OLD CROW

Quote from a post written on saturday: @[ED]Ben can you please give us an update on this bug, and whether the team is working on a fix? Thank you. This is a prove this bug has been already reported time back. This a direct status report question to a direct staff member because this is an already reported bug. Yours it's only a vague invitation to them to fix or not the bug or even to answer or not to the question. Who's been rude here with the customers?

for a few seconds I've been really tempted to mark your post as a solution of this bug report. Even writting this line I'm laughing and still tempted... I bet you 5 dollars they'd close this bug report as soon as I'd mark this even it were the most hilarious and surreal text in the world .

I cannot pass up the opportunity to greet another proud member of the select sect of irony and sarcasm. Welcome to the club. The more of us there are the more we will laugh. Come in and take a seat... it's going to be a long time journey, I hope to be mistaken on that, but meanwhile take a seat, just in case. Blue skies and comfy slippers for you too Slippa.

Could you be so kind as to recontact the producers after this short period of time, almost 2 years, and kindly let them know that what users of this simulator really want is for the modules to truly simulate things that affect and modify the modules "in flight" than "on ground"? Frankly, the experimental independent suspension technology they are using in certain modules, and developing to make the Abrahams feel every bump on the ground, is of zero concern to users in a module that flies and where hypoxia, or the lack of it, is more important due to not breathing 100% oxygen from an altitude at which historically this plane regularly operated. Then, we have to hear or read from people who self-proclaim themselves as opinion and/or content creators that the modules offered in this simulator are undoubtedly the most realistic on the market. I can understand this for modules implemented recently under the Early Access label, but for modules that have been on the market for a decade, it is embarrassing, to put it mildly. The reality is that no one flies at 35,000 feet in WW2 DCS, mainly because the maps are short, the missions offered are minimal, and the nemesis models fly at lower altitudes to better exploit their flight characteristics. We know that a paint job might be a minor detail for many purists who defend this simulator as if their lives depended on it, and that the rest of us are at least trolls who don't want it to progress. Here's a response to that: there's little to no progress if the offered product is mediocre and/or its developers don't show any intention to improve it. This is one of those uncomfortable cases where it's better to let non-positive comments blend in with the comments from the "cult friends" who do no favors to ALL users of this game (Because this is a GAME indeed). Users of a "game as a service" must learn to be more critical of what is offered to them, and criticism, even if some don't like it, serves in 100% of cases to improve the service and/or product for ALL users of it. Please convey this message to the producers, and hopefully, after almost 2 years, you can change the refrain from "No news so far" to "there's something new(s) to talk about it/them." Thanks in advance, fly safe and godspeed.

Fully agree with you... Anything would be much better than all we have had / have not had for SEVERAL years. But be patience I wrote first post in 2021 (...and beyond) demanding a simple mask they forgot to implement 10 years before that post. No news from ED til then. So.... Do you really think they're going to resize all pilot model with all that it implies in less time than just modeling and implementing just a part of it? I mean.... if you resize the entire pilot model you have to resize all aircraft 3D model, just to be consistent between the pilot scale and the aircraft scale, otherwise it would be like a LEGO doll riding the He-Man's BattleCat. And if you resize the visuals you have to resize all internal systems also the DM hit boxes, etc,etc,etc,.... ad infinitum. Most people know (or asume) Mustang pilot in this sim was born and raised in the same lab as Captain America or Hulk meanwhile the british one was raised among pygmies of the rainforest. That's the main reason why mustang pilots did not suffering from hypoxia beyond 25,000 feet with no mask also the british "MINI" was not only one of the most famous compact car of all times, it also was the nick used to "kindly" call the spitfire pilots... for obvious reasons. This is somenthing I've learnt reading the EDpedia and this is as true as I'm a talking jackdaw.

Time: 28:25 ATA 1.41 Oil Temp: needle between normal and high reading Time: 28:39 ATA 1.72 Oil Temp: needle goes to max. mark reading Time: 28:46 ATA 1.7 Oil Temp: needle drop to normal- high reading At this point the engine sound changes Time: 28:56 ATA 1.65 Oil Temp: Up to Max. Engine totaly fried giving its last breath before total dying Time: 28:59 ATA 1.58 evident loose of power Time 29:05 Old background sound (like if the pilot opens the canopy and the air blows direct in the ears) of total engine failure. I've never owned the Dora also never have tried it out in the trial mode, but first time I've watched Hobel's vid it recalled me, like 2 drops of water, same engine total failure in the P-51D Mustang, before inplementing new coolant system. Maybe is a hunch... but maybe 10 years ago engineers did a kind of copy-paste from the previous model (TF-51/P-51) DM scripted model and implemeted it in the Dora DM one and they'd also copied, unwittingly, the issues it carried. I have NO leads on that I only try to help the team pointing out a possible starting point from where searching and fixing the issue/es.

I couldn't attach the trk file due it's over 50Mb's, but I took an screenshot of the IA's settings for the FW190 A-8's in the mission editor. They all are carrying a SC 500 J belly bomb. These pictures are taken from the mission #5 in the big show spit campaign. Original settings and triggered ones can be observed in the following pics. I put this mission as a reference for you in the case you would recreate a similar situation with the same AI settings. AI's are carrying the external 45 gal slipper tank

Sorry but this an AI oddity. Here you got another example out of the Spitfire (First engagement against an Anton 4 elemet flight). Same situation and the worst of all is that they did a break: didn't drop the ordnance (whatever they carry: bombs, fuel tanks, ice cream tanks or beer tanks). They can perform high G turns with the full bell without loosing a pound of energy, also the script choose to deploy flaps but not dropping the ordnance. This is an AI issue and not specifically attached to the spitfire AI script. As soon as they detect an oponent and perform any defensive/ offensive maneuvers they should jettison whatever they carry in their bellies as a default automatic option and if the mission creator thinks they have to keep their ordance till the end of times then should be an option to override the automatism, not the other way arround... It has ZERO logics from the human user/player angle. I've normally order to my own flight wingmen to cover me in the stock radio menu and use the F10 to send the rest to confrontate the bandits, but it doesn't matter whatever I tell them all: they all keep the tank with them all fases of the flight: my own flight or any unit from the rest after the dogfight and in RTB: They all fight with the tank on and RTB with the tank on too. We can be conprehensive with the fact AI units use a simplified FM-DM and all that bla,bla,bla... but inside that disorder, could be a bit of logic order?... Just a bit. If AI detect a fighting situation then it should actuate according to that situation and the first thing a human pilot does is to asset the situation and then take decisions according to the situation. If you've decided to do a defensive break because you're entering a possible dogfight in a dissadvantage position the most logical decision before even do the break must be dropping anything that can drag your combat energy, but due the simplier AI FM-DM that is not a requirement to enter a fight at all, so AI's, in fact, enter in pitbull mode in a blink of an eye and keep the ordnance with them. This is because nobody has scripted them to do in the correct way by default.

A MP solo sortie in the wild horse

While we were talking ED posted a kind of hotfix for the mt.lua file in the thread I attached. Give it a try also take a look in the thread posts. Sure something would help you.

... and nobody from inside has been wondering for years that this is odd and against any physical logic in a self suppoused "super complex" sim???? Should be time to start to address this PROBLEM, shouldn't you ED? Why don't they cut 95% visual textures if they've been demonstrated they're useless and odd and they barely match the actual damage and put more efforts in addressing the real DM and how it affects the FM in a more realistic way? Too much textures... too much make up useless textures, but zero core issues addressings.

Back to 70's!!!

I've watched someone¡s vid in YT talking about this issue with some high end hardware PC's. It seems there's a conflict between the BIOS multi-threading use and the DCS one. So it seems the solution he had found is going to the BIOS and dissabling the HYPER THREADING TECH (This option name depends of the motherboard you're using: He's owning a GIGABYTE one). I hope it would be useful.

"Real" quite often doesn't match "Reality". Sorry for those who might thing for a while they got a "real" F-14A from a top secret "Area 51" junkyard. Ockham razor principle says: All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely. In Hollywood "reality" CGI is the "real" thing. 30 years later some people are still doing "risky business", aren't they?

Can someone from the inside explain to me what purpose there is in making improvements in terms of FPS if all that work is then diluted or lost with details like these, which, in my opinion, could be resolved in 30 minutes of effective work? And we've been dragging this along for years. This is nonsense. Quality of life improvements don't have to be monumental tasks like implementing DLSS or SSS or "reshade" style filters... most of the time, final user quality of life improvements come from simple details and solutions, like reducing the opacity of a layer or even removing it, as it has abundantly proven over time to be USELESS or to have the opposite effect of what it was conceived for: it doesn't provide more immersion, it makes you want to quit the game and not return for a long time. Just because we don't have the Beta Testers label doesn't mean we don't dedicate time to the game, and in the end, the time we dedicate to this is meant to be enjoyable. Not being unable to see your wingman well at just 15 meters from your tail or a B-17 at less than 150 meters is not immersive, and it is 180 degrees and far from reflecting reality. In Warbirds, the building of own situational awareness is very different from what you can have in a fourth-generation fighter with MFDs, TGP's, RWR, Datalinks, AWACS, where you put your head into the screens of your cockpit and see the outside through them even better than through the plexiglass hatch. You cannot, and should not, be so purist about details like the reflection (or lack thereof) on the plexiglass hatch if you are not able to distinguish a moving object like a bandit from the static background, as both are flat and made up of pixels,. Therefore, the approach to addressing issues in a simulator should be different from how aerospace engineers tackle them in the real environment. IRL engineers developed plexiglass hatches (bubble canopies) due pilot reports, so they improved what they initially had. Why here do not happens the same? Here one can put any complain in the "works as intended"/"historically reliable" bag. Also get the help of the "silent minority" because they annoy to read complain posts from other users in the only place final user have to feedback ED or third parties (quite nuts BTW). So please take a breath also a break from monumental tasks and check back all those simple details that can really improve the immersiveness and BTW the final user ingame experience. After all these past years I wonder what Testers have really tested once the systems of the model works in a "proper" way. Ok the model works... , but in which situations? Hopping on a Spitfire, starting it, take off, do a pleasent trip thru London or Paris, don't get me wrong, it's OK... if we were in MFS2020, but we're in DCS where "C" means Combat, so it means I can do anything more than having a pleasent trip thru Dover and the Northern french coast and think that the most challenging task here is landing a big nosed A/C with a narrow undercarrirage with a big P-factor and a heavy crossed wind on short final... with the plexiglass hatch fully opened cause is the only way of seeing something out there... The concept of combat encompasses many processes within the program and can be quite complex, but this can be improved not only through FPS and equipment performance enhancements. In my opinion, Multi-threading did more in that aspect than DLSS because we all have multi-core CPUs, but not everyone has an Nvidia GPU in general, or an NVIDIA 40XX GPU specifically to run the game in VR, where FPS rate is critical. However, the way of seeing something outside the cockpit textures is the same for ALL users who have a flat screen, Track IR, multi-screen setup, or VR. I don't understand that historical systematic stubbornness against user demands who simply want to improve their gaming experience and, consequently, dedicate more time to the game. This would mean being happier with what you already have but generating a possibility to acquire more modules and continue to enjoy more and better. Lately, in this forum, I only read complaints, very reasonable ones from those who make them, such as VR users asking to remove the pilots' heads in the Apache, which is also very annoying in the new Hornet pilot model (and not just for VR users), or users who cannot modify the parameters of scripted campaigns because that goes against the campaign creator's intentions, etc., etc. Disclaimers can and should be used to explain that things should be done in a certain way and that doing them differently can break immersion or even fail to achieve the set objectives. However, if the base program allows you the freedom to do whatever you want, it is foolish to insist that it goes against the original idea of the author or "works as intended." It may be "as intended," but it's a bunch of crap that serves no purpose other than to annoy til the total frustration. You can't be so purist about that but then introduce unequal battles over the English Channel between BF109 K-4 AI's (with their downgraded FM-DM) versus Spitfires Mk.IX controlled by humans who can't see anything other than tracers hitting their plane from an sniper AAA AI situated in Berlin. As a human, I can't use a cockpit that allows me to see outside with crystal clarity, but I have to put up with an AI that can see 360 in X, Y, and Z, and even through the clouds, with a reduced flight and damage model for better resource optimization (that's not realistic and could be considered more cheating than having a more transparent canopy in your plane). If the game is a sandbox, it's a sandbox for everyone, and the final user has the final say in the limits, not the internal pipeline of the corporation. Sorry, for a moment I went off topic, but everything is interrelated as a cause of final user frustration and the lack of seeing anything more outside cockpit is just another piece in this maze, but for sure one of the easier to fix.... if there is a will to do so.

Thank you for the info Lythronax. I guess battery switch or breaker was installed in a hatch outside pilot's control, otherwise have zero sense keeping a 1943 battery in "stand-by" mode under the english weather conditions and expect next day it properlly works.

Are you talking ingame terms or in real life? Clarify please.

AI's never drop the external even entering an air combat situation. No track attached because it can be easily reproduced in any mission of the 'Big Show' Campaign. It is not specifically to the campaign nevertheless to the AI. Closer A/C is mine and the rest are AI wingmen in RTB after a huge air combat over France in Mission #5.