Hawkeye_UK

Posted back in March, the issue relates to moonlight. Cannot have any moon on night missions otherwise units show as white dots, nightmare for pvp servers as its like playing with labels. https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...dots-no-labels Track files already sent and BN confirmation of investing, what is the current status, notice it got bumped few weeks ago also?

Bump +1

There is definitely an issue with the F10 map and or tac command access in MP. Reported by multiple users in VR across multiple servers. You can go from a locked 40fps to 20, or even more interesting from an 80 to 40fps in the tac command F10 map view, all with until a week or so ago a top end system (re 2080ti). Can be in a mission, solid fps. Go into tac command, go back and respawn at exactly the same airfield, same aircraft, same mission, same loadout and suddenly fps is half of what is is. Nothing else being ran on PC. Frustrating doesn't even cover it. Interestingly enough sometimes this can be cleared by opening say task manager or another program on pc and tabbing back into dcs and framerates restored. There is an issue with memory and how DCS handles it. I've yet to see a convincing explanation of the use of RAM and page file from a dev and how preload handles this. Come to think of it i've yet to see a detailed explanation on bloom effect, mask size, terrain texture and all the other graphics settings. The best is when new option's just appear without any explanation. Below acceptable communication to be honest. The bottom line is, and lets not cloud the issue, the core engine is basically not fit for purpose for prolonged play it screws up when using tac command in MP servers. We should all be asking as a community not when the next module is out but when they are going to sort out DCS Core Engine and netcode, hell i'd even pay for a DCS VR module if they had to fund extra resources to get this better and more stable. This is a poor optimization and architecture issue, not a hardware problem (so much so i ruled this out after buying a custom gaming pc from Scan UK purely to use for what is one of my main hobbies re DCS, i've not even had email or office installed to ensure no other software conflicts). Yes i can run DCS at a solid locked 40fps (rift s) but when the memory leak or whatever causes the game it can be low 20's and degenerate's into a poor experience. Note closing down the game and loading the exact same point in the exact same cockpit and back to a solid 40fps. Whilst i'm fortunate enough to be able to upgrade to the newer series of cards, this is absolutely not acceptable in that a solution is paying for headroom because of long standing memory issues that are not being resolved. I also have a lot of sympathy for those not as fortunate as myself, who no doubt saved up for their 2080ti, 2080 or whatever expecting ED to deliver their side of the deal. Its buggy as hell. It is for me, the number one thing that needs resolution. I'm wanting to upgrade to the G2 but i'll be honest i just dont know if DCS will be a worse MP experience with it than a Rift S given the current unreliable state of the core engine and given that this will place more demands on the system.

Terrible concept and idea to be honest, ill thought through with no consideration for the DCS Architecture. The issue in releasing a module is not just that module itself but how it fits into the overall ecosystem and whether that new injected code creates conflict and issues with the existing game engine, aka causes the game to crash. Considering most servers run quite rightly on OB an alpha product released into beta is an accident waiting to happen. Quite rightly this is what the closed beta testing group is for. Why anyone would even consider to support this idea or train of thought amazes me. Patience.

@Uboats Just thought i would find the time to say thank you for ensuring the fix has been completed as i note today's patch notes with enthusiasm. It has become quite an issue with human tac's on our server and so this will be met with much appreciation and also ensure fair gameplay. Look forward to testing it on DDCS later. All the best and thanks for quickly expediting the request. Best regards.

Introduced in the Sept patch that launched harms and mavs, like some bad texture file missing, see attached

32MB Ram? If not going to struggle on busy MP.

+1

Just to follow up in SP on my own test mission was working fine. @Bignewy another server member quickly hosted the into the inferno blank template purely for ease. It will be going on the main server tonight re A10 2 slots so will get track files then. Also despite the potential bugs its excellent seeing the HMCS on for SA.

Yep aware of that - i'm referencing the MFD push button that use to cycle between on the TAD.

Track files to follow from MP test. Ok so spawned in separate group, changed group ID to match on net so usual blue circle on TAD for wingman, also now showing in HMCS which is great. We were 01 and 02 within the group. However, oddly enough SPI broadcast isn't working on TAD, just say's off on the MFD Also SPI from wingman and vice versa stopped working after first designation? Anyone else seeing this? Not on TAD or HMCS

Track files to follow from a MP test - however early feedback in VR after the first mark point there is issues with them not being placed at the point you are looking at. Always offset to the previous mark point by some distance.

Why would you want to remove trees ?

If only it only pulled 12g .....exceeds that.

Ps sorry i had already hit reply, went to make a drink, came back and finished then posted. 2 other replies in between that i hadn't read as in the message posting screen, but to note not only me that has picked up on the 15.

Hey Snappy, both. As in super easy to operate, no challenge, easy flight models, easy to meta play. As i say on our server you mainly see new players going up in them, or people seeking to exploit the attributes. It's all to point and shoot, questionably over accurate rapid radar pictures, god like datalink etc. Perhaps i'm being harsh given been playing with the flanker on and off for over 20 years. Also easy to kill the flankers out in the open since the 120 improved guidance/range combined with TWS coming into the game on the 16/18 in the last year. Hence i would suggest given the numerous contributions on the russian forums complaining of countermeasure resistance i would hypothesize that's what has brought the change, reading between the lines. The FC3 players wanted to reduce the probability of them being shot down. As for PFM, they do not compare to the fidelity of the FF modules so i'd take that with a large grain of salt. Systems wise obviously they are massively simplified, take IFF or lack of it for example. Also being honest let's take the F15 as you mention it, its highly credible because of its ridiculously high G ability which can out turn any missile, its super easy to close on targets if exploited correctly its almost a cheat mode. its radar well that's another discussion, as i said we look on it as meta play to be honest. As for snap hotas dogfight modes, yep but you have to know more than 3 keybinds to get their in the first place. I really do not want to get embroiled in a FF/FC3 debate, i have no interest in the subject, but its sufficient to say that at least the FF modules require some minimal study and practice. Whilst we don't really use the FC3 aircraft the 120 getting toned down with chaff resistance affects the gameplay on 18vs16/JF17's, 16v's JF17's, 14's vs18's etc. Not really bothered about FC3 its the knock on effect for those wanting to employ BVR tactics correctly (and i don't mean airquake) combined with Strike and SEAD/DEAD packages. At the end of the day i say have fun, that's what matters, whilst its sold as a simulation many elements of it are purely what it is, a game. That said we shouldn't be looking at balancing gameplay all because certain sectors of the community are unhappy, that is a slippery slope, the one thing that draw's many is that it is an approximation. I see many comments on here, some from avid flanker fans, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just hope one day we get a full fidelity Flanker as for the more serious servers the FC3 aircraft will then no doubt be completely removed from redfor.

Yea rarely fly against FC3 aircraft in our pvp server re point and shoot. way to easy and my request to make them harder is born out of a desire not to have it easy. Rare to see the FC3 aircraft going up unless we have a new player etc, most migrate onto the JF17 re redfor

+1 first thing i also disable in VR however happy for those that like it. I find the same as the last post it hides the switches and clutters the view so dont understand why people go mad for the model to be there. I'm clearly missing something lol

Thanks Uboats please see attached track file. So have selected the Bradley and Abrams. You can see that you can put infinite 25MM and Abrams AP rounds through the vehicle body without it taking any damage. It is completely immune. As soon as you catch a small portion just in the neck of the turret the unit will die, even with the Bradley. The problem here is that when the unit is being moved around rapidly, that's easier said than done at range with an AP round. In reality the whole unit (and sadly for the crew) would be toast. Hope this helps? HQ7 TRACK FOR UBOATS.trk

The OP quite rightly highlights the major issue re the reverse ground effect. IRL the effect happens to be the opposite and a rule of thumb in any aircraft is that the ground effect is approximately half the wingspan. Anyway, in game, yes i've been sucked in by the hornet flight model a few times (terrible pun). I'm confident ED will get there and it's been acknowledged.

Yea i knew it had been reported but for some reason i couldn't find the post again so started a new one, apologies. Now you have linked i have bumped your original post in the hope that one of us gets some resolution. Yes that's exactly what i meant re moving vehicle on the road, seems particularly bad in PG also, cannot get any IR mav's to lock. Been driving me nuts for years lol and have to really on the Mav E which is not ideal in many situations plus required multiple passes over the AO. Needs resolving urgently.

Bump

Each page is adjusted separately however what i would say is that in VR they all appear to start to dim.

oh dear, ok so just to clarify you said my comments where conspiracy in nature, aka that there had been no complaints. You implied very strongly that my reference had no substitute in truth, that is not a lie that is something that has happened. That is not debatable but a matter of fact. As for your other comments re delusional i'd like to refer you to 1.2 of the forum rules "Forum members must treat each other with respect and tolerance". One thing i would say is that perhaps you should have respect for people on here, as you never quite know that person's background or their real world experience. It's a shame how the internet encourages some elements of society to say things that they would not dare say to someone's face and thus when posting anything that is a good rule to have. Wish you all the best and remember the forum rules.

Ok Lets see, so if you think there have been no complaints on the forums direct to one of the main devs from FC3 players then have a review of the following; https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4473481&postcount=9430 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4472634&postcount=9400 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4472825&postcount=9405 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4472854&postcount=9406 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4473158&postcount=9421 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4473863&postcount=9432 So no conspiracy, maybe don't just read the English forums lol ;-) Reality is the 120's are super easy to evade now, it wasn't exactly hard before to be honest as with the sam's but now, yea its super easy.