Torso

Hello All, I had a serious HW failure of my PC and had to build a new one. I was able to copy the DCS install folder to the new PC I had to build. I also was able to copy the save games dir to the new system as well. (Old PC was Win7, new PC is Win10 if it matters)I was not able to deactivate any modules prior to the unexpected crash obviously. Now, DCS on the new system launches fine, updates fine, I am able to load any map(own them all and tested). I can only fly certain modules however.. This is the problem. I am able to fly the following and their Instant Action missions without issue. A-10C KA-50 (Blackshark 2) TF-51D Su-25T All FC3 AC A-4 mod (All old Starforce DRM..right?) However, every time I try to use any of the following AC: F-14 Huey UH-1H Harrier F/A-18C Spit P-51 MiG-21bis MiG-15 Viggen BF-109 F-5E M-2k F-86 (All non-Starforce DRM...hmm) They show as installed, owned and activated in the Sim/Module Manager/Skates DCS Updater/ED website/..ETC. I go to the Instant Action menu, they are all listed and accessible as normal use, I select one and the mission loads and instead of being in the cockpit I am looking at the Mission Editor with the selected missions briefing screen and the green fly button. I click fly and watch the mission via ME..not actually flying it as if I do not own the plane. I have tried loading the ME up, make a little quick mission, place one of the listed planes in it, set pilot to player..same, no go into cockpit. I get no messages stating I am missing anything. All loads fine ad everything seems great..except I cannot get in any of the planes as a pilot. I have tried uninstalling a couple modules, re-downloaded them, reinstalled...same behavior. I am at a loss as to why I cannot actually fly the aircraft. I have run repairs, clean ups, looked at registries..all seems fine. I think my uninstall/reinstall attempts with modules would have worked but nope. Anyone got any suggestions? Seen this before? Just at a loss other than to wipe and redo all. I gotta hunch I would be in the same boat. Speaking of boats, I just got a Super one that I really wanna try..need one of my birds working to do it. You know what mean..lol. Anyways, thanks all. T

I think it has been well established by this point that a dev does not 'require' a license from the AC manufacturer to create a module. These are all considered works of art. The only license they need is from ED.

I use mine in VR. I have them mounted on articulating arms so they can be positioned in space where they are in the virtual cockpits(lets me not be locked in to one config). After some use muscle memory just kicks in and I can reach out and 90+% of the time go to the correct button and for the few misses It is usually only slightly off and you adjust just by touch. VR only caused me to ditch the real screens I had purchased to install into them as they just are not needed inn VR. Same for mouse/kb usage. I can just reach out while in VR and my hand lands on my mouse 100% of the time. Used muscle memory is strong for mouse/kb usage. So, it is up to you on whether you want to see if you adapt as I and others have that use controllers while in VR. Certainly a chance you just wont find it easy as some others have.

Now this is a pretty brilliant and sophisticated way of handling it. Hopefully someone at ED thinks so as well.

Regarding the mirrors. Any chance HB has pulled off a 1st and actually have the forward/back movement of the pilot correct in the mirror as well or will it be reversed like it currently is for all other modules? Anyone know? This really is more for VR users as I am not sure how much TiR users actually move forward. But us VR users often lean forward some and was curious if that is shown in mirrors correctly.

Yes, they are still broken in that regards.

My bet on this is they have the same issue they have with all their object/ground external lights, the ground or in this case deck illumination, is just baked into the texture, same as they do on the ground at airports. My bet is a plane parked right under those lights on deck is in fact NOT lit up by them and will be dark silhouettes. And while the same issue occurs at airports, on a carrier it would be MUCH more noticed and focused on I think. Leading to more complaints. Lack of Global Illumination(maybe a couple newer planes have them on their structure penetrating nav and beacon lights) is the cause for this and one of the reason why we have such terrible night time lighting in DCS. I very well could be wrong. But that is my bet.

Ha..that's funny. Thinking to yourself.."uhh..it was a beautiful ceremony. When do I see some jet stuff?"

Because it appears they can't fix it. Because if they could, they probably would. I mean just look at all the threads on this issue for pretty much most of the modules. The common theme is, they ignore the issues and refuse to address them. Only reason for that is, they can't fix it.

Workaround is to use DCS 1.5. As DS was not used prior to 2.xx versions. As for when it will be fixed. I wouldn't hold your breath. I am gonna guess never sadly. Not with this iteration of their engine from the looks of it. ED does not have a handle on DS, especially for anything related to night time environment or lights other than the sun and maybe moon. Ever other type of light or objects reacting to light is straight up broken. They do not even acknowledge the issues as there apparently is nothing they can do. Just take a look at all the threads about the various environmental and plane/object lighting issues, there are dozens of them. None have been addressed or for most not even reported/tagged as bugs with a statement that they are actively being addressed. Yes it is sad and sucks on so many levels.

Frag is correct on your GPU choice. I think for VR, you are gonna wanna step that up as high as you can actually for best results. Or make a main rig and put a beefier GPU(2070/80) in that one and a lower powered GPU(1080) in the 'secondary' machine. But as a VR user VR requires as much juice as you can afford to throw at it. As for a standalone sound card. They are only useful really if you want to go tactile transducer route. I have one because I got a Buttkicker and use SimShaker. But Frag again is correct, not needed if not going for rumble in the butt. On-board will handle normal usage. Good luck. It's fun stuff alright. And I predict this thread might get moved..lol

Welcome to the wonderful world of DCS Nights with Deferred Shading. It ain't just you.

A whole post of denial, ignorance and contradictions of your own previous statements...all in one post..lol. Pretty nice! You still are wrong. Doesn't change that. And I ain't your buddy, pal. ;) I look forward to the MiG-23. It's all good man. We all are fans.

No, you are not screwed out of $50. You just need to install the Steam app, not DCS from Steam. Just the Steam UI and the SteamVR will be included. You do not then install your game via steam. The standalone game will work with SteamVR app. Make sense now?

No, you ARE WRONG. These are considered works of art. Again, this has been CONFIRMED by 3rd party devs. They know what they are talking about and so do I. Read that again just so it sinks in. They DO NOT REQUIRE sign-off/contract with/by the plane manufacturer. As for your examples, well I know for a fact that you are not correct in them due to the fact I have been in the software/gaming industry for 20yrs(starting at Sierra-Online and worked for Atari and others, and now at MS) and have many friends in the industry. In fact. One of my best friends was on the Forza team for almost 10 years and when they could not get a manufacturer to work with them, they still went ahead and got those vehicles in the game. If a manufacturer would not assist, then they went to private owners. I know this for a fact. It was his job to handle licensing if the manufacturer would participate. Not all did, sure many did/do, but not all. Hell, he called me many times to let me know they were having access issues and if I knew where to find an owner of 'x-type' car. He was trying to get me to head to their building when they had Paul Allen's Ferrari Enzo on a flatbed outside to take to the recording studio. He sent me a txt asking if I knew an owner of a Pagani at one point because Pagani was not being helpful. Guess what. The car was in the game and no one was sued. Just one example of many. Now, you can claim what you want but does not make you correct. The dumbest thing you seen...here? lol! Yet you prove my point in this line above. Dassault forbade them!..Yet we have the plane. Don't we? Just altered the name...gee. Uh M-2000 name from Mirage 2000 was a huge sacrifice wasn't it. Can you not see something odd here that conflicts with your stance? In fact, isn't this why we have the AV-8B vs a "Harrier" even though it is referenced as Harrier in the module description? I think that is the case as well though I ccould be wrong about that. But if not, again, we have a Harrier in the game even is it not named "Harrier" So, let me ask you this. You think ED is signing licensing deals with the weapons manufacturers? Raytheon? Hughes Air-Craft Co? Ford Aerospace? Loral Corp? Bridgeport Brass Company? Vympel? Those are just a drop in the bucket of the weapons manufacturers that DCS includes in their sim. You saying they have licenses with all of them? The answer is they do not. Because they are not required. Tell, me, if I take a pic of a car/plane, make a poster of my pic and sell my posters, do I need a license from the vehicle manufacturer I am selling the picture of? Can you guess the correct answer? As for your line of: Sure, some countries do this. China has lived off of this idea for decades. You are aware of the IP theft issues in China right? You think they care about IP laws? These are works of art. That is how they are classified. That is fact. Would they prefer to have co-operation with the manufacturers. Sure. That is why when they have it is a big deal. But that ain't always the case.

You are straight up wrong here. These companies can do whatever they want..or are able too. If ED and the DCS dev staff were not actually in Russia, there is not squat Russia could do if ED wanted to put out their planes. No matter what these ALL ARE CONSIDERED WORKS OF ART. This has been corroborated by multiple 3rd party devs. The ONLY license required is the one with ED. Of course getting official manufacturer cooperation is the ideal situation for module accuracy. But it is not a requirement. If I started a flight sim dev company and wanted to drop Russian planes in it. Russia couldn't do shit about it if they can't send goons to my door to haul my ass away. ED staff being in Russia is sadly within goon reach. Thus why we will never see those planes. Move their entire staff out of there and no threats then.

You are ignoring basically every issue raised. And even with the full moon, which is the ONLY time night is even 'passable/usable' in DCS, there are a TON of lighting issues. DS is a failure unless DCS is meant to be a daylight sim only. Which it is not. Other tech such as HDR combined with Global Illumination(Which DCS really needs) along with PBR is proven and established and delivers, along with other tech like Spritelites that has been around for years. That tech is what is used by the other majors that delivers amazing results. DS seems like some failed experiment but ED committed to it and we are stuck with it and must suffer with it if fans of night flying.

Hey man, look at this way. I/We love DCS. If we didn't, we wouldn't care. And if you didn't. you wouldn't do as you do either. We are all true fans. Remember, the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. :smilewink: Enjoy your week man.

Help them? You mean like, making threads/posts and pointing out the issues/bugs and problems...kinda like these forums are filled with? Then what? Wait? For what? For how long? A year to pass..maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe more? Then what? Not even a mention from the devs that needed the 'help' from users to learn about the issues(they are apparently often blind too or simply do not care about) and not act on them? You know that "I´ve said many times this but here we go again.' line in your edited post is how many feel when seeing the same issues just continue to exist with no sign of or word that a fix is coming. I paid my money, you get that? This stuff ain't free, and few consider it cheap. Why you feel it is required to try and manage in your amazing style those who have issues with DCS/ED is curious. But you be you. Won't change anything. Other then generate the responses your post in here did bring about. But you seem to enjoy that/this. So, enjoy! Look, I just want to fly my Huey in DCS's crappy night time environment(a whole nother can of worms you don't want part of) without the freakin strobes and other lighting issues flashin in my cockpit like Spanish disco to BREAK my immersion and cause some I am sure epileptic seizures. Can you understand that? I hope you can, cus if not. That is sad. But I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.

Another quality post. Will hit 6k in no time! :thumbup:

The issues raised are real. Why do you feel it is your assigned job to ALWAYS try and minimize the issues DCS has? Always telling users what they feel is not important. Who are you to say what matters to me when it is my money being spent? I see you got 5k+ posts. It seems to me from seeing them most are very much like this one, useless ED defense posts. If we are the moaning army, what the hell does that make you part of? What rank in the army of denial and yes men do you have? The Huey has issues. Fact. They need to be fixed. Fact. Many have existed for a long long time with no actions/statements to show moving towards fixing them. FACT. Denial of facts does not change them from being facts. No matter how much you have convinced yourself otherwise. Happy New Year Man!

And even in that screenshot it is WAY off of what it should look like. I should not be able to see color of the ground at night from those distances and a long list of other issues exist in it. Night lighting in DCS is completely broken and does not even try to emulate real life. At this point, after this long, with basically no actions and largely silent on the issue, we won't be seeing decent/realistic night lighting in DCS with this engine. As for X-Plane 11's night lighting methods, this is some info on them (I won't be surprised if this comment is deleted due to including). https://iliastselios.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/hdr-is-not-x-planes-lighting-system/ and this https://developer.x-plane.com/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/ Basically they use HDR with Global Illumination and PBR to achieve a realistic effect. I think DCS only allows Global Illumination within the cockpit as an option, not the outside world. We need it in the outside world. X-Plane has from version 10.0 both GI and HDR, and now, in 11.0, PBR materials as well. But, ED felt DS is the way to go and at this point it looks like a total failure for Night time lighting. If we want DCS to look even close to as good as they have XP looking, ED needs to follow their obviously very successful approach. Why reinvent if your results are totally inferior?

That is because they are not actual light sources. They are just 'glowing' 2d textures on the ground to simulate light hitting the ground. But there is no light emitted and that is why driving a plane directly underneath one leave the plane a black outline and unlit. DS is a failure at this point. ED either cannot fix the issues or the fixes would make the sim a 5fps slideshow. I am betting a bit of both reasons are at play and why we will never see the issues addressed in 2.xx. So, how many years will we have it like this?

Normandy had similar issues and even Persian Gulf, at least in regards to lack of shallows approaching shore, no water color gradient change,etc. and ONLY after it was noted by folks and stated just how terrible it looked and in no way compared to the actual terrain they finally went in and made some changes to improve them(Not entirely sure why no one at ED could see the issues for themselves and we had to point them out to them). It looks like the same thing needs to be done for Caucasus. I mean 1.5 version simply blows the current out the water in those screenshot. That is really sad and should not be. It really seems like this current engine is just lacking in several key areas or they just do not have a complete handle on making it sing. It does have a more 'cartoony' look than 1.5 had. Maybe DCS 3.0 will deliver the goods.

Oh yeah, the strobe issues and the passing through the ac structure of lights and the use of the puff ball textures still..etc. I mean all of them. I am not so sure ED can fix them though. The threads and posts get ignored and the issues have existed since 2.X and deferred shading came into play. I just think they hit a wall and can't fix it. Be sad if so. We shall see. And yep, knew those 2 birds are coming, just not soon enough as always..lol. Once they do arrive though, oh man gonna be nice.