Rex854Warrior

Something is definitely wrong... The carrier was going at around 23kn and it wasn't tilting much.

Hello, I noticed when entering the multiplayer server browser (OB 2.5.3.21153) for the first time, pings that are too high (above 130ish) are written in red, after a refresh, those numbers are in white again. Also it seems that only pings in between 140 and 160 are written in red, any higher and they are in white no matter what. Small feature but still nice to see :). Regards, Rex.

Seems to have been fixed, played in MP a bit and saw a couple of aircrafts taking off from the carrier, can anyone confirm ?

Same here, extremely annoying and makes it impossible to play in MP because you can't press briefing. Please don't put this in next weeks stable update ED.

Would be nice to see it adressed, even if the viggen doesn't have internal countermeasures it's quite an important feature.

It's been a while now and I still can't figure out how the countermeasure programming/release works. Does it work or am I doing something wrong ?

We're not so much discussing the schedule of the patches but what ED considers to be stable for a release version, it's off topic anyways.

What is silly is to push CRASHES to a STABLE release. And it has nothing to do with early access, any released aircraft could have gotten this problem and it would have made no sense to push an already fixed crash in a stable version of DCS. The stable branch is made to be stable not to have crashes and bugs all over the place, which is apparently what ED wants to do with it. The open beta is 80% of the time more stable then the stable branch and people who play the Harrier will upgrade to an open beta version to get a more stable experience next week.

Except it's already resolved and was way before the update. If you fly in the Harrier not being able to use this standoff weapon is pretty annoying and while you can go around it, it is a show stopper because it's a crash while trying to use the aircraft in a very common scenario.

There is no point in having an open beta build if it's to push crashes in the release branch, along with pretty much all of the other bugs.

My Rig : I7-8700K Stock ASUS STRIX Z-370E Board 16GB of RAM running at 2133Mhz GTX1080 FE All of this running DCS at 3440x1440 with everything to the maximum except AA and preload radius. OB and release versions are running on a SATAIII SSD.

I have the same issue, it makes reading harder then it already is :( Maybe this should be reported as a bug ?

Here is a track, when I access the map or the altitude map, it loads and freezes the game, the map for some reason doesn't load at all but still freezes my game when zooming in and zooming out completly for the first time, after that it's mostly fine, it just isn't there. The F10 map is unusable, all of the grid numbers, town names,... appear when zooming out and it's lagging like hell. This happens on all terrains, the freezes when loading the map in the air are alot worse then when on the ground and my luck at getting the moving map to appear on the NS430 is pretty limited, I almost always fly without. NS430WdwPGProblems.trk

Performance with the Pop-Up window Hello, It seems that on the Persian Gulf map, when trying to access to the moving map or the altitude map on the NS430, the game stutters/freezes completely for minutes sometimes. Also the F10 map runs very slow when the NS430 is in use. Doesn't seem to be an issue on the Caucasus map. I'm running DCS on a known good SSD and 16GBs of RAM. Regards, Rex P.S. : I've been doing other tests the whole day, will get some tracks tomorrow :) EDIT : Not just a Persian Gulf issue.

Well I tried, but in the end I couldn't get the lights to not disappear at long distances and I couldn't get lamposts to show any further :(. I really hope we will get options to make the game look like those screenshots posted by ED :).

I am playing with it, trying to get a good balance of performance and looks, the only thing missing for me at this point are the lamposts.

Did I do that ? It isn't the intent of this post.

We most likely will when ED starts working on runway damage and anti runway bombs.

Hello, Just a small question for the developpers, in the Persian Gulf night screenshots in particular, you can see building from very far away, much further then with the view distance set on extreme in game, is there a hidden parameter or someway to extend the view range further then extreme ? Compared to the screenshots, Dubai looks alot worse. That's the screenshot available on here : https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/screenshots/ And what it looks like with the extreme view range, terrain shadows are On, shadows on High and terrain textures are on High : (Yes the lighting wasn't the same but you can still see the flat buildings (ugly textures on the ground give it away), the lack of lamposts and the lack of shapes at long ranges). It would be nice to have a way to make the game look like those official screenshots, even if performance would suffer. Regards, Rex. EDIT : with similar lighting, https://imgur.com/a/imkmGq8

That was on this forum, the swedish authorities would have managed to make pressure on ED or some Russian administration ? I can certainly understand that ED doesn't want troubles.

While I see why this would be a good thing, what is blocking the making of russian aircraft isn't the maneufacturers, it's the Russian governement, which has no interest in making documentation available for anyone under any circumstances. And you happely fly DCS because of alot of people, who devote alot of time to making solid bug reports, testing things,... If recent documentation is needed, the process will be even slower then it is now and you might have to spam to actually get anything done. While popularity on a bug report shouldn't matter, it definetely does on the ED forums. I remember having to PM bug reports before to get them fixed because nobody was looking at them, you might say that now you'll always PM those kind of bug reports, and you will, and so will everyone else, you've now got a moderator that has alot of bug reports to go throught, some are not bugs, very few are massive bugs, some will be people missunderstanding the manual,... other forum members usually point out if something is wrong in a bug report, but with these ones it won't be possible and the moderator will have to painfully do all this work. To be clear, moderators will also suffer from this rule, more work, boring work. Since the bug reports that require documentation are usually pretty important (hence the documentation, takes time to find it), big functionnalities that are incorrect in the sim, the ones that in my opinion make the difference between a good simulation and a near perfect simulation. The only difference I think this will make is that the aircrafts simulated will have more of these issues, that might never get fixed, you could have no idea it's an issue because nobody has the manuals or doesn't have the will to report the bug seeing how tidious the process is. Also the documentation that is used to make a module in DCS, is most likely not available to the public and is given under very specific terms to a developper, this rule doesn't change anything in that regards.

No one would shoot themselves in the leg for no reason, it's definitely nothing ED has control over. Russian legislation, but which one ? All "important" bug reports that need documention for any aircrafts that has a manual available written after 1980, will have to be made to an ED team member via PM, most of the team is Russian and/or will have other things to do, that leaves the moderators, which will have to go through the reports, do the usual but using PM, that no one else can feed except the one who reported, this is a disaster not only for people who take time to make documented reports but also for the hardcore community looking for documentation, in fact for everyone, ED, the moderators, you, me... And for the simulation, people with documents might not bother reporting bugs and since they can't share them. Moving the forum to another country could work (.ch since ED SA is based there now), maybe a jurist could help us figure out where this all came from :).

What is a RWR supposed to do ? Warn from potentiel threats and give proper situational awareness to the pilot about what is emitting around his aircraft, you are engaged by an SA-2, you set search mode off by releasing the stick while a missile is flying at you and pressing the button because like this you see where from and what is launching at you :) isn't that great ? You break left and start notching the SAM, suddenly you hear the new spike tone, probably no big deal right and anyways you're evading so no time to press the button and since the tones aren't correct, you won't know when the missile has been defended because the tones only play right after lock or right after launch. You've defended the SAM so you press the button again and you have another SA-2 in front of you that you have been flying towards for the last minute with full throttles. You might say that you could have gone back in your lines, and you could have certainly, but with the way the RWR should work, at least how the data we found says, you wouldn't have this problem, it would have warned you, if shit goes down, how the hell do you expect this search button to help, the F-5 is an interceptor/fighter, at that time airborne radars were just starting to get effective. In a dogfight, you hear a tone, you might not have any idea where or what is shooting at you, I'll repeat my question : What environment was this logic made for ?

I'd very much like to know what that environment was, that wasn't the same for the B-52H operating at the same time and I think we had a document describing how the search button works on the B-52H (exact same RWR), which showed again that there is a problem. Well I don't think the data they have is wrong, I think it has been misinterpreted, because in a way, the switch we have now is a declutter, just everything instead of just "S" spikes. And you could prove us that the current logic is correct, we've got plenty of data, alot more then what belsimtek showed and talked about, if you get something that's undeniably a proof that the AN/ALR-46 or enough data to prove us wrong then we'll shut up. P.S. : Also Belsimtek might not have had good information on the RWR, the activity and launch lights don't work at all, could indicate that.

Yeah you would have gotten more if you didn't come by after the 1.16 wipe, there was an official manual about the Swiss version of the same RWR, which proved that the tones are not realistic, and alot more, the interesting posts were removed from this thread, also ED has a single piece of document that says the functionality is as it is in game, the YouTube clip shows otherwise, so does a video on the F-4E RWR training video, and also a piece of documentation about the B-52's RWR showing that the search button is just used a declutter, to remove the "S" spike, not a hidding vital information to the pilot when engaged button, on top of that use your brain, can you think OF ANY reason why a button, not on the hotas, that deteriorates situational awareness by removing all emitting radars except the ones tracking you when engaged (you could literally turn into another ennemy while defending) and lastly when in search mode, hides radars tracking you ??? Add that and a flawed tone logic and you get a misleading piece of equipment. EDIT : I'm sure Beamscanner will correct me and detail what I've said, without manuals because posting them now is forbidden, so much time wasted.