PawlaczGMD

Update: I have bought PG44a and found it works much better for me. it holds the stick with considerably less friction required on the clutch, resulting with less sticktion. When using springs, it actually damps rebound almost completely with 0 pressure on the clutches. 767A did almost nothing with no pressure applied, and resulted in loss of centering when enough pressure was applied. I recommend trying it out if you don't want to remove the rubber boot.

Thanks, I will try it out!

This exacerbates the issue, but the wheels were really loose even if you didn't touch the arm. And the arm is great for finding the wheel without looking. So my suggestion is to not use a smaller nub, just tighten the wheels

Well, the thing is, that in 90% of situations I can maintain 60-70 fps. It's only some airports that give me this trouble. So I don't want to give up all this general performance to fix a really specific situation. Ideally, there would be some settings that are not that noticeable, and I would give them up. But cutting my FPS in half is not something I will do.

Pimax Crystal at 1.0 scale, so it should be a bit more than 2880x2880 afaik. PS, running it in PimaxXR environment to use quad views foveated rendering.

Yes. I will try that. OK, but these settings will significantly degrade my experience. I don't want to play at 36 FPS, the FPS being this low is the problem in itself. Here is a track from the campaign mission if you're interested. It has similar performance, just a bit worse. The FPS dipped to 21 on landing. nellis saa.trk

Here's a short track of startup, takeoff, and landing at Nellis. FPS on the ground is 30-40. Dipped to 25-30 on takeoff, and around 30 on landing. However, when I was just a bit away from the airport, before turning back in, I had 72 FPS, which is the target on my VR headset. So I can run the game at full desired fps away from airports. With my current settings, this was still not that bad, the game is playable at 30 fps. But if you can help me make it run better, that would be great! I'm also attaching a SS of my graphics settings. nellis.trk

Thanks. Here are the log and dxdiag files. The last events in the game are the problematic landing. I will produce a track shortly. dcs.log DxDiag.txt

Can it be from the Speed and Angels campaign, or would you prefer me to try to reproduce it in a generic mission at Nellis?

I've lowered some graphics settings, and the FPS are still low, but it's in a playable state. I can land the plane more or less properly, so I will be able to deal with this, until hopefully ED comes up with a better technical solution for whatever is causing this.

I totally understand and agree, it's a core DCS thing. and not your fault as a campaign maker. The reason I was asking here, is that for whatever reason, the issue for me is the most severe in this campaign, and I suspect it's because of the number of parked planes, which perhaps is up to you to control.

Yeah, it is an airport problem. I've had 30 fps in other airports that are crowded, but Nellis is especially bad for this. Also, for some reason, it is much worse on landing than on takeoff.

I will check it out. I have most settings maxed out, because it works fine in almost all situations, except crowded airports.

Does he mean full thrust without A/B? Because the Tomcat throttle is labelled "MIL" at about half travel, and full dry thrust is "MAX". This seems too weak for the maneuvers suggested. Just making sure I'm doing it right.

Yup. It's a great campaign, as it actually forces you to perform well on the basics such as maneuvers, formation, AAR. We are missing such structured realistic content in DCS. Anyone can point the nose and fire an AMRAAM after a few hours, this actually forces you to learn proper flying.

I am flying in VR and I have a powerful rig. I'm getting 80 fps in the air. However, when landing at Nellis after the missions, the performance is absolutely horrible. FPS tanks to single digits, and I can barely slam the plane down just due to this. I think it's probably due to the number of idle AI planes parked at the base. Has anyone found a way to deal with this? Would you consider reducing the parked clutter? This issue is not completely unique to this campaign, but I have never experienced it this bad. I've resorted to just flying in straight approaches to not have to maneuver at 5 FPS, as it would be so lame to crash due to technical issues after completing these hard missions.

I have done this mod. As explained in the thread, you just need to file down a protruding plastic tube 1 mm and tighten the screw.

OK, the first few missions have worked fine! The edited refinery mission as well, although I would have kept the AAA guns to make it more interesting.

Actually I've seen it, but assumed it's so old it's not worth trying. I will give it a shot if you recommend it!

You are stuck in the 1980s, the timeframe when DCS conflicts (could) happen. Modern SAMs can shoot down planes at 500 ft. Also if you fly that low, there will be plenty of MANPADs that you will never spot. 13 nm range of the Mav is nothing compared to modern SAMs. Moderns SAMs are much more resistant to chaff/flare than what you experience in DCS. The A-10 has no stealth, and would be easily shot down by enemy aircraft at dozens of km. The A-10 is severely outdated for modern warfare, and while it would still work well against a low-tech opponent with no air or SAM assets, this is not a high bar to pass. The amount of weapons it can carry is irrelevant if it will be killed easily.

Having played a few missions, most of them have broken triggers, don't assign score correctly, don't instruct players on what to do, or simply have an unreasonable scenario. Examples: -First mission - wingman ejects half-way through because of bingo fuel? -Refinery raid - both me and wingman bombed the refinery precisely, but it is not destroyed, and does not assign score for it. I killed all the trucks, but the mission still ends in a failure. -ECM cover mission - I've returned and landed with all the other aircraft after they were done, but the mission ends in failure. -Cover Ka-50s from 2x Su-27s. Not a bug, but really? This is the fourth mission I got. The difficulty spike is insane. There are just so many issues, the campaign is a horrible experience currently. I would ask that someone tries to play it, and refreshes it so that it works.

I have to agree with OP, we kind of expect the tutorials in DCS to be half-assed, but the humor is a big miss for me. It's a simulator, for the first thing a player will start up, try to keep it a little more serious and give us thorough information ...

No, under Campaigns. If you have BS3 only and not BS2, you will not have them, but someone has converted them to BS3. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3329242/ Also, you might consider buying the paid campaigns Republic and MAD. Republic is OK and MAD is good. They give you a gentle introduction starting with easier missions.

What about the default campaigns? The Deployment starts off quite light in terms of difficulty.

Please consider updating the Shkval graphics. Currently, with the contrast and brightness settings as they are, it is very difficult to spot targets. They barely stand out from the background, and everything just looks white. Frequently, the sun glare just makes it completely unreadable. I think a lot of these issues come from DCS core being updated, while the Su-25 T was not. I know that the sensor's capability is limited as it's just a TV, but the Skhval on the Ka-50 is so much better in that regard. Would it be possible to copy the way it looks there, or at least change the default brightness/contrast settings to match the Ka-50 default? Or add the option to change these settings?