Wolve03

Oh, I also just remembered that autostart doesn't work on some servers (REAL WAR comes to mind) ... and you need to start up the bird manually. You can perhaps look into the checklists and see if a manual start has the same issues. If a manual start works where the autostart failed (following the exact same procedure), then it may be a case of that particular server.

I will state what I have read in most of the manuals and follow myself (also ties in to what I see failing with autostart sometimes [i used it when I am busy doing other stuff]). If you want to dive into the details, it depends on the wind speed and the wind direction, but generally speaking, you should start the engine which is shielded from the incoming wind first. The longer version deals with windmilling and compressor stalls. There are plenty of good videos on YouTube which detail the effects of incoming wind speed and angle, and how they can cause compressor stalls (depends on the blade angle). If you find that autostart gets stuck at any step, do it manually and it will pick up from there.

Yes, Thank you mate. Sidenote: I appreciate and love your work both on the forums and on YouTube. o7 I mentioned the Ka-50 only to draw attention to the slow speed of updates for the now-old-but-once-flagship products. This includes the A-10C as well. I feel that graphical overhauls should be secondary to quality-of-life and other upgrades which have a direct impact on gameplay. What started as "Lock On: Modern Air Combat" will eventually become a ground attack simulator if the combat aircraft aspects keep getting pushed back. I am aware of impending changes to missile logic etc. but we need a competitive multiplayer environment (I did not say "equal" ... I merely request for a realistic portrayal of the weapon systems and avionics, as we have in other modules).

+1 for the Request for bug-fixes to FC3 birds I agree that for the sake of realism, we should have these systems implemented. Heck, we aren't asking for a better EW environment, or jammer triangulation through datalink, we simply ask for basic fixes. Let's not forget that LOMAC and FC have brought us to DCSW. Are we forgetting our roots now? And I believe it's understood that MAC would be a separate product? Considering this, how can we have a competitive multiplayer environment if the red side has one hand tied behind their back? Indeed, I agree that the Blue side did not have datalink for more than a decade, even though the red side had it. But now that we are all moving forward, should we not focus on how best these functionality can be simulated and presented in game? And the OP has also posted some of the very basic features, related to cockpit animations. As to the point of priority, have we forgotten how painful the inverted switches on the Ka-50 have been? You may consider them low priority but they are Quality-of-life items and can make a big difference in the experience EDIT: And while we are here ... what about the J-11 / J-11A? Can't have a mishmash of both. So, for the sake of realism (which the sim professes), should we not have it only one way or the other?

I noticed that the ping from the servers is the latency calculated off a UDP packet sent to that server. When they are sent in masse, I guess that there's a sudden spike in the network traffic (and perhaps a bit of loss?) and we see higher latency. When we check our ping again, it does the same process. Instead, it may have been better if we could simply re-check our own latency against the selected server later (re-check latency) The VPN bit is odd yes. But that could be possible if the routing at the ISP is especially bad.

1 F/A-18C please Thanks, Wolve

Heh, reminds me of when SWAT IV tried showing ads in the game. The community was in an uproar on being served ads despite having purchased the game. But who knows what these tech giants throw our way in the future. They would want and advertise cloud because they can easily make you reliant on them, in such a case. Just consider how many of us had our GMail accounts and now have Android phones updating contacts, photos and what not. Maintaining those services, by using more Android devices, becomes kinda important if we still need easy access to all that data. (this is just as an example) As Ravenzino and others have also said ... it may make sense in some cases. But I fear how quickly it has the potential to ruin the demographics.

Right. I noticed your first post ... but we need a few points and differing opinions to have a discussion, right? ;) I am not throwing the idea in the bin either because considering businesses, it may happen eventually; Microsoft wanted Windows to be provided on a SaaS model. But I am not a big fan of SaaS and prefer on-premises installations. Consider this, for instance ... ED came up with a new licensing system, but had to provide a few days' "backup" in case someone was playing without an Internet connection. No matter how advanced we get, the whole world does not move at the same pace and you will have islands / pockets where you have high bandwidth, low latency connections, and the regular ones. So, this solution may not be feasible for all and if they deploy it in high-tech societies, then the monetary benefits may not really help as such a society will probably have the purchasing power anyway. To further discuss ... 1. Latency. Broadly agree on your points but I doubt Stadia will use edge computing. It will just increase the costs unless you see large-scale acceptance. 2. Higher bandwidth will become available, but we will need newer network protocols as well, for better throughput. Considering you are techie yourself, you'd know that low latency data generally uses UDP, but TCP sessions are known to result in slight packet loss on the line as they throttle. The simple solution is QoS but how many ISPs or home routers implement it properly? Then there's the point I was trying to make by mentioning IPv6; adoption will take a long time unless the businesses see this as an absolute money-making idea. 3. Reliability will increase; agree. But as we get more people, we get more traffic and competing flows. Probably your neighbour feels that his VoIP call should be higher priority than your games. Or 20 of your neighbours suddenly figure they should all stream super high-def content together. It works even right now as well but as bandwidth increases, so much the quality of the content and then the bandwidth requirements. 4. Remote rendering is good, but that removes mods we use for aesthetics ... unless you do some post-processing locally as well. I figure it could be a hybrid model with rather than the full rendered frames being sent, perhaps computed data could be sent. I remember that in the last decade, ATI had come up with an idea that if you had 100 boxes in a frame, just calculate it once and then copy it all over. Similarly, process the raytracing etc. and let the local device render it? There are render farms and computer clusters already, right? It's all essentially data in the end. 5. I'd rather not comment on the cost part. :) A few merits ... 1. No more desync issues if everyone is coming from the same source 2. Perhaps some tasks could be offloaded to the cloud to have a hybrid approach, rather than full Stadia. I can think of CPU-intensive tasks for scripts, AI control etc. Maybe, some heavier GPU tasks could also be done remotely and then sent back. I recall a few research papers on Predictive models for CPUs, through ML. Maybe that could help prepare stuff before it is needed by the client, and that could be a good way to avoid latency. 3. It could be cheaper than maintaining a gaming PC and a games library (although Steam Sales help), and could see success similar to Netflix, Spotify and others. But as with the different stores / licenses thing ... how long will it last? And additional points 1. ED would likely need to run the dedicated server if Merit (1) is to be achieved, in hand with Google. Although, I am not sure if we want to give a single entity as much power ... look at how a few games got blocked in Iran due to political reasons. 2. What about mods etc. we so fondly do for single player games? In case of DCS, many people use texture mods, or reshade for aesthetic reasons. That goes out of the picture (1987kess mentioned this) 3. I am not a big fan of subscribing, instead of buying stuff. With subscriptions (and I am talking of more games than just DCS), you are the mercy of your subscription service provider. Often times, I watched a movie or series on Amazon Prime / Netflix and then later found it removed. There was a famous case with Apple last year where a person purchased a song but then lost access to it because Apple figured they will not carry it further. We are gamers and some of us even play games from the last decade. Will these services maintain an exhaustive list of all games? Even GOG or Steam don't do that 4. Do we really need that much reliance on clouds in our lives? What if you have a freak el-nino and lose all your data as the clouds fly away :P

I agree that it can provide massive processing power. And that's why it's used, but that processing power comes at a cost as well. Whether it's a subscription based service or a usage based service, do you really think it'd be feasible for gamers? I can think of a "cheap" option where you subscribe and get access to a large library of games (think Netflix) but will you have access to really old or obscure titles? And if yes, will they be available for eternity, or only until the provider retains rights? ... and what about EPIC exclusives :P As for latency, how can you get over transmission speeds and processing time? Heck, serious gamers even count latency from the input lag of their input devices and the lag to their display devices. Those will still exist, and then you add network latency on top of it. As for implementation, we still haven't seen complete implementation of IPv6 across the world, and the demo runs you may have seen for remotely operated cars (like in that hill climb event) or for the tech demos of these new services, all have had dedicated links and servers nearby. Now scale that to a city / state, and you can perhaps see the latency going up. If you have ~50 msec latency to your game's MP server, you need to add a bit more because now everything you see / do has THAT latency + the latency to Stadia's servers. And let's not forget that distributed systems would also have proxies in front which would add processing overheads (to route that request to the corresponding compute cluster / device). And assuming that all of this works perfectly, it would certainly mean that even [the game featuring dragons]* becomes an online game. :P *Sorry if I went off-topic for a couple of those, or referenced other games.

Yeah well, I don't think Stadia will be feasible for serious gamers. For console games, perhaps (if you can somehow reduce latency [which would still exist, despite going 100 gazillion bps bandwidth]). Just think that you need to process the input at the client, package it, send it over the network where the packet would be queued up (or if you use QoS, get preferential treatment), sent to the next router and so on ... get processed on the server, come back and then get rendered on the client. Even with huge processing power, there will be latency and it will get worse as the number of users on the network / server / cloud grow. Btw ... Cloud is nothing but a computer put far away somewhere, with your requests handled by one which is closer. It's just distributed ... not magic. And the farther away you are from the server, the worse it's gonna be. And as Worrazen just mentioned, cloud is stupid for things which are sitting next to you. Like the IoT bulbs and stuff! Sure, remote is ok but why deliberately leave a hole open in your network? TLDR: Simple console games, perhaps ... but hard-core sims, most likely not.

1 F-14B, please. Pilot role Thanks, Wolve

Thank you for this thread. The real birds took years to be built. And it was certainly true for most DCS-level modules as well. It's just that we are a part of the EA process now, and we see it being built across subsequent builds. If anything, we should appreciate what we have compared to what we had 5, or even 2 years ago. And the WIP FLIR and ground radar would help all future modules, not just the Hornet. If the devs say that they are hard at work, let's thank them for the work they are doing, and show some patience. Rome wasn't built in one day!

I believe there should also be a segregation between PVP, and co-op missions against the AI. This is to understand how many people prefer air combat against humans, vs those who just play online for the fun of playing with humans as team-mates, but still against AI.

Ka-50, please. :) Thanks, Wolve

@discwalker ... Copy that mate, and I understood that. I was unaware that MP clients could be added to the same flight. Earlier, each client was a separate flight in itself, so it kinda made sense that the DL wasn't working. Guess ED would need to implement changing radio frequencies before they add the DL to the FC3 Russian birds.

Ok, probably unpopular opinion, but remember that the Ka-50 has a limit of 4 birds per flight. And if I remember correctly, and when talking of the older Su-27 models, a group of 4 fighters linked through Su-30s to form a group of 16 + 4 fighters (4 flights of 4 Su-27s through 4 Su-30s). The TKS-2/R-098 IFDL, IIRC, came much later and even that was limited to sharing between 16 fighters. We ask for datalink for FC3 birds but we are missing a lot of important features such as own ID, frequencies etc. It would be a mess with a "simplified" implementation so ED probably just stuck with AWACS / GCI. And, just to clarify I have been an Su-33 flier since LOMAC. While I see and understand the limitations, there's also what's realistic, and practically achievable within the sim.

See, that's the thing. The target's return signal is highly dependent on the geometry, the environment, the material, presence of any other EM radiation in the same frequency band (jammers, for instance), even multipath. So, the receiver logic already knows that the received echo could vary up to a certain extent. The SARH missile separates from the rail, looks for the target's return signal, essentially something which responds back above the required SNR margin. Now, theoretically, shouldn't the logic be there to expect temporary loss of signal (perhaps not complete, but below the noise gate), but as long as it sees a reflection from the target in its field of view, shouldn't an SARH missile (at least the modern AAMs) be able to reacquire its target? This wouldn't require a datalink either.

Ok, a question here. Let's say you launch an SARH missile which doesn't have a datalink. It uses INS to get to a point where it should start detecting radio returns from the launching aircraft's radar, and gets to tracking the target. The missile knows the radio frequency (which was sync'ed before launch) and thus would not go for reflections from other aircraft (on different frequencies). Now, if the missile loses the reflections for x seconds, should it not be able to detect the reflections again if they are within its FOV, or within the software-defined timeout? Think of it like any other sensor with some software logic controlling the behaviour

I feel this may be related to the economy bug posted separately.

I feel that bug fixes are more important than new crew animations, for the simple reason that eye candy can be ruined if the rest of the experience is not stable enough. Right now, the burning issues are spawn collisions, desynchronization, and economy (when you consider scenario-based multiplayer events). Large events help bring the community together, and these bugs destabilise the game, the experience of it. Indeed, not everyone does carrier ops but as naval ops seem to be picking up, it may be prudent to fix these bugs now, rather than wait for the larger influx of players to start seeing them and complaining. Request some attention to this, or at least a response from ED. Can we please get Nineline to at least acknowledge this thread?

Great session Satarosa. Thanks for hosting! Hope to join you again soon Thanks to everyone who joined and provided a good fight

Blue team; F-14B please; Stennis Do I need a human RIO or Jester good enough if I can't find one?

If you're seeing RWR threats on the radar page, that means MSI is working. And to have radar contacts in there, you need to have a friendly AWACS / fighter radar seeing targets and sharing them with you over Link16. ED did say that it's WIP, so some things may be missing. I will test further once I get home.

It is expected to be dead silent in the front of a supersonic aircraft. Think of it this way... the sound from the object is not fast enough to reach you, even if you are like 1 cm away! Sounds is limited to Mach 1, while you and the aircraft are both moving at Mach 1+. The GoPro cameras are attached to the body of the aircraft and probably getting sound traveling through the body of the aircraft. You don't get whoosh or wind sounds because the camera isn't a real object in the sim... it's just a virtual camera and does not affect the air or the environment in any way. Also, do note that [air] speeds can be "indicated" or "true". The true speed is what your speed is... your indicated speed is what your instruments tell you, and can be affected by altitude, air pressure, wind speed & direction etc.

I'd like to add that this affects all platforms because, as Yurgon mentioned, we now have trees where we had fields earlier. Try playing the Ka-50 Black Shark campaigns. Even if you fire missiles / rockets, they blow up at the tree level and unit underneath is safe. You could kill infantry with fragmentation warheads, but BMPs? no way... Another AI behaviour which further exacerbates this situation, is them moving randomly (and sometimes into wooded areas) when their group is attacked. So, yeah, you would need to edit the missions, and move them further away from trees. They won't be hidden though ... so, "Playability vs Realism"