Stal2k

Same deal with the VPforce stick if it matters. Shame I thought this was a new bug and would be sorted soon. Kind of like the other guy the workaround isn't really feasible unless I was doing like a campaign or something and flying it long term.

This thread is almost useless until you get to like 4 posts before this, without knowing 1) What you have the render set to (L/R/Both eyes) and 2) Knowing if you are left or right eye dominant and 3) Are you closing left, right or no eye when you are attempting to boresight, personal results aren't helpful. This is going to be an issue, I think maybe a Special option for accessibility (or keybind to force an ideal B/S) may be the long term solution required to just force a good bore sighting. Personally, I'm left eye dominant which is uncommon for right handed people and have the render set to both eyes for that reason. To me, these workarounds while great for now shouldn't be seen as a solution long term. For one, they don't really work that great, your mileage may vary, but even using one that works for you, it's still hard to get it to where, lets say you can reliable line up a medium range rocket run. Personally what Toumal said works the "best" for me, which still isn't great but usable, however I shouldn't have to do eye gymnastics to the degree required for a stereogram to boresight my HMD If you want to figure out which is your dominant eye, you can hold your pointer finger a few inches from your face and close one eye, if your finger DOESN'T move that is your dominant eye. Closing the other eye should cause it to appear to shift. Another way is think about which eye you close to aim a gun, you tend to favor your dominant eye. If you're weird like me and right handed w/ a left dominant eye it's very hard to properly shoot a rifle. EDIT: Added #3 about which eye is being closed and how to determine which eye is dominant

Oh thanks, I also didn't see that.

I'm also having this issue in both the training and also Rudel-CHW's training mission. I was about to try making my own just to see if it's something weird or just user error.... I don't have track files because mine are disabled, but I'll attach several tacviews showing the same thing OP described. I tried both CC and EFF modes as well, I'm NOT sure if this impacts more than just a DIR launch, I didn't try the others but kind of gave up assuming something was broken. I looked at the quick guide, Chucks guide and at least one non Grim Reaper video on it and can't figure out what I was doing wrong. I guess if someone else's reporting it, it might not just be me. Setups DIR mode TP used as briefed CC/EFF modes both tried Variety of sea/skim/popup/skim options tried, none seem to work. JF-17 Anti ship missile.zip

Listen, that little hiccup aside I think for what you've done it's truly a master class in DCS mission/campaign making and what is possible. I can say that it's the first campaign I've ever actually finished and I've bought 90% of them. I either move on because they are too boring or are broken. When I wrote that post I was just fresh off a successful run and maybe a little extra agitated when I realized what it was causing me to fail I only experienced two other times a mission 'broke' and one was really on me for not following directions (killing the right ground targets without clearance from the seal team) and the other time was the CAP mission w/ the strike from Iran. For whatever reason, the two escorts fired and immediately RTB'd (in the Tacview) and as a result we never actually killed them so I think the mission got hung. I just reset CAP and ultimately RTB'd once fuel required. I watched Redkite's playthrough to see what was supposed to happen and ya, all events after that initial onslaught never happened. That all being said, it as really an incredible experience, I loved how challenging it was and how you really had to know the Hornet to get the job done. I assume the other two breakages I mentioned above to be very one off (one really being user error), but if you'd like any more detail I'm happy to provide Tacviews (I have tracks turned off).

Hi, Mission 14 was incredibly frustrating and I spent maybe 4-5 hours reflying it from what I think is really avoidable things that could have went in the designer notes. I shouldn't fail the mission because I followed instructions explicitly, or at least why I think I failed. I got the thunderstorm call 3x in a row and couldn't figure it out, I thought maybe it was because I went to the radar SMS page, maybe because I turned my FLIR on, DL on etc. I never touched the radar during startup even to put it in standby (after 1st run) just to be safe. What I think the problem was is that, as briefed I'd get into formation over land between WP1 and 2 ahead of and to the left of Tron 52 mirroring Sledge 21 on the other side. However if you stay in formation you will fail based on altitude (I assume) when hitting WP 3. Looking at the Tacview those flights are well above 1000ft when feet wet (Tron 2kft Sledge 2.8kft AGL). So basically after 3 tries I just aggressively dove after clearing the mountains to be at 900ft AGL when I hit wp 3, Obviously this puts you way out of position regarding the formation. That seemed to do it as I really did nothing different other than that the other few times. If the mission is scripted in such a way that you fail if you above 1000ft AGL when hitting WP 3, it should be noted in the designers notes that the AI will not meet this criteria and flying in formation as briefed with Tron will also cause you to not hit the mark. I get that making you fly the entire ~70+ mile leg without telling you failed is part of the immersion and staying true to the book, but I think something should be done to account for the 'simism' of the AI not meeting the outlined criteria and respecting people's time. Adding a note would be bare minimum, moving the waypoint a bit further out would be another thing, or a debug style message that at least alerts you what happened, i.e. busted altitude. For reference I'm citing this part from the briefing: "After the push, we will get in formation over the land, flying NOE. Once we clear the mountains and enter the Persian Gulf, we will descend below 1000 feet AGL. Again, let me stress how important it is that we are not detected - therefore each flight is required to stay below 5000 MSL over land and 1000 feet above water at all times on the way to waypoint 4. Once we pass waypoint 3 we can energise our radars. I will give you a sign by dumping some fuel - the streak should be clearly visible in your NVGs. With the help of ground radars, we will avoid any maritime traffic along our way." Same thing in the kneeboard notes, it says "follow Tron 51: full EMCON" & "Stay below 1000ft between wp3 and 4," you can't do both, not to mention in the briefing it says to stay AHEAD of and to the left of Tron. Hopefully this isn't overly nitpicky, but I feel like these details are very important given the requirements of the mission. It should be made clear to the player where they may need to diverge from what is being said for gameplay purposes. Other things that are minor annoyances but could be cleared up in a patch Make NVGs default loadout, the briefing references NVGs and they are certainly a good thing to have, a first time player (of the mission) may not know he has to switch those out w/ Ground crew when typically in this campaign your jet is pre-configured rather nicely Swap default A2G pod to ATFLIR, the brief references ATFLIR but the base loadout is LITENING

I am getting the same, the machine may just be offline. It's probably not an issue on our end and I'd check back in a day or two. FWIW it's been like that for a few days now and I'm sure whatever machine (if it's local) is server the files probably isn't the daily driver

No I didn't notice any exploding of the Wingman, the only exploding was the F-5 on the ramp (video timestamp is 1:12:03). Reviewing the tacview, he didn't 'switch himself' like he usually does in the past with a new unit though, maybe related? Something else I noticed that may or may not be related is during the practice missions with airstarts, a few times I'd get a KIO call when there is still very much an alive hostile. To be fair, it does seem like they disengage and it doesn't seem like a bug (maybe hard deck violation by ai?) but maybe that contributed to getting wires crossed with Bozo_'s experience. Since hammer isn't despawning he could have exploded for any number of reasons like lingering damage, an unseen missile still in the air etc. To explore a bit further on the whole kiss off thing before the break. I am no procedural expert, but I understood the kiss off for an overhead to occur just before lead pulls into the break 1st, is that accurate? If so I get the workaround is either letting your wingman go first and forgetting about him or just doing it much earlier. The thing is, for folks that are trying to do it sort of how you'd do it for a carrier break (or at least how I understand it to work) your wing gets REALLY close to hitting you, in fact he would have hit me if I didn't move aggressively on an earlier hop. So I guess the question really is, in the interest of working around DCS would it 1) be better if your wing didn't slide to your left to avoid possible collision or 2) add a text disclaimer to the prompt to tell the player to perform the kiss off much earlier, 3) I'm doing it wrong and need to adjust my approach no pun intended. I attached the Tacview for you if you want to see the behavior after the engagement, wing despawning on landing or the parking incident (although the video shows the result better). please ignore my Syrian lead turn w/ the wildcard haha. Tacview-20210204-235538-DCS-Zone 5 - 05.zip.acmi

Had some issues myself with Hop 5. Bozo_, I think the targeting has to do with them being so low, he isn't actually picking them up on radar. You can work around this by either have him aim the radar lower, or in the STT menu select lock specific target, and choosing the D/L contacts should result in an STT. Not ideal, but I think that is more Jester than the campaign. Bugs/Problems 1. Next flight almost runs into you: On the egress, similar to on hop 3 there is a 2-ship flight inbound to the range that comes dangerously close to you if you are following the waypoints (between IP->WP2). 2. This is on all missions thus far where you are flight lead, when you kiss off your wingman to start your break he immediately cuts hard into you instead of waiting ~20 seconds or so before beginning his break turn. If working around DCS is hard there, would recommend keeping him on the right side and just let the player know you have to let your wing enter the break first. 2a. Wingman almost seemingly slammed into the mountain on his own, but that might just be DCS being DCS, at least looking at the tacview it's unclear if he despawned on... purpose or hit the mountain. 3. Super nitpicky but on the outro Bio talks about getting the ID before shooting sparrow etc. During the briefing he says all groups are hostile, so no ID should be required. 4. After parking my plane, the aggressor (agrback in tacview) proceeds to ram into the F-5 static object in front of me occupying the space I assume he wanted. Here is a video, sorry my sound didn't record but you don't really need it to validate.

Low impact but I wanted to share issues encountered in this mission, should be easy enough to validate and fix without a trackfile. This is a pretty fun instant action, but could use a polish pass :) Loadout: you spawn with 9 aim-120cs, assuming this is meant to be 10 as 9 isn't going for realism (could be wrong), this creates an asymmetrical loadout from the start Mig 29/E2: Recommend either moving the E2 or making it invisible, when the Mig-29 spawns in it makes a beeline for and shoots down the AWACS, again assuming this isn't intended as the mission is called gauntlet, not HVAACAP. This also puts you in a position to try to 'run down' the Mig for ~50nm rear aspect until it kills the E2 When you roll from the Su-27 to the mig-31 phase, the mission immediately gives you credit as if you won even though the Mig-31 just spawned - likely just a flag or condition set incorrectly

Alright, so I haven't had any crashes and played a good bit over the weekend. I will say that the F-14 in Syria, at least for the mission we were playing (liberation) was basically unplayable. I got into an F-18 and also an A-10 and everything was fine. The Tomcat, gives me like 5-13fps with that Desktop Window Manager process going crazy. So ya, I'm fairly confident, at least for me that the GPU scheduling feature and DCS = poopstorm for SteamVR. Now it's just back to regular hit or miss VR performance.

I did two things which I believe had an impact. 1) I've only had one crash since I disabled the GPU Scheduling which is a huge improvement 2) Disabled the let windows adjust scaling to improve blurry text. At least anecdotally it seems this cut down runaway GPU usage with the Desktop Window Manager process which was another big problem. Since the patch, I've only flown on NTTR, actually the Viggen Red Flag campaign which is fairly busy and it ran decently. I should do a liberation mission with some people this weekend and will report if there are any major problems. I will also say that unsurprisingly the additional 32gb of ram I added (64gb total) didn't really change much other than being able to comfortably leave Chrome open while I play.

OK, I've been having good luck. While I'm not ready to say it's for sure a fix it's good enough that I thought I'd add it here to let some others having the issue test along with me. In windows, hit your Windows Graphic Settings (Windows key an type Graphics as a shortcut), turn off "Hardware-accelerated GPU scheduling" and restart. I've not had a crash since I've done this, although performance seems notably worse. I've also ordered another 32gb of ram (giving me 64gb total) and will try it with and without the GPU scheduling option. If this turns out to be the root cause, my hope is this won't turn into a cop-out for ED to drop the issue and call it "fixed" because the GPU scheduler is still a feature of Windows that will impact users who don't know they need to go in there and turn off something that is by all accounts an improvement in latency and performance. If someone keeping up w/ this like Divinee can verify it stops crashes or Pikey is feeling froggy and wants to turn his ON and see if he can get crashes by all means. That should help w/ duplication if this is in fact the problem.

This happens to me as well, I kind of just chalk it up as DCS being DCS. Out of curiosity, when you switch to task manager do you have the GPU usage column enabled? If so, try organizing by that and see if Desktop Windows Manager is really high GPU usage. It's strange, but ya seemingly switching to task manager will clear it up after 5-30 seconds.

Sure, in the interest of ruling things out, what are your thoughts on this. Since I couldn't get an older OB from the server, I DO have an older copy on my laptop still that is 2.5.5.41962 (well before the patches that caused it to act up for me). Would copying that to this computer and effectively running the same sort of steps (would have to be on PG) and in essence NOT getting the crash prove/rule out anything? To me that would show it's certainly code related in the sense of aggravating the driver/hw components your're speaking of, my suspicions are patches .52196 or .50726. I can be 90% certain it didn't happen prior to .version .49798 and was 100% present for Syria, that is a time span of about 2.5 months or so. Both the versions I listed as suspect have changelogs containing items that are at least related to some of the things we are seeing like F10 maps and 'improved startup times.' Aside from that, I will try less than 1.0 PD settings in DCS. I already run w/ the low textures and MSAA off, I guess really the only thing you suggested I don't currently do is the PD. The frequency of the issue is very map dependant, I played for a few hours straight on Caucasus in a pretty heavy mission and aside from just, generally not great performance it didn't actually crash. If I load up Syria, it's just a matter of time, I suspect Channel is the same but I've rarely used that map although I do own it. I might just copy that older DCS version over out of morbid curiosity.