Kiwispirits

Has anyone else noticed that the LD-10 will not target the emitting SAM when launched in Active Mode? Hits the SPI but not the radar. If you launch in Passive or Self-protect it hits the emitting SAM in the same mission as above.

Autumn Tree Texture Flickering Problem and Solution Not sure if this recent visual problem was because of Pimax Play or the last two updates in DCS, but I have been having problems with flickering autumn tree textures. I am using a Pimax Crystal powered by an RTX3080 and got this problem while flying in the Caucasus in Autumn with foveated rendering enabled. Trees on the mountains that were in the outer zones of my vision at about 45 degrees from my flight path would flicker to a different texture and color (but still autumn colors) when I moved my eyes from directly ahead towards the mountains. It was not one or two trees but more like whole hillsides. This problem persisted with any of the three foveated settings (performance, balanced or quality) and render quality from 1.0 to 1.6 . My test flight was the free flight in the Caucasus in the JF-17, which starts mid-air in the position described above. Not the only mission to see it though. I fixed the problem by changing my visibility range from high to extreme, which is now possible with the performance increase from foveated rendering.

I do not understand the thundering silence of any further official statements from ED and Razbam. I know that one reason many have given for this is that it might prejudice any ongoing legal discussions, but you can release official statements that are completely acceptable from a legal point of view along the lines of "Sorry for the delay, but we are still trying to work this out with the other party". If you say nothing, then people will make things up and the resulting storm of speculation will (and has) damage both parties' reputation. I find this lack of official communication totally baffling.

I will check that out, thanks.

Did some more testing and found the following: To prevent excessive drop in the FPS for the F4e when using OpenXR toolkit, do not turn on the toolkit feature called Frame Rate Throttling. In my case this cut FPS from 45 to 33FPS and maxed out the CPU. Other features within OpenXR toolkit such as foveated rendering work without problems.

I did some VR testing and found in the same mission the F4e FPS drops very badly compared to other aircraft such as the JF-17. Based on some other reports I tested further and found the problem is that the F4e in VR has some sort of bug when the OpenXR Toolkit is used to adjust VR settings. If I disable the OpenXR Toolkit I get the same VR performance in the F4e and the JF-17. This is obviously not a long term solution because the toolkit is needed to get the best performance, but checking interactions in VR between the toolkit and the F4e should give a good starting point for a fix by Heatblur. I was using a Pimax Crystal Headset, Pimax XR runtime and the OpenXR toolkit

I did some more testing and found that my FPS drop problem is that the F4e in VR has some sort of bug when the OpenXR Toolkit is used to adjust VR settings. If I disable the OpenXR Toolkit I get the same VR performance in the F4e and the JF-17. This is obviously not a long term solution because the toolkit is needed to get the best performance, but checking interactions in VR between the toolkit and the F4e should give a good starting point for a fix by Heatblur. I was using a Pimax Crystal Headset, Pimax XR runtime and the OpenXR toolkit I will raise a separate bug report for this.

I have an i7-10700 CPU @ 2.90GHz and an RTX 3080 12gb powering a Crystal Pimax VR headset.I tried the instant action mission for the F4e in the Caucasus map called 'Free Flight'.My headset dropped to 36 fps and is both CPU and GPU bound. Using the F4e special setting of reduced refresh rates did not help. I copied that same mission into the editor and changed the airframe to my JF-17. This time the mission runs with 45FPS (the target FPS) with 97% CPU headroom and 33% GPU headroom. This is the same performance I generally get with all my airframes and missions. I realise I could probably fix this situation with a better CPU and GPU. I also know that Heatblur have another optimization technique involving some multithread trickery for the components of their engine which is not switched on yet as they wanted to keep things simple for the initial release and debug, but in it's current form it is not usable for me in VR.

Does the offer to extend the preorder discount for those that cancel at this time apply to those who preordered via DCS? If so, how does one go about cancelling a pre-order please? This is not because of the delays but rather as your videos have come out I feel the module is more complex than I wish to deal with at this time.

No mention of a fix for dumb bombing accuracy. Hope they get a fix in (or DCS gets a fix in) even though it is not in these notes.

In some headsets the thump sound of the radar scan hitting the stops is loud enough to be irritating/tiring. Is there any chance of putting a volume control for that in the game, perhaps in the special tab of the settings menu?

This works, but the naming seems unusual. As I understand it this is the F15E S4+ version not the SE version. Other locations within the DCS program use F15-E as their folder label

I created one new, and copied one old kneeboard png file into the location: "User/saved games/dcs.openbeta/kneeboard/F15E" but these two custom kneenboards do not appear in the kneeboard in the aircraft. The standard kneeboards (Caucasus kneeboards etc) do appear. Other custom kneeboards in their separate folders (e.g. "User/saved games/dcs.openbeta/kneeboard/F14B") do load into their respective aircraft. I think this might be something that has not been implemented yet because I had to create the "F15E" folder in that location, it was not created by the patch update nor the download of the aircraft.

To confirm some of the testing above: I have a SAM single mission which I use to try the LD-10 on the JF-17 and also the HARM on the F16 using the HTS pod. Tests done at 35,000 ft and 0.7 Mach. For the LD-10: I can get SAM kills at 40nm in ACT (pre-planned target point) from 35k ft and 0.7 Mach. The missile lofts after launch, giving it good range. Closer range shots seem to be slightly more accurate. The LD-10 does not always hit the radar in the face but lands close enough to kill about 80% of the time. For Passive and self-protect mode launching the LD-10 in level flight at 35k ft and 0.7 Mach only has about 15 to 20nm range as the missile goes straight from the pylon to the target. Kill % a bit lower than ACT mode as it sometimes falls short. Repeating Passive and self-protect mode but raising the nose of the aircraft to about 15 to 20 degrees before launch will loft the missiles in a way that is very similar to the ACT launch, and I get similar ranges and kills to the ACT mode (35 to 40nm and about 80% kill) For the HARM launched from a lock with the HTS pod in the F16: Results are almost identical to those from the LD-10 in ACT mode - 35-40nm, about 80% kill rate. Not every shot igoes to the face of the radar but hits close enough to kill it. So in summary: The LD-10 is at least as effective as the HARM provide you use the correct mode and launch method: Try to set up for ACT (pre-planned) and if you cannot do this remember to angle the nose of the aircraft to 15 to 20 deg before launching in Passive or Self-protect. Longer range shots will have a lower kill rate. Do not forget to equip the jamming pod and have it in standby or jamming mode. It will then move the radar icons on the horizontal situation display to show their actual range and bearing, making estimation of range (and therefore likelihood of impact and kill) far easier. For employment of the LD-10/JF-17 in the SEAD role by using the methods above, I think it is satisfactory. I know others might disagree. I could not find enough difference between the two missiles to consider the LD-10 bugged.

Please remove this from the bug list. It was all my fault. I had double bound the zoom to both a switch and an analogue control. My apologies for the error.

Since patch 2.8.0.32937 was introduced today the TPod zoom control has a new bug. When the TPod is fully zoomed in using "Sensor WMD7TV UP" (in either narrow or wide mode) the zoom will suddenly pull back out to no zoom. This happens at random time intervals. This happens in CCD, IR Black hot and IR White hot modes. It does not happen if you have a target lock while zoomed in. I checked the HOTAS control that I have Sensor WMD7TV UP and Sensor WMD7TV DOWN bound to, and there are no spurious or random signals being generated. I have the same HOTAS control bound to the zoom of targetting pods in other airframes in the same mission (such as the AV8b Harrier) and they do not have this problem.

The changes to the TPod CCD mode made by Deka in patch 2.8.0.32937 have made big improvements. The L2/L3 and L4/L5 buttons have much better control over gain and levels. The focus control is now working automatically. The CCD picture has better clarity and contrast. Happy with this, thanks. There is a new bug with the TPod zoom, but I will start a separate thread for that.

You misunderstand me. I know you can press on L2/L3 and L4/5 and they are meant to alter light levels and gain. However there is no combination of these buttons that will give a clear CCD picture with good contrast. The picture is always bad, and has been that way for months.

I would like a reasonable level of contrast within the CCD TPOD display please. The MFCD buttons currently do not do this. I do not mind which controls are used to do this.

The CCD Tpod lack of contrast has been reported for three months. Problems with the LD10 being ineffective have been reported for six months. Other third party developers have fixed their missile issues in weeks, not months, even if they have to upload hotfixes after changes are made by ED. Why are these taking so long to fix please?

The level and contrast controls do not remedy the problem in CCD as there is almost no contrast between light and dark areas on the display regardless of level and contrast button settings.

Does not look like any change to CCD mode happened in October, so still on track for November?

I really really really hope they get multithreading going before my CPU tries to cope with the level of detail on this map.

Any chance you could post a shot of the screen settings page from DCS that you used when you got 90 fps please?

Thanks Uboats