PeaceSells

That's different, changing these settings won't allow seeing through obstacles. It's possible to change graphic settings on the fly? I can't seem to find how to do it... Maybe I'm missig something? Well, isn't that what they are supposed to do? Try and hide in the vegetation, while others are supposed to try and destroy them... kinda how it works, right?

Maybe because you're seeing trees only from the aesthetic aspect? There's an important balance aspect there too, unfortunately often overlooked...

Setting 60 FPS as a limit is kind of a very high standard for DCS... I guess even if you have a good PC. I wouldn't say having FPS above 60 is more important than evening out trees visibility for everyone.

Thanks for the answer, please see my graphics settings in the attached pic. Although I disabled AF in game, I did enable it in the Nvidia control panel, so I do have AF 16x. My texture is at HIGH because even at MEDIUM some aircraft cockpits are unreadable (hope ED fixes it). My PC specs are in my signature. I've been playing on the Blue Flag server and getting relatively acceptable FPS. I also played on the DDCS server and didn't remember much problems with FPS. Though I can't actually say my FPS are good (I should probably disable shadows too). Disabling deferred shading for me was worse, FPS enhances in some areas but decreases horribly in other areas. And having MSAA OFF is not that bad as I thought it would be. EDIT: resolution of cockpit displays also causes huge FPS drop when I fly the Ka-50 and Su-25T, specially when I fire missiles/rockets. But having it lower than 1024 really hinders your combat capacity.

Nero.ger, can I ask you what are your DCS graphic settings?

You mean a patch for DCS and an update for Blue Flag this week?? Don't tease us like that!!

^^ Can you access the slider in game? As far as I remember, I can't access any graphic setting while in game.

^^ Unfortunately, there's no such thing as wrong type of audience. Server enforcing vegetation visibility isn't a radical measure, Arma3 multiplayer always used this to level the play field, not even a matter of cheating, per say. And I guess it's not that bad on performance, there are other and more significant graphics settings to tweak...

Flying with no trees in 2.5 is REALLY a pain in the eyes. Those guys must REALLY want to win so bad, lol. I fly with max trees visibility, and I still find that's too low. I've tried lowering it (for performance reasons), but 2.5 looks real fugly that way.

@dedde01 and @Ciribob, Thanks again for the explanations! That does makes sense... I hope ED one day implements those missing funcionalities in the multiplayer.... Until then, good job on the gadget and on the web site! I am really really liking to fly on the Blue Flag server!

Hey man, thanks a lot for the detailed answer... but I have to say... I already knew all of that... That's why my original question was if the server could use the F10 map to show the info that's on the gadget, instead of using the gadget...Maybe I didn't phrase it very well on the other post... Theres probably a reason why the gadget was chosen instead of the F10 map, but from my narrow view as a player only, it would be simpler to check the F10 map than to go to the gadget web page. Plus sometimes the gadget isn't working, as for example, right now...

+1 I'm curious to know what other kinds of cheating people do in DCS... Btw, I'd say cheating and playing high fidelity simulators are extremely conflicting interests, aren't they?

But, even if I had CA, I wouldn't be able to see which locations are friendly when I'm in any aircraft...

I don't see enemies and buddies on the gadget... Am I missing something? And if you can see them on the gadget... then you already know their position... so I didn't understand your point? But the markers you place are only visible to your team, right? So I didn't understand your point here too...

Hey guys, I'm new to the server and relatively new to multiplayer in DCS... I'm curious, isn't it possible to display the info that's on the gadget (web map) in the F10 map instead? Thanks!

Hey, Mission 'Rebel Base' needs some love... The enemy base that you're supposed to attack is now covered by dense forest. Enemies don't fire at you because they can't see you, and you also can't see them. The allied Mi-24's that, in the old 1.5, used to shoot AG missiles at them, now also can't find them and return without firing. Maybe move the enemy base to an area with less dense forest? Please see the attached pics... Thanks a lot, I love the Huey!

^^For as long as it depends on 3rd party software running in parallel (Teamspeak, Discord, SRS, etc.), it will always put away many players from using comms...

^^ But Arma, as well almost every game (in the last what, 20 years?) have VoIP. DCS doesn't...

I never had that error. Did you notice if the laser illuminates for the normal amount of time when you fire the vikhr? Because when I get the burn out problem, it only illuminates for like 2 seconds and then the missile goes down.

Sound awesome, I would love to play in a mission like that.

No, it happens in 1.5 too. And it's not random, it only occurs after long combat and is persistent.

I got one suggestion to stimulate SRS usage, but it's directed at server owners instead. Won't derail the thread. But people are not going to like it. Disable Teamspeak / Discord. DCS already has a chat window. You know it's the right thing to do, at least for realism servers.

Hey Ciribob! I hope I didn't give the impression that SRS is over-complicated or flawed in any way. It is really an excellent addition to DCS and a very neat software. You run it and you can easily see that a lot of attention was given to making it as simple, efficient and clean as it can possibly be. However, my point was that no software can be 0% complicated. And we already have to have so much different software running in parallel if we want to get a mildly immersive experience in DCS... I, for instance, have running on top of DCS: - TARGET - Opentrack for head tracking - VoiceAttack - Discord (or Teamspeak) - and now SRS. From now on I won't use Discord and Teamspeak anymore, because SRS actually does communication the way it's supposed to be done. Still that's a lot of parallel software and that's asking for trouble. For example, Teamspeak conflicts with TARGET. God knows what other conflicts still await me. But anyway, SRS is a software that was worth to add and I intend to always use it. But, since you genuinely wants feedback, I owe you my honest one. Basically, three things prevented me from starting using SRS earlier: 1- Looking for instructions on how to use it, I found a dedicated "Help" channel specific for setting up SRS, in the 104 Phoenix Teamspeak server. A radio add-on that needs a "dedicated Teamspeak Help channel" can't be good, so I temporarily aborted. 2- Later, I decided to give it another try and read through the Help channel's instructions. It says you have to configure your mic to specific values inside SRS. Why, if I already configured my mic in Windows and it works well in other programs and games? Aborted again. 3- I wanted to know where was the push-to-talk button, but couldn't find it to save my life. Had to do a search on the SRS forum thread for "push to talk" to learn that PTT stands for 'push-to-talk' inside SRS. Yeah, I suppose many smart/experienced players know that PTT stands for push-to-talk, but I didn't. And I would bet money that many new players also don't. As you can see, none of those things above is critical issue or even a big deal. As I said, SRS is well thought out, designed and executed. Still these things can prevent lots of players from getting into SRS, IMHO. I couldn't care less about skins and mods in general. I have no mods, except for SRS and Tacview (if that can be considered a mod). Anyway, thanks a lot for providing a realistic way for us to communicate, since ED shamely doesn't. It does fill an important gap in the simulation, and it does it very well.

Sorry, but I have to completely disagree... Having to download, install and configure 3rd part software will ALWAYS cause less people to adhere. EVEN if it was a ridiculously simple and instant setup (which it isn't). Not to mention performance. No matter how light and simple it is, more software is just more software and it's always more pain to have more software running. I love the idea of communicating realistically over radio and even so I resisted a lot before installing SRS. Imagine those who don't care that much. I'm sorry, supporting ED for not implementing a cool feature like this is just the wrong stance, IMO.

Thanks for that info!!