Pizzicato

Great. Thanks Rudel. Much appreciated. :thumbup:

Hey guys, Slightly embarrassingly, I managed to delete the default static templates for the USA (i.e. the Patriot site, the Hawk Site, and the Hawk Site reinforced). I tried running a repair, but the templates didn't get reinstated. :doh: Could someone please post a copy of whichever file holds those definitions so I can undo my mistake, please? Thanks in advance!

Not sure if this will help you or not, but I recently found that my Open Beta experience was getting painfully laggy in VR. I followed the old advice of deleting the contents of my C:\Users\<..name...>\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\fxo and metashaders2 folders, and also turned off MSAA and it made a massive difference. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3570921 I don't tend to look at the specific FPS debug, but the experiential difference was very significant for me. Don't know whether or not you'll see the same level of improvement, but I'd certainly recommend trying it out.

Ah. Perfect. Thanks for the response and the link, Exorcet. Much appreciated. :thumbup: It's obviously less great that it hasn't been addressed 5 months after being reported, though... :hmm:

Given the responses to date, I feel as though I've done a poor job of communicating the issue. Just so we're all on the same page, the reasons I think this is a pretty major and important issue are: 1. REALISM / CHEATING - When the AI can see 3x further than a human pilot flying the same aircraft, that's a really major issue. Aside from the clear issues with realism, I suspect that this also implies a bunch of gameplay issues, too. 2. IMMERSION-BREAKING - It totally breaks any potential for surprise/discovery/ambush when your wingman acts like a mini-AWACS and instantly calls out every single contact on the map. There's no anticipation or foreboding about what might lie in wait at the target point when your wingman's already announced absolutely everything. 3. ANNOYING RADIO CALLS - I've been building a mission that has a lot of air traffic. It's now the case that the wingman makes 30+ "new contact" calls after takeoff - even when the targets in question are 3x further away than his radar should be able to see. Put these all together, and this feels like a really significant issue that needs to get resolved in the pretty near future.

Yeah, I know that. My point is that they shouldn’t be able to spot targets at 400nm when the radar’s display limit is 160nm.

I'm not sure I understand. It's my wingman who's detecting the targets, not me. I'm not sure what turning my own radar off would achieve. I'm also not sure why an enemy F/A-18 would be a better test case than an enemy Mig-29. Am I missing something?

Grabbed today's 2.5.5.40269 Open Beta, and it looks like wingmen are suddenly able to detect targets at very extreme ranges. Flying the F/A-18 with my AI wingman, he started calling out targets at anywhere from 200nm to 350nm (see attached screenshot). Given that the Hornet's maximum radar display range is 160nm, this seems like a bug. EDIT: Added a very brief track demonstrating my wingman detecting two Mig-29s at 400nm. Wingman Detection.trk

The VR cockpit and the 2D cockpit are exactly the same, unless I'm mistaken. Any changes to textures, shaders, and lighting are going to apply equally to both.

This thread's got me super intrigued and excited to get home and check this out tonight. Looking forward to it. :thumbup:

No. The Falkland Island map is being developed by Razbam as a spiritual home (of sorts) for their Harrier and Mirage. ED's mysterious, in-development free map is something different.

Given your impressive ability to place a negative spin on absolutely everything, I'd suggest that you're ideally suited to the job.

Great news. Looking forward to getting my hands on the updates. :thumbup:

The whole EA discussion is getting reaaaaally old and boring now, but the "Don't like EA? Don't buy it" argument is very myopic and disingenuous. There are three fundamental issues with it from my perspective: 1. There's no established definition or bar for Early Access. ED could release an untextured, low-poly proxy model with no cockpit and it would still functionally be "Early Access". 2. In the absence of a clear definition for Early Access, everyone's going to have their own personal bar of an "acceptable" level of completeness. I haven't been negatively impacted by the lack of TWS in the Hornet, or the absence of external lights in the Viper... but then I don't fly online against F-14's, or spend my time flying formation in night missions. 3. The whole "Don't like EA, don't buy into it" argument implies that customers leave their right to have opinions and perspectives at the door when they buy an EA module. If there's no definition for EA, and everyone has their own bar of an acceptable EA feature set, then these conversations are necessary and inevitable. I'm actually very pro-ED and pro-EA, but trying to shut down (constructive) criticism of either is counterproductive and unhelpful (as much as it's deflating-as-hell to come back to the same old arguments on the forum, day-after-day).

Personally, I'd prefer that ED stick to their newfound openness and transparency versus caving to a small-but-vocal group of impatient people who get upset when they have to wait another week for an update to a video game.

Looks like your installation used to be on your G drive, you moved it across to your X drive. It looks like there are still references to the original location somewhere in DCS's config files (or the system registry). You might want to try PM'ing Skatezilla. He's usually pretty good with this kind of thing.

Awesome. Thanks, as ever, for all the hard work. :thumbup:

Yep. Totally understand. Thanks for the info, btd. :thumbup:

Just discovered this thread. Absolutely amazing work. Much appreciated. :thumbup:

Neither. It's the visual model that's 95% complete, not the module itself.

It's the model that's 95% complete. There may still be a significant amount of actual functionality, optimising, and bug-fixing to do before it's ready for EA release. That said, I'm also quietly hopeful of a pre-Christmas release. :thumbup:

Yeah, I've seen a few posts along those lines and I don't really understand how anyone thinks a dynamic campaign could function without some form of game-state saving. The bigger question for me is whether or not there's some kind of end state to the campaign. The few little pieces of info we've received so far suggest that it's a kind of massive, endless war that's made dynamic by the actions and achievements of the players (both online and off). While that would absolutely provide dynamism, I'm also hoping/expecting to be able to experience some form of closure. One of the best feelings in the older dynamic campaign focused sims was that sense of the war slowly but surely shifting in (or out of) your favour. I always loved it when you started seeing significantly fewer CAPs and SAM threats out in the TOO, and when those units that you did see were older types, with fewer weapons. It was really cool when you went from seeing armed-to-the-teeth fourships of Su-27s and Mig-29s, to suddenly encountering a pair of Mig-21s with just a couple of short-range IR missiles between them. Really looking forward to finding out more details.

Courtesy of NineLine on Facebook:

I'm glad I stumbled onto this thread. I haven't flown the Warthog in many, many months, but the issue with the "silent switches" has been annoying me in other models for ages. It'll actually add a lot to the tactile feel and sense of responsiveness of the cockpits (for me) once this feature becomes available. Looking forward to it. :thumbup:

There appears to be an issue with Parking Spot 01 at Fujairah being listed as TerminalID 5 with TerminalID0 -1 (see first attached image) This causes a weird problem with a four-ship of fighters being placed in strange positions on the ramp, and the last unit being listed as Unit 5 of 4 (see second attached image) (.miz file attached)