bfr

If my memory serves it sort-of worked like that for a while (might've been per station rather than per individual weapon) originally in DCS and then it was changed to the current behaviour because that is how it works in real life and the original behaviour was wrong. So in answer to your question, it'll stay like this unless someone provides conflicting proof that it works differently in real life.

That'll help the time pass whilst the INS alignment does it thing I suppose.

I suppose it might come eventually like it did on the F-18 and the pods added to the F-16? IIRC then the jammer used on Strike Eagles is an internal thing and not a pod?

Quite happy to be corrected but I can't think of another map that has the same issue where the moving map is only at one scale in the HSI.

If that were the motivation then the logical thing to do would be to release it ASAP (the price usually goes up from the pre-order mark slightly as soon as its available)

Mid-August it is then

You're making quite big assumptions there though about the stability/state of the release the "freeloading Youtube DH's" have. There's a reasonable case to be made that they're peaking a little too soon with the hype train if it is still 5-9 weeks out (preview builds could still be issued to third parties and content could still be made under embargo that it isn't released until 2-3 weeks out from a committed-to date). Otherwise though, 'its ready when its ready' and there's no logical reason they'd sit on it if it had already been through QA and was genuinely fit for release right now. Maybe they're applying the Star Trek 'Scotty Principle of Estimation' where you overestimate time needed and then appear to overdeliver when you smash that deadline

To be 'fully released' it'd have to be feature complete. Considering what we already know won't be in the first EA release then not a cat in hell's chance that prediction is correct.

Probably two main reasons to give it out early: 1. To test it in a slightly wider pool than in-house testers and get feedback 2. To get those people to make content and put it out there for marketing and instructional purposes. Also some of them will be making content for the module itself (missions, the manual and so on) To turn your questions slightly on their head, if the module currently circulating with YT content makers is sufficiently featured and stable for initial public release, what possible benefit would Razbam or ED have in not getting it out ASAP? After all, there will be a decent chunk of people who will probably end up buying it who are holding off until a date is set in stone or just after release (to gauge initial public feedback). Just sitting on it would be deferring revenue for no good reason that they could have much sooner.

That assumes the version the previewers are getting is release-ready and doesn't come with many 'try this, but whatever you do then don't press x or try to do y' caveats. The first start-up video that was then rapidly pulled because it was done using the wrong version suggests the current builds are still quite frequent and fluid. As someone else alluded to in an earlier post, tech demos like that can be made to hide all sorts. We don't know if a 5 minute video took several hours to compile because some bug they're still working on crashed DCS several times along the way of making it and they had to keep starting over.

If they're planning to upgrade the jet in terms of the updates it received in real life then I guess you'd have to find out how those suite updates tie in for when GPS weapons were added in real life to get a clue when they may arrive. Although setting up a full of JDAMs for a Strike Eagle (assuming there's an equivalent to PP mode on the F-18) is going to be potentially brutal if there isn't something like a mission cartridge capability!

Yeah, its a much firmer commitment now rather than a wish on his part.

Which is why I qualified the statement. If Windows self-management of page files is borked then fine, but I can't find evidence that it is. Also, i've never had a problem with it previously in the context of DCS prior to the last few days since the last OB release, nor have I seen any evidence this crash is memory related yet. And if tinkering with such things was necessary for DCS it'd be in the requirements and not what appears to be a lot of 'it worked for me' posts with little evidence to back up WHY it was necessary to take matters out of the OS's hands. And yes, the swap file in on my system SSD which is NVMe (and the majority of drives on my system are either NVMe or SATA SSD with a couple of mech drives which just hold data).

Ah yeah, the max is 3x on Windows 10/11 and not 1.5x as I said. Yeah, I hear you regarding it being a hail-mary and i'll maybe have a tinker later just to see. I'm just a bit wary of stuff in those areas as the practices have changed a bit with different versions and iterations of Windows (as you alluded) but the advice dispensed doesn't always move with the times. And Windows should be able to manage it itself as-is to a hefty size (which may or may not be the case) provided you're not space-limited on the appropriate drive (which i'm not).

Cold start tutorial Mk 2 is up now as well

Yeah, with a more granular damage model you could have something like 'operational', 'degraded', 'incapacitated' & 'destroyed' as states depending upon hit damage. e.g. armour that has sustained enough of a hit for a track to be blown off or to have properly caught fire is probably not going to see its crew sticking around to find out what happens next. Same goes for ships where there is a huge difference between hitting them enough (and/or in the right areas) to take them completely out of the fight versus actually putting them on the ocean floor.

I'd say more like a picture of your food and some information on current best operating procedures for said knife & fork. Something to pass the time with though. From what I remember then the last comms on the manual being out before release was 'best intentions but can't promise', so its at least a genuine promise now.

Don't think i've seen anyone else mention it so i'll throw this into the mix. Seems the manual will definitely be made public ahead of the actual release.

Good spot. Whilst 2048MB sounds small (i'd just left page file settings as system managed), isn't resizing it to the equivalent of 100% of RAM a tad excessive? The recommended sizing in the Virtual Memory dialog for Windows seems to suggest a smidgen over 4GB (4964MB). EDIT: Also i'm not seeing anything in the log that its run out of memory anyway? EDIT2: Having had a bit of a dig and the recommendations I can find being min = 1/8th of RAM and max = 1.5x RAM then if I was going to set those values manually then they should be 4GB and 48GB respectively? I guess you could go 48GB across the board for min and max but why permanently give over ~5% of an SSD when the page file will hardly get touched most of the time? Still had a headscratcher though why current allocation when Windows manages it is 2GB (I realise now its probably dynamic but its still a curious starting point) when Microsoft's own recommendation is double that.

I have been having fairly regular crashes in multi-threaded SP ever since the last OB update (2.8.5.40170). Not in particularly taxing missions, just flying around. Zip from the last crash attached. I think any mods have been removed (did have the Blackhawk and F-104 unofficial mods installed) but I am still running with export entries for Tacview & DCS UFC for now. I have tried rolling back DCS to the prior OB version and it seemed better (would like to clock more time up to be certain about that). Any ideas/suggestions? dcs.log-20230521-211826.zip

I've been having issues in SP with repeated CTD since the last update (don't do MP and i'm not on VR either) but also on the Syria map. Not really clocked up enough time to definitively prove the theory properly yet but so far it has been more stable for me rolling back to the previous OB build (which I realise might not be practical if you're playing MP a lot).

Thankfully I do normally bail out, hence I haven't found out exactly why she keeps that jerry can of paraffin nearby.

There are arrestor cables on the runway at Mount Pleasant but purely decorative and you can't catch the wires.

Indeed. If you can't know (due to lack of some kind of feedback) you are on the edge until you are over it and are hurtling towards your new career as a smouldering crater then where is the enjoyment? I've no problem with the older jets trying to kill me every 5 minutes, and I quite enjoy the challenge. Just as long though as I have some kind of indication i'm getting it angry. If that includes adding/embellishing some cues to replace the lack of actual motion/forces/feedback from the Mk 1 Butt then that's fine.

I ask my partner to stand behind me and stretch my face and pull back on my head depending on how hard/sudden my pitch movements are.