philstyle

I'm getting the CTD without the BK90 (i.e. when I have RB75s on board). It happens to me around 2 to 3 minutes aftre joining a server, and once the engine and electrics are spooled up. I haven't tried just sitting in a server with engine off to see if it also happens then.

Also reported in this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=238570

CTD issues in multiplayer are also being reported on r/Hoggit. Yet to hear from Heatblur on this. Hopefulyl it is something that can be hot-patched... There were no patch notes for the Viggen so It's not clear at all to me if something in the module itself was updated, or if the updates to DCS core caused an unexpected big with the Viggen.

Patched up the open beta and tried to fly the viggen on two servers tonight but DCS went CTD after 3 or 4 minutes, soon after I spooled up the engine. Am not sure if this is a problem for others also?

That mossie looks great in DCS. I'm assuming it's a commmunity-built AI-only mod . . . but in any case, what a beauty. If we ever see the official DCS mossie I will be delighted.

The normandy map issues cannot be boiled down to the trees though, IMO. The repeated tiling of ground-layout even in the supposed high-deatil/resolution areas of the map near the normandy beaches is offputting. Oddly enugh, the landscape immedaitely around Bayeux is really nice. It's obvious that time and effort was put in to creating a concentric corcilaur field and road layout around the city. However, fly 10 miles away and this attentnion to detail is all but ignored. It is as though parts of the map were allocated to different people and they just got as far as they could with each bit before deadline day. There are landscapes with un-nautrally aprupt borders. This is at its worst alongside rivers where the birght yellow/golden beaches have been placed between the river and the riverbanks. The textures have very abrupt and un-natural borders. I did a bit of digging some time back to try and work out exactly who Ugra-Media were and where they operated from. Suffice to say that what I discovered didn't fill me with confidence.

I only said it "appears" this way. We have no idea what really goes on at the supplier. We can only guess based on what we see.

Yeah, the normandy map appears to have had different quality control standards to the other maps.

Hi folks, I'm building a mission and I want a ship with about 15 to 20km defensive missile (Surface to Air) range. Any ideas from the list what I can use?

OK, That seems farily convincing. There's nothing about the historical Spitfire 9, especially gainst the FW190D9 that should determine such an outcome. I am guessing that the AI's ability to pull rediculous G and hold un-naturally high AoA is responsible. As for multiplayer options... to be honest .. they are few. I've even seen some comments on r/hoggit referring to "the ww2 server", by which I think people are referring to Burning Skies. There are a limited number of options: 1. Burning Skies - dogfight server on the Caucasus map. No WW2 assets. Non-historical low-level furball syle server - server is based in Europe. 2. Storm of War server (www.stormofwar.org) - historical missions on the Normandy map with Ww2 assets. Currently only up on Sunday nights, once per week - server is based in Europe. 3. RAF662 server - low-realism settings (icons on) and exterbnal views too I think. Has AI aircraft. Based in the USA or Austraia, am not sure.

This is odd, becasue if I set up 4xFW190 v 4xspitfires with me in one of the spitfires, I almost always loose 2 or more of my wingmen in the fight. What happenes if you put 4xFw190 v 4xSpitfires, all AI of the same level and let them duel it out. Do you always get 4 dead 190's and no dead Spitfires?

Don't bother with offline play in the warbirds, unless you have a campaign or something with a stoy you are working through. The AI has a simple flight model which allows the aircraft/ pilot to execute maneuvers which are not possible for humans. They are also able to claculate the precise location for placing defelction shots, which of course they execute perfectly. Finally, the AI will often all target the first aircraft that comes into their sphere. As this is often the human (with his AI wingmen trailing behind) this means you have to fight off all the bandits yourself. If you go online, and fly against humans you will exeprience a much more believeable combat environment. In short, the DCS AI is bogus and has been for years. It's less noticeable with the long-range missle play of hte modern jets, but (perhaps in a bit of surprise news for some, DCS has more modules than the F18 and F14) for close up fighting (which is the only option in the WW2 aircraft) the problems become glaringly obvious and borderline game-breaking.

No, it only means the server can host without owning the assets. Players need to own them in order to join.

likewise.

you can edit the pilot log file to force it to the next mission. Don't have the details right now, maybe someone else can help.

Hello all, I plan to upgrade my CPU and RAM soon, but I want to keep my motherboard (see current specs image below) I'm thinking I will get an i5-9600K to replace the 6600k. I also want to go for 32GB RAM, and I think I will gor for 2100 or 2400 Hz RAM I have some questions: 1. Is the 9600K compatable with my existing motherboard 2. Is there any point in going with RAM that's fater than 2100Hz? Although my existing RAM is badged for 3000, I know that without using an XMP profile It's only going to run at 2100 anyway.. so would I be better or with 32GB of 2100 speed RAM? My existing specs for the relevant components are: .

I think "they're not finished" sits more comfortably as a permise to the question, as opposed to being the answer, considering context.

Does ED have any updates on the AI aircraft and assets that we saw in mid 2017 but are still not incldued it he assets pack? - On 02 June 2017 "We have included some work-in-progress images of new Asset Pack units coming to DCS World: C-47, Ju-88, Sd.Kfz. 234/2 Puma, and Sd.Kfz.251." -The external model for the E-boat Schnellboot type S-130 was showcased on 4 August 2017. This AI ship is still not available for the customers. -On 17 November 2017 the AI model for the A20 was also shown. This is also still not in DCS assets pack.

Right, I've largely resolved this now. All I had to do was disable the "trueview" option in the TiR5 software. Rear visibilty is slightly hampered, but everything else is far more natural, and the canopy issue has been fixed.

Anyone been able to successfully apply a trackIR profile that will actually keep the pilot head within the cockpit canopy of the spitfire? I find that, with the canopy closed, my head is able to mis-align quite readily through the canopy so that half my screen is "inside" the cockpit" and half is "outside". This makes dogfighting in particular very frustrating due to the constant interruption of the"clear" canopy-less world slicing into and out of view.

Despite my gripes with the development process for the Spit (and the wider WW2 side of DCS), I agree, it's still a damned fine and fun aircraft to fly. The DCS base platform just seems to lend itself so nicely to the high-powered prop machines. It "feels" like a machine with mass and momentum. I too love to trim her out at 18,000ft with low boost and cruise RPM, then just sit there gazing out the canopy.

ED haven't said hardly peep about anny WW2 related modules for weeks. Aside from a few unofficail comments here and there on the forums, I don't trhink any of us WW2 customer have any real idea what is going on with the modules since about November last year. There is a list 50-itmes long of things that would ebenfit DCS WW2, but most (if not all) of them appear to be little more than customer wants, as opposed to supplier priorities.

That would be OK. I'd expect them to be included in the existing WW2 asset pack as AI-only though, until released as full player modules.

Not for me without a Service Level Agreement. I'm done with buying software based on non-binding aspirations.

Agree with Charly Owl. If it's going to be generic, it might as well just be one of the other sims where I can get loads of gerenics for the same price as one ED module. Furthermore as a customer, I'm not prepared to base a purchase decision on the "promise" (non-contractural) that ED will delever full systems if the module is "interesting for users", without any definition provided. How will the customer have any confidence that full systems will eventually be developed? What is the method for measuring "interest" and what would the time scale be for converting the generic systems to full systems? This leaves far too much ambiguity about what the service level is that is to be delivered.