lemoen

No. Not if it stays at 45fps. If it is capped at 45 fps it means there is some leftover time between frames pagadi, dude, no. Keep in mind that 2.5 still has a memory leak, hence the need to restart often. Also, switch off MSAA in VR. It runs a LOT better without it. I have a 1070 and use PD 1.2 and MSAA off. It works reasonably well. If you have a card with less memory you may need to stay at PD 1.0

I think the crashing has been fixed in both BF and DDCS. Some static units are still invisible though.

The menu and radio menus are hidden behind the NVG overlay. Expected behaviour is for them to be visible while using NVG.

+1 Should be an easy enough fix, just make the fov a bit smaller so we can peek underneath

Its fine you just need to switch off ASW so it doesn't try to interpolate the missing frames. Then 45 is A-OK.

His graph shows one core working hard and the rest not, which supports the single threaded hypothesis. You and bitmaster claim that rendering is happening in parallel so its up to you to prove it. I told you exactly how to do it. BitMaster copped out of the experiment so now its up to you to prove you are right.

Have you bound the axes at all? Enter mission, press esc, go to Adjust Controls, there's a button called 'Axis Assign' at the bottom. You're looking to bind the following things minimum to fly: Pitch, Roll, Thrust, Rudder

I remember having issues when I started. One thing to look out for is the throttle axis. It may be bound to more than your throttle, so no matter what you do, it goes back to zero and your plane will refuse to fly. Here's a tutorial for beginner:

You can set the Harrier's preset Comm1 and Comm2 freqs in the mission planner, set one of them to be the same as the Ship / Tanker / Airfield. OR Use easy comms.

See, this is where your assumption is wrong. If all the things that had to be done between frames could be done faster on multiple threads, then this would be true, but it isn't. Look up Ahmdal's Law, it gives you the maximum speedup for parallel calculations. Effectively, the speedup is limited by what percentage of the work can be done in parallel, and in DCS there's a lot of things that can not be done so. However, I don't dispute that a lot of things should be possible and currently is not. I would look at some of your other assumptions too, they are also in error. Parallel software is not quite as simple as you may think.

Twistking, BitMaster, since your machines shows this effect and some (like mine) doesn't, maybe you can do us a favour and do an experiment. Take a mission that shows all your cores working hard and fly around a bit in it, then save the track. Run a monitoring app like afterburner and save the graph (not a screenshot of FPS or usage, we need to see a time series for each of your cores) Now, change your CPU affinity for DCS such that there are 2 fewer cores and replay that same track and continue to do so until you're left with 2 cores only. Share all the graphs with us. You'll end up giving us graphs of 8 cores, 6 cores, 4 cores and 2 cores. So I guess the useful things to see would be Framerate, GPU usage, CPU1-8 usage. Allow the 2 core option to use any cores but core 0 as that's for windows and it will interfere and give bad results if DCS is forced onto it only. Null hypothesis: Higher framerate and higher GPU usage as you allow for more cores. Alternate Hypothesis: Negligible difference between 2, 4, 6 and 8 cores on GPU usage and framerate. How about it?

Can I bump this one up? I tried the INS Bombing training today and Mk82 (haven't tried others) don't release on cue, they release as soon as the trigger is pulled.

Yeah and it keeps showing a higher and higher number as you play more and more.

I get the same with my rift, 1070, i5-7600k@4.5Ghz, 32GB ram, SSD. Seems to be a thing.

M2000 can hot rearm and refuel, not need to have the engine off.

Yeah. like I said, it looks like some asset loading is taking place in parallel. the game loop and graphics calls, AI, FMs are still single threaded i.e. more cores doesn't give more fps. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The map is currently not moving because half the targets are invincible to human players. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its a powerful foe, but if you look at the modules, Blue has overwhelming Fighter and attack plane strength at the moment, as well as numbers. So in my mind, allow them but make it effort to deploy one. if its 4 crates it means an 80km flight for a helo to deploy them all. So in my mind, it does make sense to allow red to deploy SA-10 or SA-11 maybe if 10s are too OP, in order to allow red to fight larger numbers of more advanced airframes.

?

We've been talking among ourselves about good ways to allow RED to make up for the number imbalance but keep the 100% asymmetric airframes. Some ideas: * Allow reds to deploy SA-10 and SA-15 (maybe 4 crates and 2 crates) * Move M2000 to red * Reactivate Datalink (if it doesn't cause lag) * ERs / ETs * More lives My personal vote is for SA-10 / SA-15 and maybe more lives. This will allow RED to construct a powerful safety umbrella under which to use the SU25 and KA50 for attack. Blue will then have to coordinate for SEAD because they lack a long range missile for the task. Could make for an interesting scenario. It also enables two different play styles for the two teams without breaking the asymmetry. DcS is still broken ito invisible units so the registration numbers may not reflect typical numbers.

They've always done this. The "Big Smoke" effects also do it, so when you rotate your head it looks like a tornado on the ground. It'll prob be better as they improve the clouds

Lshift F10 fixes it :P

Sithspawn mentioned in another thread that it is being updated.

I'm not convinced. I see 2 cores running, sometimes at 100% and the others only shows transients. More cores seems to come into play when it is loading assets. I think what you guys are seeing is those 2 threads jumping rapidly between cores, like they do, and it seems to show high usage. I'm still not seeing anyone provide actual proof, just anecdotal accounts. Show us some graphs so that we can see what you mean.

Did you ground lock the shkval first then move it over the tank?