Spectre VCAW-1

I would like to indicate here that I seem to have solved this problem. I am not sure which of the things I did solved it, since I have no patience and did them all together. I have an ASUS Crosshair Dark Hero VIII motherboard. 1. I updated the bios to the latest version which was released less than a month ago. 2. I updated all the drivers and software the motherboard came with. 3. I installed GameFirst VI, this is a Asus utility. As you can see there is a drop in framerate just when the bombs a drop, but then goes up again, until the bombs get close to the ground, then it drops again. Note sure why, but at least it is playable.

I could be wrong, but it appears that DCS is not playing well with AMD processors, since I got a massive performance increase on other games and applications, but DCS does not seem to like AMD based processors.

This is exactly the issue I am having. While I was using a different example, it appears that in DCS AMD processor perform far worse than Intel.

I have made some changes to the mission, when I drop one of the flight and reduce the drop to half at once, so 168 bombs, the frames fluctuate between 8 and 43. If I change it to 3 ships dropping half so 126 bombs at once then it just starts affecting framerate. That said I pretty much expected that it is object count, but what I want to know is why does an Intel based processor not take as big a hit when compared to an AMD. I have some other friends testing it on their machines to see the effect. One of them with another Intel Experienced a drop to 41FPS while the bombs were falling. Note this test is less to do with this specifically with the number of bombs, it is to point out that AMD processors perform poorly running DCS. There is something not right, I cannot tell if it is code related or if it is just that AMD processors are inferior, though I have not experienced this in other games.

If it was, then why the big difference between the AMD and the Intel? Or is AMD just garbage?

Yes, latest open beta build in MT, I have run it in ST too, same effect

I apologize if this is the wrong forum. I created a simple mission in PG. All it contains are 2 groups of 4 B1B's each with 84 MK82s. I have the 2 groups flying fairly close together and carpet bombing all 672 bombs in close proximity. There are no client aircraft, so I am watching in spectator. When the bombing commences, I go from around 300fps to 5fps. This is while the bombs are still falling. It does not matter if I am watching the bombs themselves, for the F10 map for a single unit I placed next to the target location. This low frame rate continues until the bombs all explode then the framerate goes back to 300fps. Note, even with just one group and 336 bombs it is the same. My system specs are decent. AMD 5950x, RTX4090 with 64GB DDR4. DCS is running off an SSD and changing the graphics settings has little impact, I did not really expect it to, since when I am looking at the map there is not a lot to render. Any ideas? I have seen videos of carpet bombing that looked perfectly smooth. **Edit** - MT vs ST is not any different, although most of my testing has been in MT. **Edit** - I have observed that the frame rate drop immediately when the first group drops, and will not go back up until the second group's last bomb explodes. I have had a friend run this same mission on his Intel based machine and he does not experience the same drop in frame rate until the bombs hit the ground. Here is a video I took from just before the drop to just after they all hit. Here is a video a friend made with an Intel i7 9700k 3080Ti 64GB ram. Note the difference in how his frame rate is not hit nearly as hard. I suspect this issue is somehow related to AMD processors. Carpet.trk Carpet1.miz

You cannot change the Harpoon from BOL to R/BL without a designated target, whether that is just a waypoint that is target designated or a SEA target.

Convert it to feet or yards

I realize that a track file is something that you guys want, but it is long, and I do not know how to reproduce. This is a multiplayer issue. I was doing a bombing run and turned off right while flaring. I look back an see the SA-18 pass behind my jet. Then suddenly my jet goes dead. On my tacview, the missile clearly tracks behind me, but on a friends tacview it tracks me. Seems to be a desync issue. Here there is a huge difference.

Not sure I caught it all, but it seemed for the first drop, it seemed you dropped PP2 for Sta7 and PP1 for Sta3, and the second released Was PP1 for Sta7 and still PP1 for Sta3. Note the selection of PP1, PP2 etc is also per station, you can drop PP1 for one station and PP2 for another at the same time.

This actually happens enough to us that our mission builders add a script to the missions to restart the ILS and Tacan in the event they stop working. I am not a mission builder myself, but here is a post in the forums of what to do.

Just a question if this is how the new system is supposed to look? There are 2 BTR-80s in this image. They almost completely blend into the background.

I was wondering at what point in PB mode does the HARM seeker start looking for targets. I fired a harm at a WP about 60nm off my nose. Before the HARM reached top of loft, it veered of to the left to hit a SAM site 34.5 degrees to my left and 53nm away. Almost 40nm from the original waypoint I fired at. Is this correct? I have the track, but it is 2:30 long. *Edit - Looking at the Tacview, at the point just before the missile turns the SA-6 site is almost 45 degrees off to the missile's left. so basically at least a 90 degree seeker cone, seems a bit excessive, but I cannot find any documentation indicating any different. One would think that the primary modes used for SEAD irl would not go quite that far from the targeted waypoint.

I was flying VR and accidentally extended the gear, over speeding them. After immediately retracting them, the gear handle stays lit red, with the warning sound. I then tried to deploy my JDAMS on the outboard pylons, but they would no longer drop. I had mavericks on the inboard pylons, and they launch fine. Is this a bug or is this correct as is. It is very easy to reproduce, but a short track is attached. Thanks Gear JDAM.trk