Raven (Elysian Angel)

Yes? I replied to the question if there are any other upcoming modules for MSFS... [quote]Would you please expand a bit on MSFS plans? So far, we have F-14. Are there plans for other modules or updates to MSFS Tomcat?[/quote]

HB already announced an F-16A.

Well, honouring this request is the very definition of lowering HB standards The tail hook is not designed for it, the landing gear is not designed for it. The type of tyres is wrong for this purpose and have the wrong pressure, the aircraft’s structure is not designed for it, … So at the very least allowing the F-4E to safely operate from a carrier reduces the damage model to arcade level. What will be the consequences of that for everyone else? *edit* Also, how do you expect the Supercarrier LSO AI to deal with an F-4E in the groove? Not even the F-14 is properly supported…

I thought DCS aimed to be the most realistic consumer-level military flight sim possible? If this gets added as a mod, so be it. But dedicating time and effort into this request as the official developer, while already packed with work (and behind self-imposed schedule on a lot of promised features), is in my humble opinion not the right thing to do. There’s something to be said for giving the customers what they want, but please be reasonable…

You too!

Yes of course but that doesn’t explain why in certain cases even FC3 is more complete than recent full-fidelity modules - such as the ability to directly command Wingman 4. Other differences regarding communication have already been pointed out in this thread (ordering a wingman to scout ahead etc).

Or we could ask these guys:

Thanks for the clarification!

Next patch there will be:

That’s brilliant, cheers!

I think the issue is that DCS-level options such as “loud afterburner” and “switch volume” don’t work for Heatblur modules. It likely has to do with the fact that HB pioneered those sounds within DCS, but I for one asked several times already for HB to connect their modules to those sound sliders - to no avail yet apparently I even made a general wish list post for more sound level consistency between the various DCS modules, but it seems lately things only got worse instead of better (case in point: the OH-58)…

When the limit is reached, yes. My frame rate limit is set to 90 in DCS. It’s the exact same limit I have set when I was still using the 6900XT. In fact, the only DCS settings I changed after the change of graphics card is increasing the visibility range and turning off MSAA. Everything else is exactly the same. And yes I used DDU when making the switch - I even removed and reinstalled my chipset drivers just to be on the safe side.

Yes that’s exactly what I mean though: I have bumped visibility range from high to extreme, and when I bump up the resolution and turn on DLAA/MSAA I see very noticeable reductions in performance, yet the in-game frame counter still claims my system is cpu bound. I have done all those tests. To me that doesn’t make any sense (other than the software overhead which we know for nVidia is 10-11%) I'm thus very curious what I’ll see when we *finally* get Vulkan.

Feel free to elaborate: I’m always happy to learn. All I know is that on my 6900XT I was permanently gpu bound (green), while on the 4080S I am permanently cpu bound (yellow or red - the latter when I hit the frame cap of 90). I don’t have performance issues: I haven’t seen the fps dip below 45 yet (and that’s around the carrier) while in lighter missions I get 65fps on the ground and 85-90 in the air - with very smooth frame times

See that’s where odd things can happen, since on my system the in-game frame counter claims I’m CPU-bound, while I doubt that it is. When my Reverb G2 died and I replaced it by a Varjo Aero, I was forced to also buy a new GFX card since the Aero doesn’t work on AMD (I had a perfectly fine 6900XT). On AMD the frame-counter said I am indeed GPU-bound, but after switching to a 4080 Super it says “CPU bound” no matter which settings I change - even increasing my headset’s PPD setting from 35 to 39 - which doesn’t make any sense. The only thing I can come up with is that that “CPU-bound” message is purely because of the overhead of nVidia’s software DirectX scheduler (AMD uses a hardware scheduler).

I have done that, actually. I don’t remember if I have the service enabled or disabled at the moment (I know for a fact that for a while I have, though). I’ll check and disable if needed - thanks for the reminder anyway

I am running the Ultimate Performance power plan in Windows 11 (which is not available by default), but even then I have noticed windows updates messing with power settings without my consent (turning usb selective suspend back on for example). Microsoft does some shady backdoor stuff with their updates. Ideally I would configure Windows just the way I want it directly after installation and just leave it there, but it seems M$ wants to interfere with that - and tbh I no longer have the patience for hours of tinkering on a regular basis…

That’s the problem with the extremely simplified AI that we have: in our own modules we have realistic detection ranges and realistic limits on target acquisition, but the AI don’t care and lock you up instantly without any of the limitations we have to deal with…

This looks like something that needs to be addressed no later than the launch day of the official HB campaign

Depends on which one you mean: module-specific Special Option: yes. ED’s Axis Control settings: no.

I was under the impression the default one is more 'game-y', while the alternative Special Option is more realistic. I think that's how it was implemented, and I haven't seen anything that would indicate otherwise

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/354649-phantom-fps-performance/

There is a thread about Jester feedback/venting already: