added a left mounted stick (Virpil) for use with targeting pods and similar. Once up and running, the first thing I did was to remove all of the initial load controls that DCS assigned. Next day, I go back in to setup the new assignments, only to find that DCD has re-applied the same assignments that I didn’t want in the first place (eg control of the cyclic in my Apache, which is therefore also duplicating my centre mounted stick. Any suggestions or workarounds?

Sure: https://imgur.com/a/mqg4t9U