TOViper

MT MP OB 2.8.3.38090 Caucasus Buddy Spike Blue Flag 80's Flying in the AH-64 as PILOT and having a my buddy as client as GUNNER, the flight from a farp to another farp ended in in the middle with a game freeze for both of us at the same time. Only the DCS.log has some information, there was no crashdump or whatsoever. Find the attached log, which is full of errors, warnings, etc. Last entry is the following: 2023-03-24 23:22:57.089 UNKNOWN UnitsLayer:: (Main): m_obj2ctl.find(obj) != m_obj2ctl.end() dcs_crash_2023-03-25.log

I am pretty sure you are right about that! In any case, I usually prefer hosting heavier missions on a dedicated server (e.g. I use an older notebook for that), and then fly the mission as client on my power rig. This releases my rig a bit, and gives some resources free with the aim for slightly better fps.

Welcome in the world of Viggen!

Most probably the DCS.log contains very useful information for the stuff, so I am pretty sure it would help. You find the DCS.log in your windows user profile folder / DCS / LOG folder. If you reply to the thread, just drop it into your posting and it will be uploaded. Same goes for the DXDIAG log file. Both files are small in size, so you may be allowed to upload them to your posting. But as said, for the problem you described above, it may make sense to open up a separate thread with some detailed description to keep this thread on topic (Hyperthreading ON/OFF experiences). Kind regards!

I think your issue may be worth a new separate thread with some more infos on your hardware (DXDIAG, DCS.log, etc...)?

MT OB 2.8.3.37845.1 SP Nevada VR Flying AH-64D as Pilot DCS freezes after flying for about 5 minutes in the hills on the way to waypoint 2. Attached find my DCS.log dcs.log DxDiag_new.txt

True. Once I disable Hyperthreading in BIOS the folling I tested: .) DCS (ST) runs super smooth when looking to the side in flight .) DCS MT runs with some stutter when looking to the side in flight My rig for tests: Intel i7-6700, 4.4 GHz, GTX 1070, 40GB RAM @3000MHz, RIFT CV1 Details & measurements: AH-64D, SP, single aircraft on map, Nellis ramp position H07, hot start, IHADSS off Scenario "A": NVIDIA: +200 MHz Clock / + 400 MHz Memory INTEL: 4 cores, 4.0 GHz, Hyperthreading OFF DCS: TERRAIN TEXTURES=HIGH No ASW: ST: 52 fps, mega stutter, unflyable MT: 65 fps, mega stutter, unflyable With ASW: ST: 45 fps, to be filled in later MT: 45 fps, to be filled in later Scenario "B": NVIDIA: +200 MHz Clock / + 400 MHz Memory INTEL: 4 cores, 4.0 GHz, Hyperthreading ON DCS: TERRAIN TEXTURES=HIGH No ASW: ST: 48 fps, mega stutter, unflyable MT: 66 fps, mega stutter, unflyable With ASW: ST: 45 fps, very light stutter when looking to the side, well flyable MT: 45 fps, heavy stutter when looking to the side, starting unflyable Scenario "C": NVIDIA: +200 MHz Clock / + 400 MHz Memory INTEL: 4 cores, 4.4 GHz, Hyperthreading OFF DCS: TERRAIN TEXTURES=LOW No ASW: ST: 61 fps, mega stutter, unflyable MT: 77 fps, mega stutter, unflyable With ASW: ST: 45 fps, no stutter when looking perpendicular to flight direction, super flyable MT: 45 fps, some stutter when looking perpendicular to flight direction, OK flyable Finally: Best solution for single aircraft on map is DCS ST with 4 cores and Hyperthreading OFF at TERRAIN TEXTURES LOW. Also: It seams that the VR implementation of DCS MT is not as good as DCS ST. Attached all my files, which releate to scenario "B". 2023-01-18_short_track_looking_perpendicularly_to_flight_direction.trk dcs.log DxDiag.txt

I'm interested in this function too, would solve some of my problems with a mission here ... Thanks!

Update 2023-03-11 (due to changes in OB 2.8.3.37556): .) Tertiary air hatch: Removed document tag "not implemented", document now reads: null

You might use 5° nose-up for normal take-off with attached x-tank, and 4° without it (despite the manual says something about 3° with x-tank and 0° without x-tank). This makes a very nice and smooth rotation without having to pull much on the stick...

Hey Mr_sukebe! This: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/312753-dcs-ajs-37-viggen-manual-rc21beta/?do=findComment&comment=5158806

I understand your words, and I am sorry you (maybe) felt offended (do you?), this was not the idea, really. Nonetheless, for me personally as a customer of EDs products - I totally ignore/disregard the Su25T module because of one fact: Not beeing able to use the clickable cockpit. I personally don't care if the one or the other module is more performant or can carry more weapons, that's not the point for me. In terms of a "starter plane to get you into the warheads" I agree with your opinion, and I am thankful you wrote this, but this might work for persons not able (time problem e.g.) or not motivated to work into the systems; but - as stated - not me. To get people like me to fly DCS, it needs high fidelity / quality modules, and I know I am not alone with that opinion. If I look around in my flying group ... Flaming Cliffs only when nothing else is possible anymore... (THIS IS NOT A BASHING, ok?) And you can bet: More users will come up in the future thinking in the same way. Also for Flaming Cliffs. Statistics.

Hey Rudel! Maybe you could feel less uncomfortable, by another view. If there comes a time when ED would ever change their current policy (2 gifts now, 14 day trials), then what about the following scenario: At first creation of a new account, one aircraft (the user is allowed to choose from a selected pool), is added as well, for - let's say - a period of 2 months (or whatever). Then the license stops. With the "-50% bonus for first buy", the treshold for the user to really buy this aircraft is anyway much lower. Whatever is discussed here, I personally think to have two modules for free is really generous (despite I personally could not anything with them in the past, and still cannot do anything with them today). But as I read the 4 answers of the first poll question, it is not the question if there are free modules, but which modules (really hope I got for what it was ment to be). If there would be a benefit for ED in selling more modules ... I don't know it in general (which is a good idea anyway because I believe then this wonderful sim developes further). Further above I just stated, that for me (as a customer out of millions), it was a question of the quality of a module (and love btw), not price. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't feel better, ... sorry for my weak try... Better we go flying

I am aware of that, indeed. My concern is that HB might not implement things in a timely manner, so if I document now, the manual is wrong for a very long time. IMHO it would be better if e.g. Machalot puts that one on the bug list, and HB eventually implements the changes, then I will change the doc as well. Sounds like a plan, does it? But first we have to know if the aircraft behaves like described (I mean in the very detail). Maybe @Machalot can ask the devs before we do hundreds of flights ...

Guys, before I do, we have to make sure the module is following this graph. You know, the manual describes the module, not the real Viggen. On the other hand, it would be good to know that HB implemented this exactly... I would use this graph as well ... erm ... Myse1234 ... erm ... would you please?

Yes, I was thinking about the same. I now anticipate guys flying and testing if the module is like shown on the charts ... I fear it is not following it, is it?

A quick question: Are you sure about that the AJS uses the same diagram? Not even minor changes/modifications in the nineties which we know about?

Oh damn, you are a genius! I looks awesome! So finally, and if you agree, I will integrate this into the chapter 6.

Yeah, of course that's true. In fact, I would have taken the FS2020 even it was free I was flying Flaming Cliffs a/c before (and LOMAC before) from time to time, so I knew DCS already. Luckily, there was the Viggen ... which somehow totally bound me to DCS. And again, if it was free, it would have also bound me to DCS. So I again make something clear: A good module makes me play the sim (personally I don't care if its free or not, quality is the hook). Just my two cents on this.

I have to disagree. I tell you a story: I bought FS2020 for fun. After one week I threw it away (like all other FSxxxxx in the past). Recently, a friend told me that the A-310 is modeled to perfection, and I might take a look. This made me start playing FS2020 again, because this aircraft is modeled to near-perfection, and for me it is a lot of fun to fly it. So I am one these "more players". Other thing: ED could add the F-5 Tiger instead of the - IMHO - totally useless SU-25T (or simply add it). The Tiger is a complex aircraft but easy to fly, click-able pit, space-design of the 60's, air-2-air & air-to-ground cabable, and cold-war era jet with some features. Polish the module ... and here you go! What more can someone new ask for? Ok ... the Viggen, I know

3ThumbsUp for you!

Hey both renhanxue + Machalot! Do you think this chart was worth putting into the RC2.1, including some of your explanations? To be honest, I personally think it would perfectly fit into the chapter 6. Following this, maybe someone out there is interested in pimping this chart a bit (straighten the axes and make the numbers better readable), since I am not the world number one specialist for graphics software...

Theoretically speaking, this is the procedure for making a target fix on a certain position when there is no waypoint 7 defined, neither in the ME, nor in the DTC. .) While flying, go REF LOLA > IN and enter 111111 111111 and hit B7 button. .) Then you change it to a target point by using TAKT > IN, enter digit 9 and hit B7 button. .) Then, go REF LOLA > OUT, and in the vicinity of the targets (during approaching target) simply press T1 and then TV, which makes a target fix at that exakt location where you are at that moment .) Then you can use the radar to make a new target fix for that waypoint in front of you (the cross in the radar display then can be moved around, despite the target is behind you).

This is just a reminder not to forget about the different kind of fixes: NAV fix, TARGET fix. If you are planning for making a target fix at waypoint 6 (e.g. because your radar is spotting ground targets), you should make sure the waypoint is a M-point (TARGET point M6). Otherwise, when making a fix on waypoint B6 (normal navigation waypoint), you would then shift you whole flightplan.

yes