Sylosis

Interesting indeed. On the basis that they can use the community to help them test the modules, I'm cool with it. This helps them find bugs faster, etc, so they indeed spend less time developing them. I'm still uncertain though about charging the full module price to help you unbug it, but this is me... And I assume that's what he meant about being able to be profitable. Thanks to this way of doing things, we save on development and can be profitable. Cause, selling a module in early development or 6 months later, you're selling the same amount of modules in that year. Also, this is obviously something that is done by almost any gaming developer (early acesss and also crowdfunding). It is something I will never fully comprehend, why people are willing to pay for unfinished products in order to have them faster. But again, that's just me

And how you calling it whining and crap not a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Don't participate to the discussion, go on with your life, leave the rest of us alone.

Really? Well people are dumber than I thought. Why would you want to spend 60$ on something 40% complete (random number, no need to panic), instead of waiting 6 to 12 months so spend the same amount of money for a compete product? And in an economic world, you should even try to invest that 60$ during that 6 to 12 months. Maybe you'll get 120$ by then and your module will be essentially free, in relative terms

Is there anyone that has some idea as to why there is that necessity to release modules so early in their development stage? Is it only a financial thing? Like purely cash flow generation, to help finance the rest of the development? Maybe finding financing for such sim projects is hard to come by, and the only way to be financially viable is to keep pushing modules at a very early stage? I actually hope this is the reason, and not just greed. The F-16 just got out and from what I was told it's just not fun to fly. Everything is subjective, but it seems there would be no reason for anyone to fly that plane at the moment. So why release it? Most people will pay to buy the newest thing in the store, play a few hours and then put it on a shelf for multiple months, waiting for it to be finished. I'm not going to even start talking about Razbam who takes a decade to finish a module. At least ED and other developers seem to actually care about making sure the community, who paid for their early access modules get what they paid for in a timely manner. But I don't know, to me early access release means "unfinished but usable". It might be just me, but I don't see how the F16 is really usable right now? Anyway, I'm just wondering and opening up the discussion. I'm not bashing on ED or something... Just trying to understand the economic model I guess. (but true I did bash Razbam, and it was intentional)

Jumping into the conversation but uhm... How do you reset lock? I got a lock using PLM to practice guns, but I can't drop the lock afterwards.... What key is it?

Yes this is essentially the procedure I am going through and it doesn't work. Indeed I am playing a custom made mission that I got on the free stuff page of DCS store and I start with 0 waypoint. I did try and create a first markpoint at my initial location, but still wasn't able to enter waypoints. I am soooooo disapointed with Razbam... I have posted many times here how their modules are so not finished, even if MULTIPLE years passed since its release. The F18 is 10 times more polished and it was out probably 2 to 3 years later than the Harrier. I'm sorry to sound pissed, cause yes I am, but Razbam is a joke.

I'm ressurecting an old thread, but to me, this is not working. I tried everything and still can't create a waypoint. When I enter the data, the waypoint is created, but everything stays at 00'00'00, etc. I did create an initial mark at my position when I takeoff, using MK0 in the EHSD screen. But I still can't create a waypoint

I haven't been writing on this forum for sometime, hopefully because I'm getting better at DCS and don't have to ask as many questions as before! :P That being said, some time ago, I asked for tips when it comes to air refueling. Many people asked, with good reasons, what kind of curvature I was using for my axis, and also other axis custom settings. At the time, I said that, with the Mirage, I was using a curvature of something between 25 and 30 (don't quite remember) and a deadzone of 3. Everybody turned apeshit, saying how crazy I was to have such a curve. I argued that I was using a very sensitive joystick, the ThrustMaster T16000M, and that it was unflyable with anything less than 20 (it's a lot more for the F-5). Most people, if not all people who replied, said it had nothing to do with the joystick and it was a question of practice, etc etc. I did try lowering my curvature and it was just insane. It made no damn sense. But I still believed I was wrong, and that you guys were surely right, as I am not a top expert when it comes to DCS. BUT! I have now changed joystick for a VIRPIL and mother of god! It did prove that I was kinda right! With the Virpil, using curvatures as high as 20 or 30 is just unflyable. I just need to use something in the range of 10, depending of the aircraft, sometimes a bit less, sometimes a bit more. I haven't practice refueling yet, but I thought I would post this here anyway, for anyone who might be trying to understand why they can't succeed at air refueling. I'm not trying to rub it in anyone's face, like "see how right I was!". It is really just that I have the proof that the joystick does matter and it might help others to know that. The sensitivity of some devices is very high, forcing you to use a high curvature value. I hope this post might help someone that has/had similar issues. Cheers

I personally never experienced it in 1.5 either. If somebody has, maybe it was module related? And this would make sense, since the shading model, from what I understand, has drastically changed between 1.5 and 2.5. Therefore, it would be a surprise that the exact same issue would exist in both systems, as they are vastly different.

In total agreement with this. I am doing The Ennemy Within and it's a great campaign. But, more importantly, as Yurgon says, it is realistic. On many campaigns, you have weird "arcade like" missions, where you are up against 20 planes, in a "shoot 'em up" style thing... Which is weird, considering DCS is mostly appreciated by a base of player that enjoys simulation. So why do people create campaigns that are like that? I don't know... apart from the fact that I assume it is just less work and the easy thing to do. Therefore, I very much recommend The Enemy Within, and it'd be great if there were more campaigns like this one in other modules.

I believe this a known issue, and present on almost all modules. This is due, from what I know, to deferred shading, which manages lighting and what not. In the released version, you had the possibility to turn it off or on, but ED doesn't intend to continue to support the "old" shading system (or whatever the name can be) and forces the new deferred shading system, which doesn't really work so well. So ya, look around the forum and you'll see numerous related posts and threads.

Well... seems I'm stuck on that mission. That or... it's the last mission or something? I was able to complete it with 0 damage, with perfect landing, bring back my Wingman, etc. Destroyed the SAM, the bunkers, got the UH1 to land, they told me package delivered you can RTB, etc etc. Still a score of 50. At first I thought "Oh well... who cares..." And thought I'd just continue the campaign anyway. Welp, the next mission is AGAIN Hammerfall Part 3. So I did it, AGAIN! With no damage, etc etc. Same thing. But when I push "Next Mission", it is still Hammerfall Part 3... Any idea what I'm doing wrong? I thought if you'd fail a mission you could decide to continue anyway. And this was actually the suggestion of Baltic Dragon, to those who got frustrated about that mission... I really don't feel like doing it once more.

I have the exact same bright cockpit as what is seen in his beta screenshot. And yes, it stays like that for some time after the plane takes off. I haven't had the chance to run all the tests, but it might very well be the known issue of your own landing light going through the airframe and lighting the inside of the cockpit. I'll try to provide additional info tonight.

Sorry if I'm slow to understand. But, I think you meant "deferred shading was not removed", but the OPTION was indeed removed, correct? That's what I understand when you say "It is the only lighting system" As for your point on brightness and contrasts, I can try and see. But I think the nightime runway lighting issue will still remain, no matter what contrast and brightness setting I put. And finally, I made most tests with the Mig21. I'll try all the modules I own, see if the textures/renders/shapes are sharper on other modules.

Funny, I thought I made sure I switched both cockpits to the same "English Metric"... guess I didn't. I'll switch em both to Russian and post back some more screenshots. As for the A-10, no, I don't use any mods or special setting. It's essentially in its default state. Good to know about 2.5.2, I was misinformed. Thanks for clarifying things. So to have the real comparison, I guess I'd have to do my future tests with DS On in the Released version. And, I hope you are wrong about DS issues "being here for long". I mean... I feel this is kinda basic? By basic I don't mean "easy to fix". I mean it's basic in a sense that "it's a major issue that should not be there" at all. You know, to have proper lighting at night is not what I would call "nice to have", but rather "a must have". But anyway, since it's not working so well, at least you would think they would let us the option to leave it off, no? Why force us to use a broken feature? What's the logic in there? I don't get it... :huh:

Define work? In 2.5.0, I have, like a lot of other people have posted here on the forum, ugly shading issues. So... It works in the sense of "you can activate it", yes. But "Work" in the sense of "Does it work as intended?" No, I don't think so. Which is why, I assume, this option to activate it was removed from the Open Beta (at least I don't see it anywhere in the options). I thought I read somewhere that it was "enforced activated" in 2.5.1 open beta, and that it 2.5.2 "it was deactivated again". But, maybe this was not accurate. I understand it is still "enforced activated" in 2.5.2? If so, I guess that explains the weird lighting issues I have in the Open Beta on the runway at night. (cockpit being super bright at night due to I don't know what) However, as with regards to this current thread and my most recent post with the 2 attached screenshots. When I said that I was seeing "differences", it wasn't related to the shading, but more to the rendering and sharpness of the textures and shapes, in the cockpit. There are knobs that appear jagged in the Open Beta, while they look better in the Released version. And some of the text on the cockpit, to identify knobs and what not, are more blurred in the Open Beta. I assumed this was not related to shading issues, am I wrong? For example, look at the red handle not far from the nose gear lever in my latest screenshots. That red push/pull lever (sorry I'm not yet so good with the Mig21 and can't name all the levers and knobs... :() looks jagged in the Open Beta screenshot. And, we can't really read whatever is on it, while it is a lot more readable in the released version.

Indeed, because it doesn't work in the released version. As for the open beta, I thought it was enforced in 2.5.1, but not anymore in 2.5.2? (you know, since you can't check the option)

NVidia released new drivers, and DCS Open Beta was updated. So I made an additional test. I send two screenshots and let me know what you think. The first one (titled: Untitled2) is from the released version, the other one (Untitled) from the beta. Both have the same graphic settings set. Personally, I find that there is some difference in the rendering, however it is not huge. But you can see some difference still... I personally find that the graphics in the Released version look sharper. What do you think? The remaining issue that I haven't solved is for when I'm on the runway at night time. I still have a super bright cockpit in those instances.

As per your suggestion I did send a ticket. Thanks for suggesting it btw. They responded to my ticket: "the open beta is a BETA".... I don't know if this is Russian humor or something... But hey, since it's a beta, they should be interested in having bug reports, therefore I sent my logs anyway. We'll see how it goes, but I wouldn't give that person who replied 5 stars for customer service :noexpression:

Note quite...! I had an engine down, only the right gear functional, damage to my wings, and it was windy as hell.. Therefore, I was able to touch the runway with a low enough speed and a relatively "ok" descent... but I was kinda all over the place. As soon as I touched the runway, the aircraft turned left and went into the grass, on a good distance. So to say I was a few feet away from 100 is being optimistic! hahaha! But good to know, next time I'll just repair and taxi to the appropriate place. That is, as long as in 2.5.0 we can now roll in the grass? In 1.5 it was completely stopping the aircraft.

Thought I would share this, although this seems like the typical "AI got a brain freeze" kind of situation. So not sure there is anything that can be done about it. In this mission (see title), I have always had some issues with the AI. I ask for it to attack, it shoots either one, or both of its Mavericks, and then stops doing anything. But, since I had so much trouble doing that mission, I never made a big deal out of it. Now, yesterday, I was finally in good position to finish it. I asked my Wingmen to attack, once I had destroyed the SAM. It shot one Maverick, then didn't do much, apart from dropping all of its flare in some weird panick moment... Anyhow, after a few minutes I asked him again to attack. He responded "Unable to comply" or something like. And right after, maybe 30 seconds after that, he said "RTB" in the radio. I thought "Weird...?". So I pushed F2 and he looked in perfect shape. No damage whatsoever, nothing. So I let him do his thing... thinking "Maybe a mechanical failure?" (can AI suffer failures btw?). 15 minutes later he said "I'm hit!", so I pushed F2 again and he was inside a building, right next to the initial position airport (Kabuleti). I looked like he overshot the runway... or crashed before it, depends which direction he was going. I then finished the mission. I was pretty damaged, so had some kind of a rough landing (only my right gear was still functionning), but managed to land it. Got a score of 35 for the stuff I destroyed, but a result of 50. Maybe my question would be, is this because my Wingmen crashed? I don't know how result is calculated, so I was wondering what could cause the result of 50 instead of 100. I guess this is my only question. Thanks in advance.

Tried something else yesterday, and it didn't work. I deleted the Saved Game folder again, but this time, before re-opening DCS Open Beta so that it re-creates the folder, I did a clean install of my GPU drivers. So ya, this didn't work either. So maybe the question I have right now, is what is my next step? I mean, it's the first time I encounter such a bug and therefore, the first time I need to report it. Some of you were kind enough to suggests different things, which sadly didn't work. Is ED providing any kind of support? I mean, they changed the title of my post, so I guess "somebody" read it. I thought there was some other more official way to report them a bug, however after doing some research, it seems this forum is the actual way... So ya, just wondering how does it work? Are they jumping in at some point?

I wasn't taking it personal, no worries. I appreciate that you clarified your opinion though. And, with regards to the OP and perhaps some others that might have commented in this thread, or in other threads, with some frustration in their messages, I can understand up to a point the frustration. As I was pointing out previously, most people will look at DCS's development using their past experience with other games and softwares. And, it seems development is quite different in DCS and based on this, it can be frustrating, if you look at it with a perspective that is in line with "normal" development. But who can blame them, this is normal behavior I think. One could argue "Yes but DCS is a flight sim, it's different, standard development doesn't apply". True, it is much different, versus most games, indeed. Does it mean it should be developed differently? I have no freaking clue... Which is why I can't by default say that those frustrated with ED are wrong. Nor can I say that you are right either. I just don't know. And finally, I guess some will argue that it isn't all that different. Personally I think it is, but I can live with the fact that we can't all agree on this. Oh and yes, of course, the computer software inside of Boeing's airplane is a lot more critical than DCS. So yes, Boeing has no margin for error, versus ED. But, all though I can see why you are making that comparison (to demonstrate that it isn't all that dramatic), I don't know... I guess you could throw something in that same vein to anyone who is frustrated about anything, don't you think? Like yesterday, I was bitching about how expensive brocoli has become. Then you could say "Well in some countries they don't even have brocoli". See what I mean? :lol: But anyway, this is how I see things and this is really just my opinion :P Enjoy your flying! :thumbup:

All right didn't work either. What I did, instead of deleting it, I just changed the name of the original Saved Game folder from "DCS.Openbeta" to "DCS.openbeta-old". The game did create a new DCS.Openbeta folder, however the issue still stands. I'm officially out of ideas... Thanks for anyone who helped (and who will want to help)....