Hippo

Yes it does, thank you. Sorry - I hadn't worked out that FLEX was also the name of the departure procedure. P.S. What does the line of five triangles on the chart (p9) represent?

FLEX appears to be a navigation point 4 nm away from LSV on the 335 radial. I don't know how a pilot following the chart is supposed to interpret the words "ON FLEX". It appears in four places on the chart.

What does "ON FLEX" mean? e.g. not above 8000 ON FLEX. What do the five triangles mean (next to remain within 4 nm)? Thx.

I've just installed this campaign for the first time, and the fps in the latest 2.5.6 OB is, for me, appalling (this is in VR). I have reported it in another thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4227381&postcount=100 This is in no way a criticism of your excellent work, which I am very happy to support.

I finally got round to installing Maple Flag's F18 Aggressor campaign. In the first (Familiarisation) mission, I get: 2.5.5 last OB 40 fps (ASW kicking in) 2.5.6 latest OB 5 fps !!! This is on entering the mission, sitting in the cockpit of the powered down aircraft and looking around. Settings are as per my previous test. ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4221938&postcount=73 ). This is the first complex (i.e. containing many objects), and Nevada, mission I have tried - and have to agree with many other posters that the frame rate decrease is severe in this case.

As can be seen from the image, this isn't happening. Notice that I'm using the ground track pointer on the HSI to fly a heading to correct for wind. However the command heading steering on the HUD is pointing me directly to the waypoint. From the NATOPS: EDIT: Apologies, I meant to post this in the BUGS forum. EDIT: Further apologies. I've just noticed someone else has posted the exact same thing in the bugs forum anyway. Jeez - I'm off to get more coffee. Please combine / delete / whatever.

Thank you for that, although now I only have more questions. I have been so used to the elevation being set as the aircraft altitude as per the mission editor, that I completely missed that the clue's in the name. Should the ME functionality be changed then? Where I have set waypoints in the ME to (e.g.) 34,000 ft, that's what I see in the aircraft when I fly the mission (see image); yet I am unable to enter this same elevation from the HSI pages. So I get why elevation might make sense in terms of a target waypoint, but I had always assumed that it was aircraft altitude that was set in this field. Should (ground) elevation be being set for all waypoints then? What is the reasoning behind this?

I'm not sure where you've detected anger in this thread. People have expressed their concerns in a perfectly reasonable manner. Careful, I think this is most people's definition of lying.

Sorry if this isn't a bug, but when entering waypoints in the INS - DATA - WYPT page, I'm unable to enter an elevation greater than 25,000 (actually 24,999) ft. Or is this the actual behaviour in the real aircraft? It seems odd if it is.

I do it after starting the first (right) engine (assuming the usual APU startup). It's not realistic, and I do it mostly to get the ATC going, and for more immersion. My understanding is that IRL this sort of thing is done under ground crew direction (hand signals?) rather than by the tower. The DCS ATC is extremely limited, and compromises to realism have to be made. With a bit of luck someone on here who actually works as ground crew will explain. A better simulation of the ground crew would be very welcome. If there's something I've come to appreciate from these sims it's that there's a group of people on the ground who do A LOT to get these airplanes in the air. EDIT: The problem being that until the engine is running the radio doesn't have power, and it won't work. I think this has been discussed previously, and is the actual behaviour in the real aircraft. Alternatively, as suggested above, you can request external power so that you can use the radio, but, IIRC, I don't think this is done very often with the F-18 IRL.

I hope I'm wrong, but at present I have my doubts that the Supercarrier will run at acceptable frame rates in VR.

Sorry, but no. One person posting once about an issue is a relatively minor matter. Many people complaining about an issue should (rightly) require ED to sit up and take notice. If everyone did what you suggest, nothing would ever be fixed. I would actually turn this around on those who complain about those raising concerns. Surely it's you who shouldn't bother to post, as you appear to have no issues with the game, only with other posters' feedback regarding it.

I just tried this and tested again as described above - unfortunately it had no effect.

Have been unable to reproduce - looks like a freaky one-off glitch. Please ignore. Sorry.

"branch": "openbeta", "version": "2.5.6.43931", 3rd image is there to show location where issue occurred.

All of your points are entirely valid, imo. To those who suggest you should say nothing and just live with it: just ignore them. I always do. You are a customer, you have handed over your money, and this forum is just about the only avenue you have to provide feedback to ED. In that sense, it really is no-one else's business. Speaking for myself, my time to devote to all this is limited so I honestly don't mind if they keep adding features slowly over the next few years. Also, this is an aircraft I was always extremely interested in. Hopefully they will, in time, get every little detail in. Having said that, the F-18 was the last EA product I will ever buy. I am amazed that I still haven't bought the F-16, which a few years ago I wouldn't have given a second thought to doing. I do want it, but I will wait until it's finished before paying for it. This is not because of the time taken in developing the F-18. I fly in VR and was extremely disappointed when the engine change (deferred rendering) was made, with its resulting 50% loss in fps. It seems to me that nowadays, with VR DCS, it's one step forward, two steps back, and that at any time a new feature could kill performance once again, making the whole investment in aircraft, scenery, etc, a waste of money.

Sorry, no. I don't have the PG map; and I hardly ever use Normandy / Nevada.

FWIW I am also suffering from worse performance in the latest OB 2.5.6. For my test I flew a mission where I did a straight in landing into Anapa from the south. A very simple mission, my F-18 is the only object in it. With 2.5.5 I am able to sustain 80 fps almost throughout, in 2.5.6 as can be clearly seen from the GPU % util, around halfway through the mission ASW kicks in and I am often at 40 fps. The GPU is experiencing around a 10% increase throughout. The CPU utilisation is harder to evaluate, but also appears higher.

How did you manage that? I own three of the four. Either on the website or in game, the bundle or the "missing" helo come up at their regular price.

This has supposedly been fixed with yesterday's release. I haven't tried it, as I just changed all my MISSION START triggers to ONCE instead (with no condition), and think it's tidier like that.

Thank you for that - I did not know. I'll give it a try. I take it that the change isn't permanent?

Well, this is what I see when I recentre. Notice that I can't see the altitude value at the top right on the HUD. I can if I (uncomfortably) tilt my head down. I take the point that some feel it's too low and close to the stick. I only said "too high" previously because of the above. This is the entry in my snapviews.lua: [13] = {--default view viewAngle = 89.777542,--FOV hAngle = 0.000000, vAngle = -15.592758, x_trans = 0.000000, y_trans = 0.000000, z_trans = 0.000000, rollAngle = 0.000000, }, Pls could someone check whether their settings are the same?

+1 It beggars belief that this even has to be requested. Should've been in place from the beginning.

I'm also seeing this with the F18, but only for the first mission I load. It goes away on subsequent missions.

Have you tried removing the Saved Games/DCS.openbeta folder? Backup first. Even just as a test? (you will lose your settings). I don't recall whether uninstalling removes this folder completely, and there may be settings in there which may be causing the issue.