Yeti42

In order to set bindings you need to login with the App, for whatever reason I can't login, I get the "Signing in, please wait" message but nothing happens, I've tried: 1) changing the login details on the Winwing website 2) disabling my windows 10 firewall I'm thinking this could be a router firewall problem where I need a port redirect, unfortunately I can't switch the firewall completely off on my router, only redirect and i don't know what ports the app is using.... any ideas?

Hi all, apologies if this has already been discussed. I happened across a YouTube video by @Growling Sidewinder yesterday who was demonstrating and discussing the F16's rate turn performance when compared to the F18 and F14. The general conclusion of the video is that the F16 is underperforming in a 2 circle rate fight when compared to the F14 and F18 (or obviously the later 2 aircraft are overperforming) I can see how the F18 and F14 could/should outperform the Viper in terms of radius turns but not in a rate turn. Has anyone carried out a controlled test using something like Tacview? GS's video is here:

Hi Mistang, no you're not the only one here who is/was an engineer, an aeronautical engineer to be precise. So obviously it's very difficult to accurately model fatigue failures in a simulation, a very simplified model has to be used and it's never going to be anywhere near realistic. As you correctly pointed out stress fractures occur over a period of time based on the forces the airframe has been exposed to, that's why real aircraft log many data points such as G loading and landing/take off data. In simulations such as DCS, the only real option is to model tensile strength. Preflight checks very rarely discover cracks and fatigue failures on airframes, only very large failures in obvious areas would be spotted. Preflight checks are supposed to check for obvious damage, wear and consumables such as oil levels, tire wear, broken latches, lose panels etc. Fatigue is usually only discovered in 2nd or 3rd line servicing.

I understand your sentiments about the GR's... However, I have noticed an improvement in their video's lately, they are aiming at new or "novice" members and I actually think they are doing a good job.

I've been around too long to be surprised when a developer with a track record of a less than great overhyped module like the Gazelle fails to deliver on another project. The Gazelle was one of the poorest modules in DCS only eclipsed by the now defunct VEAO Hawk. I really hope I'm wrong, but a developer who throws their toys out of the cot because of "negativity" (in other words any criticism) and refuses to give updates is hardly acting in a mature way. If you develop software, criticism is par for the course, it's what drives you to do better and improve...

I'm what you call a casual player who has been around for quite a few years but can't cope with the commitment of joining a sqn. I'm after a like minded individual or individuals who can fly online every now and again in order to hone their skills and benefit from mutual experience. BFM training, A2G, anything goes but it has to be: 1) Fun, 2) semi serious 3)fun Preferably in the same time zone (CET) and available evenings. I've been in sqn's in the past but it usually got too political and required too much of my time. Anybody interested, PM me Cheerio

Setting AVX to zero and clocking at 4.8 Ghz will not tell me much.... It's the same really as overclocking to 5.1 with an AVX offset of 3. The workload/temp on the CPU is increased when AVX extensions are used which can introduce stability issues, core DCS does not appear to use AVX as 5.1 Ghz was no problem when running anything but the updater, the actual crash occurs when an unpack thread was started. This process has been optimized fairly recently and I suspect they/you are using AVX. BTW, after further tweaking and voltage adjustment and reverting to an older BIOS version, I'm now able to run a stable overclock at 5.1 Ghz with no AVX offset whilst using the updater. The reason I've asked this question is to highlight the possible issue with overclocked systems (which there are many in DCS)

Hi all, I encountered an issue recently with running DCS updater to download the latest beta patch. I had just upgraded to an i9 9900 KF processor and had overclocked to 5.1 Ghz, AVX ratio offset was set to 0. The updater crashed after a few seconds, enabling an offset of 3 cured the problem but my CPU was then limited to 4.8 Ghz even when not running the updater indicating another AVX load was running somewhere. QUESTION: Does the DCS updater use AVX?

It's not about pulling max G all day long, It's about the inception of g-lock too early. The F16 is rated for 9g, some pilot's can tolerate 9g for short periods, therefore this simulation should base modelling on 9g for short periods before the onset of of g lock, it currently doesn't. The plural of aircraft is aircraft not aircrafts by the way, appolgies if english is not your first language.

Which CPU is at 25%? all of them,? 25% average across all cpu's? one cpu? It does, however, look like you are bottlenecked by your GPU, which in DCS at that resolution is really not a surprise. My advise if you really need FPS above 60 is to Google nvidia settings for DCS and adjust accordingly (In nvidia tool not DCS) I've seen 20% increase in framerates by tweaking these settings.

A couple of questions first... 1. What is the refresh rate of your monitors? - Go to Display Settings > Advanced Display Settings and you should see the resolution and the refresh rate. 2. Have you run perfmon and noted what your bottleneck is? You can also use something like MSI afterburner to monitor CPU and GPU usage A stable 50fps at a resolution north of 4K is actually not bad for DCS or any flight simulator. Unless you are seeing significant lag, tearing or stuttering, I'd be fairly happy with 50 fps. You need to dome some research on frametimes, vsync, etc. Edit: I'm not a genius...

Obviously they (ED) won't be able to get real world ECM data for most of the aircraft but they could do a better job with a simplified model. More powerful radars like the Tomcat's AN/AWG-9 should obviously be able to burn through ECM at greater distances. It is one of my biggest gripes with the game at the moment....

"Can't afford to employ a tester team" This is a false economy. it costs far more to fix bugs after release than it does to fix them before, this is a widely known industry principle. That's why software companies do QA and testing, It's not directly because they want to keep bugs to a minimum, It's because bugs affect their bottom line due to the increased cost of fixing them further along the development cycle and the impact it has on sales. There is a balance between a focused amount of structured QA testing and Return On Investment (ROI) In my informed opinion, Ed has failed to get this balance right in the past and will continue to do so unless it realises it pays to test.

Yes!

Have you ever seen an A10C deploy and recover to any aircraft carrier?

He/we don't. Although there are certain types of bugs that should not 'escape" if the correct amount of regression testing is employed before release. The ratio you mention is called DRE (Defect Resolotuin Efficiency) and is often used by software houses to determine the quality of a product. ((No of Defect found during Testing)/(No of Defects found during Testing +No of Defects reported by customers) * 100)

Based on the Gazelle, I won't be rushing to buy the Kiowa. It's possible the flight model will be in a different league to the Gazelle and if it is then due consideration will be given but honestly... the Gazelle does not feel in any way like a real helicopter. The "we had real pilots test our flight model" line was trotted out by Veao about the Hawk.... Sorry guys but you can't expect punters to shelve out good money for new modules if the old ones are so bad and you are in denial. Some modules in DCS "feel" realistic, the Gazelle does not.

The latest release was very stable yes, I'm glad to see ED are focusing more on quality. Please keep it up and try not to focus too much on the shiny balls. ;)

Ummm, that's quite a statement and factually inaccurate. The 10900k beats the 4790K on all measurable performance figures both stock and overclocked including single core performance. It absolutely demolishes it on multicore performance. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i9-10900K/2384vs4071 Although DCS only uses one core (currently) there are a lots of other processes running that soak up threads and use other cores, multicore performance is still useful in DCS even though the main game engine doesn't use them. EDIT: And if you use other sims which take advantage of multiple cores (Such as the upcoming MSFS 2020) you'll see an even more considerable performance increase. AMD is still not there when it comes to raw core clock speeds and that really does matter with gaming...

I stumbled across this YouTube channel recently and it was exactly what I've been looking for! For people who seriously want to learn about the physics of BFM, A2A combat with practical examples structured in a professional way, this is the place to go. (I'm not affiliated with the site in any way) Well done "DCS Debriefs" https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCERjcJzbzHmoBVPJpqn9RjQ/featured

WARNING - This is not a paper on performance testing, to find this useful you need to spend a lot of time setting up stuff and some time basic scripting. There are multiple tools you can use, I mention some, Google is your friend ;) Caveat. I DON'T work for ED, Do as I say not as I do ;) I haven't got the time to setup a proper performance and capacity test... or I can't be bothered spending 4 hours doing this after I come back from work. For those who do have the time and can be bothered, this is typically how you quantify a performance problem and help dev fix them: DON'T just say "my performance is worse now than it was", this means nothing without data and a baseline DON'T say "I tweaked some stuff, upgraded some drivers, did a clean install... and put a finger in the air whilst standing on my left foot and performance is fine on my system now" ;) Do debug the issue if you want to. Make sure you can demonstrate what you changed (removing AI, triggers etc.) and also run that track/mission against the release you are using for the baseline. DO understand that very high FPS on their own mean very little, It's smoothness and acceptable frame times that mean more. 60 FPS with small 1% low variations and an even frame time history means no stutters and smooth gameplay... Basics: 1. When measuring performance, you must have a baseline to compare it with. This could be a previous release or the stable version of DCS 2. You must be comparing apples with apples - This means you must use a mission or track replay with pre-defined graphics settings including screen resolution that demonstrate the problem 3. It helps if you can run DCS with the track or mission automatically and create the data (perf logs etc) automatically. - There are ways to do this... you can create a track file and basic scripts (batch or any other scripting language) that start DCS with a track or mission run it for a set duration and export performance info to a log (riva tuner RTSS etc.) You may need to use some sort of GUI tool to click on "start", I've used AutoHotkey in the past. https://www.autohotkey.com/ 4. Know what to measure and log - Generally for hardware: RAM usage, Individual CPU core usage (NOT the generic all cores % as this really is useless in this sim as it's not truly multi threaded), Disc usage, GPU usage. For client in-game performance: Frametime, framerate, 1% low, average fps. FPS and average FPS can be misleading, in the case of stutters for instance, a graphical representation of frame time history will visualize any stuttering you have, also 1% low should uncover stutters. 5. Reporting - If you graph and overlay your test run metrics in excel for instance, it's very apparent where the problems are from release to release, this with a timeline that can be viewed against a track file is very useful for development. If you do all this, you'll have a framework that you can performance test all releases with and send valuable feedback to ed, also you can send me the scripts so I don't have to.... ;)

If you're running 3 X4K TV's and DCS you better have some serious hardware or your going to see framerates hit the floor. For instance, my RTX 2080 can just about handle 4K at 50-60 fps with an i7 9600k OC'd @ 5Ghz. The bottleneck is my GPU in this setup....

DCS is a great simulation, probably the best out in the market. There is always room for improvement though and community members should not be dissuaded from criticizing or raising concerns, that's the way things improve and is often a driver for quality. If we enter a state where ED can do no wrong, we (and ED) have entered a dangerous place.

OK, so the beta build is only for serious beta testers who raise bugs all-day.... give me a break.... ;)

I was getting exactly the same error on my RTX 2080, it was apparently due to my overclocking settings, setting back to factory OC settings appeared to cure the problem although I didn't have any issues on previous beta releases.