lemoen

2 cores at 100%, CPU at 50% (4 cores, no HT).

I see 50% utilisation max, besides for some transients over 50%, which I assume is loading or windows or something, on my i5 (4 cores). This along with people complaining about stutters, low GPU usage etc tells me nothing has changed.

We're never going back to 1.5.8. This is an issue with DCS, not Blue Flag and has been reported to ED by xcom and drexx (Dynamic DCS server)

If you're only getting 30fps in SP you'll be having pain in MP on big servers. I suggest you lower your graphics much more and try again. MSAA + DS is pretty slow right now, try switching off MSAA in-game and enable 2x in your AMD panel and see how that works for you. Also, lower shadows, view distance, texture quality, terrain quality. You only have 4GB of vram to work with so it is touch and go already.

It will be better for loading of assets, obviously. But all the unit AI / flight models / collision detection / line of sight calcs etc are done on that one thread and at the moment, a CPU with more cores isn't going to help those things.

This bug was fixed a while ago? Is it back?

Multiple effects going on. Suffice it to say, most of DCS is still running in those same 2 threads. These threads however, may jump from one core to another core so you'll see multiple cores being used. Some object loading and stuff may be done in parallel over all the cores though. Don't be fooled, DCS is still mostly the way it has been.

Nvidia anti-aliasing doesn't to anything for me. Is there a trick I'm missing? I'm suspecting a good dose of placebo around here. Graphs and screenshots or it didn't happen!

The Mig-21 has it too and it has it BAD. Most of the fuselage is missing, which is a pain because with the canopy open you should be able to look at the outside.

Its a DCS issue. Dynamic DCS has the same problem and xcom and drexx both reported it to ED already. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For ED Devs, I provide a link to my last Blue Flag Track, a screenshot of afterburner's perf graphs and a screenshot of my settings. The framerate and GPU usage was erratic. I hope this helps in some way. Let me know if I can provide more data. My system specs are: Windows 10, 32GB DDR4, i5-7600k@4.5GHz, GTX1070 8GB Edit: Running with Oculus Rift CV1, PD=1.3 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7v511puz3mfp9fo/AABc0rmH4HOGoIRCyYTBY7K0a?dl=0

The M model's Vivienne FLIR mode is very very dark. Tried using it on Blue Flag (day mission) and I had to use the non-flir mode to hope to see anything. I haven't tried the viewer in other models.

Disable MSAA in game. Enable FXAA in nvidia panel. Enable deferred shading. lower gamma. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw this too. Rift with a 1070. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just disable MSAA and use DS, works fine. Pity the MSAA wreaks havoc with framerate

Would be great. I'm in the same boat.

Indeed.

Hi All, So now that 2.5 is out maybe we can tell each other what we have seen that is different, that is not in the changelogs. I'll start: My squad mates tell me the F15 and Su27 have tweaked flight models and I noticed the M2000 won't go M 1.0 as readily as before while carrying weapons and a fuel tank. I don't see new explosions for bombs yet, still only rockets and missiles and units exploding. What new stuff have you noticed?

I started with 26GB free space and had to uninstall 2.2 in the end to make space and redownload NTTR and Normandy. If you start with 40 odd I think it should be ok if you had both 2.2 maps installed.

Reshade and the control panel AA doesn't work for VR unfortunately.

Yeah... this is impossible. Also, this is not how much is required because we already have some of the files on our computers...

The official line is a full install requires about 100GB, but this is not what I'm asking. I'm asking: How much free space is required to download the files and perform the upgrade?

Me and I'm guessing many others have 1.5.8 and 2.2 installed on an SSD. In my case I have around 25GB free. How much free space will be required to perform the upgrade? I know 2.2 will get removed afterwards but I'm guessing some amount of working space will be required. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Better mission design” is just another way to say don’t make it too hard for either team. If only we had a word for this idea ... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I find these discussions interesting. Some are saying no weaponry should be restricted at all and some are calling for some restrictions (for balance). One one hand I agree, don't nerf airframes too much. They were developed to be better than something, so let them be. One the other hand, this could lead to ridiculous scenarios. i.e. say your opponents have to group together to take out a single F-14 because it has a way longer reach than them and can spam the airspace with AIM54 (or the F15 with AIM120C). I know a bunch of you are saying, well that's the way it is in real life. Here's a question for you Would you, or would you not, play in the same scenario, but the entire enemy airspace is protected by multiple SA-10 sites and each SA-10 is protected by multiple Sa-15 / 2S6. So no matter what you do, you will get locked and launched on as soon as you go fence in and ARMs will get shot down by the SA-15. We have to balance MP in some way, else it gets angry-making.