av8orDave

Just finished Mission 3 (Danger Close) and loved it. Great mission from start to finish. Awesome work! This campaign holds a special spot for me... I was born in Northern Ohio, and although I've lived around the country at this point, I live back in Ohio now. I'm a private pilot, and when I was completing my PPL, my "long" cross country was to Toledo Express. Seeing the Vipers on the ramp as I taxied by was really otherworldly. Every year on Memorial Day in May, the Vipers of the 180th Fighter Wing scream around Northern Ohio at treetop level, treating everyone who happens to be outside at the right time to a brief but really exciting flyby in honor of our country's fallen soldiers. I look forward to it annually. Many thanks, Reflected, for this awesome campaign featuring Ohio's own Stingers!

This was helpful, thank you.

No, there is no "auto-anti-ice system." The pilot-controlled system will prevent windshield and pitot ice in light to moderate conditions. If you want to prevent icing on the rotors and engines, don't fly in visible moisture in sub-freezing temperatures. As a side-note, I can't say for certain for the Chinook, but the AH-64 for example has historically been VFR only. Obviously this is stretched if mission-critical, but these machines aren't intended to fly around in icing conditions. One thing about DCS is for all the effort made in the name of simulating "realism", aviation weather is not much of a consideration in DCS compared to how it is analyzed and planned for in the real world.

I’m sure I could scour the 21 pages of posts in this thread, or do some ambiguous search, and I didn’t see it in the first post on this thread, but what is ED’s “official” take on maintaining the functionality of the existing Razbam modules? As I noted above, a prior function or two on the Harrier no longer works and hasn’t for months (ATHS for example) and I’m curious if it will be rectified or if it is a lost cause. Thanks

While I agree, there has already been some "feature regression" within a few modules. The one I have personally seen is that on the AV-8B, the JTAC ATHS system stopped functioning a few months ago and hasn't been fixed. I think it was reported in the AV-8B bugs section that it would be looked at, but so far I haven't seen it addressed. *For those wondering, the ATHS system allows the JTAC to automatically send all of the required info for a 9-line to the AV-8B's CAS page, making it super-easy to select CAS targets.

^ This, 100%. The problem with sharing performance in VR for DCS is that the baseline is nearly never the same. I too can get a solid 90 fps if I'm flying the Flaming Cliffs F-15C at altitude in the Caucasus with no other units on the map. Meanwhile, with the same settings, I could drop down to barely being able to maintain 50 - 60 fps if I'm sitting on the ground in the AH-64 in the Marianas with a 18 other AI units around. It all just depends. The bottom line, I have learned in my experience, is that DCS is very bottle-necked / constrained by the CPU. I have a 4090, and performance is nearly never limited by the capability of the graphics card. I have a Rzyen 9 7950X, and if I push the envelope with AI unit count, the framerate begins to struggle in a major way.

What is your pixel density? I have mine set to 1.5. Also, try turning textures to medium, terrain textures to low, and visibility to medium. After that, cross your fingers, sprinkle some holy water directly on your CPU, build a shrine to the glorious MiG-29, pray for smooth VR framerates while kneeling in front of it, and if necessary sacrifice a small goat to Robin Olds. If this doesn't do the trick, you'll have to make a pilgrimage to the National Museum of the US Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio to say the framerate prayer in front of the P-47, P-51, F-86, F-4E, F-5, A-10, F-16, F-15, and F-15E (in that order). If done properly and all steps are followed, you may get 72 fps with decent settings so long as no more than 8 AI units are active on a map of your choice. If this doesn't work, you'll need to reach out to Sandia National Laboratories to see about using one of their supercomputers for your gaming sessions. Good luck and godspeed.

My impression was that ED was going to maintain the modules in at least the state they were in prior to the dispute. If that isn't the case and the modules will gradually "erode" regarding their functionality, that would be very disappointing.

Any update here? This bug is months old.

I love the thread title. In my experience, "Hunting for the stutter-free VR experience" in DCS is akin to hunting for bigfoot. Sure, you might be able to find some evidence that it exists, but it is scant, poorly documented, sometimes appears doctored, and the overwhelming majority of evidence would incline one to believe it is a myth.

Am I the only one who has a ton of trouble seeing where the landing area markings are on the supercarrier in VR? When I roll into the groove (or attempt to), it is very difficult to judge the initial lineup because the deck markings are almost invisible. Anyone else have this issue?

Thanks for checking. I don't have any mods running and I haven't edited the mission. I'll have a look this evening and make a track file if it is messed up.

In the runway start Afghanistan instant action mission, as soon as you spawn into the CH-47, the AI CH-47 on the runway behind you immediately taxis into the back of your aircraft. Not great. Just a heads-up.

I think academic research suggests arbitrated disputes can be resolved in the 6 - 12 month timeframe, while cases that actually go to court are resolved 2 - 3 years after initial filing. That is for the States, I couldn't say for international / multi-national cases.

After watching this re-hashed over and over again for months now, I've realized there are three camps: 1) Those that understand that businesses agree to certain terms, practices, rights, boundaries, usually in writing via a contract or set of contracts, and that if one side violates any part of these contracts, there are remedies which are often spelled out in the contracts or established through legal precedent. This group also seems to understand that it doesn't really matter how it looks, feels, or what the court of public opinion thinks as to whether the remedy is fair, again because it is what both parties agreed to, or at least one side thinks they agreed to. They also seem to understand that unwinding all of the above with lawyers, whether through arbitration, simple dialogue to find a commercial settlement, or through actual legal proceedings is very complicated and takes time. 2) A group that thinks it is as simple as "you must pay someone for their work, regardless of whether they violated any sort of agreements." 3) A group that thinks they know what happened, understand all of the subject contracts, and have the necessary legal experience to definitively say that no harm was done and Razbam must be paid. I actually sometimes can't tell whether this group actually believes they understand all of the nuances or whether they just don't care about the nuances.

This is interesting. Having lived a good number of these types of disputes in my work life, a few thoughts: - You say "RB wanted to make a Tucano for both MCS and DCS" and that "Ron had a plan to obtain those resources... etc."; Did Razbam enter into a formal contract / agreement with the Ecuadorian Air Force regarding this? What did that contract say? Would they have to provide certain things to the Ecuadorian Air Force? Were they empowered to provide those things? These are the types of details that matter in a business to business legal dispute. It isn't as "straight-forward" as many people seem to want to make it seem. - You say "Nick appears to have been made aware and was supportive... etc"; How was he made aware? Did he say something to the effect of "Ok, move ahead, but you need to get the contract in place with us to do this the right way" or something to that effect? Again, the details that are missing are really the things that matter. - You say "RB stopped work immediately and thus solved any potential harm"; According to who was any potential harm solved? You? Razbam? Doesn't seem like that is ED's perspective. I appreciate your post and it is interesting information, but it seems like were also still left with lots of blanks and "what-ifs" surrounding details that matter. At the end of the day, only time will tell as to what the resolution will be. My only point is that there isn't enough info available to say who caused what.

Very cool. I think this has been one of the best module launches in my years of playing DCS. Nice work to all at Polychop.

Only thing I will add is that for hardened targets, for example the DCS Ammo Dumps, you'll need either the GBU-24 with delayed fusing or the GBU-31(v)3/b. Now, whether the delayed fusing on the GBU-24 or the tail fusing on the GBU-31(v)3/b is working properly on a given DCS build is an entirely different story.

Are you asking how to configure a network for Virtual Desktop or just how to fire up DCS using the program? If the former, I leave the answer to someone else. If the latter, see below. Step 1: Open the Virtual Desktop Streamer App Step 2: Select the codec and various other options you'd like to use on the Streamer App Step 3: Power on the Quest 3 Step 4: Select the Virtual Desktop icon on the Quest toolbar Step 5: Right click on the Virtual Desktop icon in the Windows tray (it looks like a green monitor icon) and select "Run Program" Step 6: Select the DCS shortcut Notes: - Steam VR doesn't need to be open or active, as a matter of fact it shouldn't be open or active. - Quest should not be attached to the computer via the link cable. - There are a number of settings to play with in Virtual Desktop. Youtube is full of tutorials.

The NVGs seem positioned a bit too high for me as well (Quest 3). Not sure if they are 20 - 30 degrees too high, but I definitely have to tilt my head down and look up to see out of them. It would be a great option to be able to adjust where the NVGs sit vertically.

I’m having the same issue. The D-model Mavs don’t want to lock against a sandy background. Not sure if a bug or “working as intended” but very annoying.

I'm all for "easy" options that make the game enjoyable for new players. It is an eye-roller for me when people use arguments like "if you spent half the time..." and "it is DCS not War Thunder..." in threads like this. If you don't want to use an option, don't use it. It shouldn't be offensive or "toxic" if someone else requests those options. While it remains that DCS is focused on "realism", we're talking about sitting in your living room "flying" a jet. You don't have to pass the physical standards, education standards, or years of training to do so. Ultimately, even DCS isn't very "realistic", so what's the harm in someone else wanting an option for easy refueling?

Ok, just for fun and to nerd out a bit, I'll take the bait... - While an interesting concept and a nice homage to everyone's favorite plane, the F-14, a swing-wing F-22 would be completely unnecessary because... - One function of the swing-wing design was to reduce the approach speed for a safer, easier landing on the carrier. Given modern advances in avionics and flight control systems, this is unnecessary. The F-35C, for example, can almost completely land itself on the boat and relies on the pilot to a far lesser extent than the legacy fleet. Next-gen manned carrier aircraft will likely land themselves much of the time (incoming eyeroll from Navy pilots). - Stealth: A piece of the swing-wing design was to improve low-speed maneuverability while maintaining the ability of high-speed flight. Again, if next-gen carrier based fighters find themselves in a close-in dogfight, something has gone wrong much earlier in the battle. Likewise, speed is de-prioritized in the interest of stealthiness, better sensors (and sensor fusion), and better weapons systems. - It would be unnecessary because it will likely be unnecessary; the F-35 will be the core of the carrier fleet for quite some time, and will in all likelihood be augmented by unmanned aircraft. Many reports of how the F-35 is operated go something like this: - The pilot takes off, engages the autopilot, and focuses on a nearly perfect picture of the battlespace based on a networked view provided by a number of sensors (many report that it is a better picture than a modern AWACS has). The pilot then leverages the stealth capability of the aircraft to sneak in on the target and employ weapons without the enemy ever knowing they were there. Upon return to the ship, the autopilot lands the plane while the pilot monitors the systems. No swing-wings necessary!

You bet. Second post in the AV-8B bugs section. To be a bit more descriptive, it has always been that as soon as the built-in DCS JTAC finishes the nineline readout (sorry no pun intended), the CAS page populates with the target data. This no longer seems to function.

Maybe @NineLine can comment, but I haven't touched the AV-8B in a bit, and it seems that the JTAC ATHS, which used to function perfectly, is now definitely completely out of commission and no longer works. Given that there was apparently some kind of statement that third party modules would be maintained, do you know if this will be corrected for the next update?