philstyle

Fenrir is right. Your boost management is all over the place. No wonder you are killing your engine. Slamming the throttle back and forward like that.. ouch! At 1:06 . . 21 lb boost right after takeoff, with low airspeed! you're at 21lb boost with 120 mph IAS and the gear is still down! Furthermore, this is minor, but you really need to get the aircrfat in trim too. It will improve airspeed and get better cooling into the radaitors. You can't treat this aircraft that way. You're flying well outside of recommended/ prescribed limits.

This thread. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3930888&postcount=198 "This summer we plan to release a major update to the DCS: World War II assets pack" As of May 31, this update was "planned" for summer 2019. It is not clear if this remains the plan or not. There are still 6 or 7 (+/- a tad) weeks of "summer" depending on your definition. This means at least 3 OB updates (JUL31, AUG08 & AUG22) are in the frame, if the May "plan" is executed and assuming OB updates occur every 2nd week on a wednesday.

What altitude is this happening at? (it has never happened to me, incidentally, with hundreds of hours in the DCS spit, unless i have forgotten something in my start-up prcoedures...)

I'm currently using a pre-set OC option from the bios itself. . . when it boots, the ROG bios spash screen claims it is using a "22% overcocking".. I assume the bios knows what it is doing here. Despite this, I get a boot faiolure about 1:4 boots. The fans spool up and then just sit at max-rate. The PC does not fully boot (I'm not sure what error the Mobo is reporting, #ve not looked at the on-mobo display). CPU-Z identifies the CPU running at up to 4200Ghz at times (boosting up and down it seems) so some kind of OC is definitely going on... In DCS I get frames bwtween 60 and 90 in 1440p, even with OBS running. So that's quite sharp. My GFX settigns are generally around the 75% of maximum.

Which people?

3 or 4 "set" options might be a nice compromise, if DCS were to go down this path.

I agree. If DCS were doing the early half of the war (pre-1942) I'd be fighting pretty hard for convergence customisation (within 100-400 yrd ranges). There's plenty of evidence that RAF pilots at least were experiementing a lot with it, especially during April to Agust 1940. However, by 1944, convergence tweaking documentation/ evidence is almost impossible to find. Some time in 1942 (likey to be March 17th 1942), it seems, Sholto Douglas effectively ordered Fighter-Command wide standardisation of convergences (after a meeting with key Fighter Leaders like Douglas Bader and Stanford Tuck in Jan or Feb 1942).

Does this below chnage effectively reduce the "sound radar" exploit, which is highly rlevant for WW2 flying? Reworked Audio Settings volume sliders sensitivity. ’World’ slider now only affects external views. It seems to me that this would mean we can no longer drag the world slider up to 100% in order to better hear stuff outside the cockpit (i.e. the engines from other aircraft). If true, then this is an excellent update indeed, especially for warbirds. AND this one below: AI Wingmen will no longer call out “Tally Bandit” if bandits are within 4km of each other, this is to cut down on the number of “Tally Bandit” calls. Wonderful! This will be so great for the single player campaigns, as it will eliminate that horrid repeating radio calls. very elegant solution too.

In already have 3000 speed RAM in the old machine, but the i5 wont natively use the extra Ghz so I have to run an XMP profile or similar to get it "working". This, for some reason, results in failed boot-processes about a quarter of the time. Despite reading up loads, and using only very light OC (x40) any attempt to OC seems to result in boot instability for me. Despite having a widely recognised "easy to OC" CPU and a mobo which is suppsoed to be designed for this purpose. This was one of the main reasons I went for the 6600k a couple of years ago, but I've never been able to get a stable OC, even a mild one.

The switch (dial) goes from OFF to FULL, and then dims as you keep turning. This is normal/ correct. See 9:55 in this video: .

I asked r/buildapc about this, but got a very limited response. ( ) I plan to upgrade System A below, to System B. I want to gather people's opinions on whether or not the "upgrade" will show significant performance improvements MAINLY IN DCS but also in the following tasks, or if I should juststick with System A and OC the CPU a bit. - Gaming (DCS mostly but also Xplane 11 + some other games like Post Scriptum/ Cities Skylines) - Audio production (Bitwig DAW) - Screen capture and video editing (OBS then editing in DaVinci Resolve) SYSTEM A (the incumbent system): i5-6600k, ASUS Maxims VIII RoG Mobo (LG1151), GTX 1080Ti, 16GB 2666Ghz RAM, SATA SSDs, win10, FrostFlow 120 watercooler SYSTEM B (the proposed upgrade): AMD Ryzen 3700x, Auros-pro X570 Mobo, GTX 180Ti, 32GB 3200Ghz RAM, PCIE 3 NvME SSD, win10, FrostFlow 120 watercooler I've read that getting the new AMD chips + X570 Mobos to boot has been a problem for some people, but maybe that's just for people trying to OC. The comment on reddit seemed to suggest also that I should not expect any real uplift in FPS in games, but it's unlikely they know how DCS runs... So, what do people here think? Worth the upgrade, or just OC the existing system, or wait another 6 months for prices to lower some. ..

What board are you running with that 3600x? I just (5 mins ago) cancelled an order for an AMD 3700x and X570 mobo + 32GB of 3200Ghz RAM to replace the system in my sig. I was worried that the new CPU/Mobo combo would not represent much of a performance increase. Maybe I should place the order again . . .

My understanding is that this was deliberate. The trim was far too coarse for many players previously, which made trimming at high airspeeds very difficult. There were a number of complaints about this. They've made the trim reasponse far finer, which also means it takes longer to move through the full range if you use a button binding. I am very thankful for the change, which I see as allowing greater pilot control. Faster (coarser) trimming can still be done with the mouse, directly on the trim wheel. .

Shat a Brack, I didn't even know this was modelled!

Well, well, well! I will definitely comment on this and correct my conclusion in the next video! Thanks. I am surprised.. but have learned something. This thread can be marked "NO BUG" now :)

1. There are no negative consequences to operating outside of the limits. To be honest, I was actually hoping that something would "break" at the high speeds, and then I'd be able to say "well, the flaps broke away due to the high speeds", but they didn't (in both of the sims I tested), so the absence of mechanical failure led to to the next observation which was, what is going on then? This is how I test, I set up a scenario to see what happens, if something unexpected happens I observe it and note it. 2. Context, context, context - which would require watchgin the entire video and being familiar with the series

Ok thanks. I will leave it with you and the team to look further. :)

I *think* I understand what you are saying. The flaps are trying to deploy, but the air-pressure on the flap (which is alos holding the flap in the "up" position") is going back up the control rods/wires and is pushging the stick around int he pilot's hands. . . That sort-of makes sense, however, so long as gthe flaps are fully up, the flaps themselvs are being prevented from further moving up - becasue the wing is blocking them. There should not be any tension going back up the controls, because the wing is taking the forces. I am reporting pitching changes at 0 degrees defelction. I would not report a bug if there was "some" deflection in the flap (even 1 or 2 degrees). But I see full attitude changes before any defelection has started.

This is the "bug": At 280mph+ the flaps do not deploy, but the nose still pitches down.

I am sure watch the video . . . Typo. Should be "CoP", changed now. I don't think you follow the bug report I am making.

At high airspeed (above around 280 mph IAS) the flaps will (correctly) not deploy. However, using the flap level in the cockpit causes the nose to "trim down" as though the flaps have been delpoyed, even though they actually remain in the up position until the airspeed is reduced. This is obviously a bug, and also gives away the fact that the nose-down trim effect is not acually an aerodynamic or CoP change in DCS, but just a scripted change in the air-craft's trim (which is a little bit disappointing). Here is video of what I am talkign about. The whole video contains content from another sim, so please IGNORE that from a bug-reporting perspective (I do not intend to break any forum rules here, but I do not want to upload a seperate video just for this - so I am being explicit about what section of the video contains the relevant content). The content specific to this bug report is at 14:44 in the video, or at the exact timestamp in the link below.

I am unable to set any turning point, or flyover point altitudes above 1200m, when the altitude is set to "above ground level". AMSL heights are unaffected. Will upload video of the problem if this isn't clear.

Thanks, yes, that's the solution we had to use in the end.

Oh, stop it! :)

That's what I do too. I should bind them to specific keys though; but I've gotten by 2 years now without, so I guess I'll just carry on with the less-efficient method :)