Qiou87

It was flying early in the year at VFAT. Last update from the devs is on their website, quite old, but they seemed to be making good progress on it. Not sure if it qualifies as very likely, but aren't WW2 airplanes supposed to be easier because you don't have to program complex weapons, 50 pages of MFDs, ECM and all that? I mean it makes no sense until ED releases Marianas, but since it is likely we would see this map in 2021 (hell, it was planned for 2020, I hope they can manage less than 12 months of delay), that plane would make a lot of sense. Also seems to be coming with a nice asset pack.

I thing you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying the mission length should be a fixed duration, it can be any length you like. What I am saying is that the program auto-generates flights at certain times, and sometimes those times don't make sense. Like you say, if you fly for 3h in the same mission, then having no AI flights after 1h is not right. The same if you only fly a 1h mission and the AI plans to take off after 1.30 hours, then they will never take off before you finish the mission. Right now and as far as I know, the only way to correct this is manually. It is necessary anyway because you might want to have SEAD flights and CAP before a strike package for example... That is why I merely suggested that mission length, which is very much up to you, the player, could be a setting. When you are planning the turn, you could tell the program "the mission should be around 60-90-120min..." and the program would adapt the auto-generation of AI flights accordingly. This is just an idea, but in any case, suggestions are better posted directly in Github where the devs might see and sort them.

Doesn't Razbam have two different dev teams, one on the Mig-23, the other one on other planes like F15E? In this case it is not a question of one or the other. I agree that a 2021 is not "very likely", but maybe by end of 2021, depending how "finished" they want to make the module... Totally agree about the Typhoon, there is just no way in 2021. Even 2022 is probably optimistic, that is a very very complex jet, done by a new dev team. Still, even without those, that is a pretty hefty list of releases for 2021. Something to look forward to! Personally I am happy to finally see some love for the rotary wings, it has been too long.

This is very much a WIP, the devs are doing a great deal of improvements in each version. Nevertheless, some things can still be improved. I encourage you to follow and contribute with ideas on the github page ; it could be that mission length as a setting can help (for example if you tell the program that the mission will last 1 hour, it will not generate flights outside of that time window). You will also see that many improvements are already in the pipeline, but like everything else, it takes time to polish then release them.

How did this conversation go from "AI assets look mostly terrible, we need a paid refresh" to "yeah radars are complicated but should be modeled accurately"? I don't really get the transition here. If I stay on topic: yes, AI assets need to be updated, but a separate pack as paid DLC is bad for the community, unless assets are available in free "low-polygon" versions and paid "high-polygon". I understand that ED has to get paid for their work, but this goes back to their business model and why this game is a free-to-play in the first place... In the end you simply cannot split the community. What happens if you make this another paid pack? Imagine the SP campaign creators, requiring the plane module, the map, and now the asset pack as well?The Supercarrier is an example of optional upgrade that doesn't split the community, the standard carrier is still there and can be used in parallel. Personally I care more for the high-poly count of aircrafts, since those are the ones I see from my cockpit. Ground units seen through a TGP are not as critical for me. I also agree that what we are seeing (extremely detailed models) is total overkill and I would prefer more quantity/less detail in general. But maybe they are going so high-poly to be a little future proof and not have to update the assets every 3 years...

If you want those flights to take off and execute their objectives, yes. Other options include changing the start time of the AI flights. Personally I never leave them as they are auto-generated, usually I play 45min to 1h per mission so AI flights should take off latest 30min after mission start, otherwise their presence is quite pointless. Or you can use time compression to not wait 2 hours.

Played that one yesterday and they had little lights on them (playing in stable, VR). At least they appeared as a white dot in the distance. Another way to spot them is just to ask Olive to attack and wait for them to shoot, follow the tracers...

From what I have seen, since it is using cameras (similar to the Rift S that I own), it needs available light to track you head. So playing in pitch black is a big no-no, but if the lighting is reasonable in your room (=uniform & artificial is best, as opposed to something very directed or worst, next to a window with direct sunlight), there shouldn't be any issues. Also note that the tracking issues are sometimes pointed out by people playing very fast-paced games (Beat Saber for ex.), standing up and moving the controllers. DCS World is not that, even in a dogfight you are not moving your head in all 3 dimensions at a very fast rate all the time. Your body staying fixed means you only have rotation on 2 axis, no translation which can sometimes confuse tracking (no up/down or forward/back translation). It is actually only 575€ here in France w/ controllers (HP is having a -20% discount on their own website), so it should be much cheaper than £800. Today I put my money where my mouth is and bought one G2, I have no doubt the much higher resolution will be beneficial for DCS. Have to wait until January to receive it. The Index is a great product but the external trackers need power, make some noise, and are generally totally incompatible with my gaming area (living room). Adding the high cost of the device and I wasn't considering it despite obvious upsides to the product, like a larger FOV. Inside-out tracking, like Rift and Reverb, is my only option. Based on all I read and saw, for DCS and sims in general, this G2 seems like a real winner.

This is a wonderful recommendation. Liberation gave me 30 hours of flying fun in the Viper so far. Still the plane has many bugs, some very irritating ones like the TGP/Mav/SPI problems. For that reason I decided to put it on the side for now. I don't necessarily want more weapons, I just want what we have to work properly. At the moment that is not really the case. Still a superb plane, very fun to fly, but too young as a DCS Module. The Hornet is very boring to fly, but landing on the carrier is fun as hell, most things work in that module, and the DLC campaigns are of solid quality (I can vouch for Serpent's Head 2, which I finished, and Raven One of course, which I am playing through right now). As was said, it has a 2 year head start and it shows. It is not the most exciting plane but you can do many exciting things with it still.

I think you are confusing controller tracking (as in, the hand controllers) with the headset tracking. The Reverb G2, and generally all WMR headsets, get criticized for their hand controller tracking. It was "greatly improved" on the G2, but still falls short of Oculus (which uses the same technique). But in DCS, as you point out, the only thing that matters is head tracking, you probably won't use the hand controllers if you have a HOTAS. I have not seen any bad press about head tracking on this headset or any previous WMR one. Bad head tracking would quickly lead to nausea, because your physical movements wouldn't translate in game so your brain wouldn't know if it should trust its movement sensors or its eyes, so there is no room for error here: head tracking has to be perfect. And, to my knowledge after reading many articles on this headset and others (I don't have personal G2 experience since I game with a Rift S), it is. One recommendation I can give you if you jump on the VR bandwagon (and I truly believe you should, DCS in VR is awesome): give yourself 30sec before putting the headset on, relax your neck, flex it in all directions. Especially if you dogfight a lot, the first time you will rotate violently to the left and right to check six, you might have serious neck pain if you didn't flex your neck first. No cheating possible like with TrackIR where 10° of head movement translates to 40° or more ingame, in VR it is always a 1:1 ratio (or else you would get sick).

Great to hear you completed the mission! I am no SAM/IADS expert, I guess the reasoning is, the site is "dormant" as long as it doesn't detect a big aircraft. JSOWs probably have a small RCS and wouldn't pop up in this state, but as soon as the site becomes active/on alert, it is able to detect them. This is ED programming, not really Badger's fault.

It was the most challenging mission for me, I succeeded by flying at Angels 40 to have max range on the JSOWs, drop the first 3 as soon as I was in range then immediately initiate a 180° turn then stayed about 50 miles away in orbit. Basically as soon as you are picked up by the "10" on your RWR, you flew too close and the site will target your JSOWs and destroy them. If you stay far enough (no "10" on RWR, approx. 35 miles minimum at Angels 40), the site will not activate and your JSOWs will hit. Same for the final target, I just updated WP6 using given coordinates, dropped on it and turned away.

The program will import the results at the time when you stop the mission in DCS. For example if an airplane has a missile incoming and you hit "Exit" right before it is struck, that aircraft is not counted as "destroyed". So yes, if you finish your mission and get shot down but want other AI flights to complete their task, you need to wait for them and let the sim run.

I agree on some of your points, but disagree on others. Yes, Ryzen 5000 availability is crap right now. Yes, performance is basically the same with 10700K or 10900K, especially in VR where you will be GPU-bottlenecked anyway. However, DCS sometimes suffers from CPU-frametime spikes, what some people wrongly call "lag" and is actually stutter. According to some benchmarks posted in this section, the new AMD CPUs seem to be less prone to these stutters than corresponding Intel CPUs, which improve your gaming comfort. I also agree with other suggestions, 5600X is all the gaming CPU you need now and for the foreseeable future. You don't need 12 cores for gaming, especially if your focus is DCS. The gap (0,1 to 0,2GHz in peak boost) will not be noticeable and can be covered by using PBO2 or manual OC. As for the Intel chips, old and proven is not always great. They tend to draw a lot of power, meaning you need to take a larger power supply - all else being equal, a 10700K or 10900K can run as high as 250W, and you don't want your PSU to go into safety when this happens. They have also shown in the last few years to suffer a lot more from security problems, that got patched but at the cost of some performance. AMD is not immune but seemed overall much less impacted. You mention RAM as a problem for AMD but then advise getting 3200MHz for an Intel CPU, which is actually almost the sweet spot for AMD (the perf. gap between 3200 and 3600MHz is barely there). AMD doesn't need super expensive RAM, 3200MHz is cheap and is all Ryzen needs to shine, yes you can be marginally faster in some conditions with faster RAM, but we are talking about peanuts. Final point in AMD's favor: PCI-E Gen4. Right now it is not a bottleneck for GPUs, but if we are speaking about "future-proofing", it is difficult to ignore that having a rig with Gen4.0 can help you in a few years, because usually you change GPUs more often than you do mobos & CPUs. In the end, it seems like the wrong time to update your system given availability of CPUs and GPUs, prices are just crazy. But if you really cannot wait, I'd still try to grab a 5600X over a 10700K, and if its for VR, use the extra money (compared to 5900X) for a GPU upgrade. This is how you will improve your settings and get good visuals ingame.

Dare I ask about BE? I think it is really, really awesome that your team decided to make a two-seater variant. I know single-players will not care for it, but in my group of virtual pilots we like to teach each other about new aircrafts, it is also a great way to help new players step up to full-fidelity modules. Coming from FC3 or other games, it can be quite scary to step into a new cockpit in DCS! With a two-seater variant, we are able to be in the same plane, perform the mission and teach step-by-step. I know some training aircraft exist, but they are just that: training. Once you master the L39 or C101, you are not proficient in a combat aircraft that can be used in solo. There is no F/A-18D, or Mirage 2000B, in DCS - unfortunately for us. This will be a combat jet, meaning we can use the BE to teach new players who can then go on to fly the CE or EE on their own with almost no adaptation time required. This is great, and thank you for this, as to my knowledge you are the first ones to do it.

For this to work, you need Low Framerate Compensation (LFC), which is a feature only available if your Adaptative Sync range is large enough. Basically Freesync/etc. work in a certain range, for example 45-144Hz. Some screens offer Freesync with a limited range like 48-75Hz, this is too limited to have LFC working. A good rule of thumb for LFC is to take the lower number of this range, multiply by 2, and it should still be lower than the highest part of the range. Example 1: Range of 48-75Hz (for a screen given as "75Hz Freesync"): 48x 2 = 96, it is higher than 75, so LFC will not work (below 48 fps you will notice the drop) Example 2: Range of 45-144Hz (for a typical "144Hz Freesync" screen): 45x 2 = 90, it is lower than 144, so LFC will work. It means even below 45 fps, LFC is working and displaying each image twice, reducing the impact on smoothness until your graphics card can go over 45 again. It is not a perfect solution, but still a lot better than nothing. A good rule of thumb is just to avoid 75Hz monitors as Freesync is just not very well implemented for them, and focus on 144Hz screens as those have become quite cheap (I bought a 32" 1440p 144Hz VA screen with Freesync for 250€ recently, and it is a LG with a decent stand at that...)

I agree, with the added info that "Freesync" is not exclusive to AMD cards anymore. I am running a Freesync monitor in "G-Sync compatible" mode with my GeForce, it works very well (because it is based on VESA's norm for Adaptative Sync, Freesync is just the brand from AMD for this). However the other way around is not true: true G-Sync monitors are usually equipped with a specific module that only runs with nVidia cards in this mode (variable refresh rate). So in order to keep a free choice between AMD, nVidia or who knows, maybe Intel in the future, for your GPU, you should buy a Freesync monitor. If you are new to this, just know: it makes everything appear smooth because your screen refreshes at the same rate than you graphic card is pushing out images, instead of refreshing at a fixed rate (like 60Hz, 144Hz...). It is really a great thing to have, but most modern gaming monitors offering 144Hz have this technology and work with both vendors (AMD or nVidia).

Can I just point out that 2K refers to a 1920x1080 (or full HD) monitor? "4K" refers to the width, "4000 pixels", which is actually not exact (normally 4K refers to UHD, or 3860x2160 pixels). So 2K is 2000 pixels in width. This is just a mistake we see repeated all over the web, I don't blame you, just wanted to set the record straight. As to the point of QHD, or 2560x1440, it is nice to have a higher definition: more legible text, because each character is composed of more pixels, so it is nice for the cockpit, but also for spotting targets at a distance. When a target is too far to be at least one pixel in 1080p, it can already appear as one pixel at 1440p or 2160p because individual pixels are smaller. And definitely to recognize targets visually, since your target will be composed of more pixels, you might have an easier time to recognize what plane you are flying against. Same goes for ground targets, the higher the level of details your screen can render, the better you will be able to notice that little tank hidden between two houses. Of course, this goes hand-in-hand with screen size, since our eyes are usually pretty average, so a super high res screen with a tiny size will not help so much. But a 32" 1440p or 40" 2160p will definitely improve your experience in DCS massively. Also, that 3070 is a card that can run almost any game at 4K/UHD in high details @60fps, it is a huge waste of money to buy such a card and only play at 1080p. The card is basically totally under-utilized in this definition.

Mods are nice but don't work for multiplayer ; even if they pass IC check, there is no way to make them mandatory for all players in order to use them. I also understand that paywalls are bad and damaging to the community, but we need to find ways for the devs to earn a living so they can invest their time into stuff like this. I could imagine a "high-def AI assets pack" for a moderate price, which would refresh all old assets. If you buy it, you get the nice models. If you don't, you still have the same assets flying, but it is the old 3D models & sounds. This way there is no paywall (everyone can play together, whether they own this pack or not), devs get paid, and after a few years this pack can become part of DCS core. As for new assets (new planes/boats/etc not currently in the game core), the same could be done : a low-poly model for the core, for free, and a high-poly nice model for those who own the high-def pack. This is a way in which we could reward the devs for their work, give them an incentive to put man-hours into it, but at the same time avoid splitting the community.

Hi, I played the 1st mission last night and found a couple of issues. I play on Stable but checked all logs for OB and did not find any fix adressing those. 1. Deck crew placement too close to the jet: the purple jacket especially is so close that I had to start and make a hard right 45° turn to avoid hitting him. My left wing still touched him, luckily without damage. First time I started straight ahead to go to the bow, had to drive over the guy, left landing gear was busted. The navy apparently has very strong guys working as deck crew and they can actually lift jets. I think giving them 1m clearance more would not be a bad idea. 2. During the BFM training, Saint goes straight for the deck after a couple of turns. I felt like Maverick in Top Gun when he goes below the hard deck to kill Viper and gets blamed for it :pilotfly:. I tried to stay above, manage to shoot him down (fake of course). On the second simulated engagement, he does the same thing again. Is that just DCS AI doing its thing? It was unfortunate as it was a little immersion breaking to see this behavior and no penalty to Saint. He goes below, nothing. I go below I get him saying "watch your altitude". Yeah buddy, you impacted the deck like 3min ago already... 3. On the return leg to Mother, he doesn't call his turn. I was flying close formation with him on his left and suddenly he goes hard left 30°. It is coherent with the flight plan (SA page did say we were not heading in the right direction), however it was a little bit surprising since he called his previous turn when we were going to the AO. At the end of the mission, suffice to say I had the right amount of cold hatred for the guy. So far you have captured the essence of the book quite perfectly. :megalol: I enjoyed the mission though, and I cannot wait to play the next one. I just hope this feedback can help improve your work even further, Baltic_dragon.

The map is still in production, you get to see screenshots (WIP) on Razbam's FB and sometimes here in their sub-forum. There seems to be quite some ways to go still. You only have one chance at a first impression, I'm sure they will want to make sure it is ready for primetime before releasing it. As to this poll, I voted Vietnam, I feel this is an area where DCS could really shine with only a few new modules needed. Simple flying, no FBW & stuff. Northern central Europe would feel boring to me, since it is relatively flat (I know, cold war and WW2 action there so it is relevant, but still a bit flat IMHO). Korea would be interesting as well though, same reason as Vietnam.

Clear communication, respect of the community, and dedication to bringing out the best module you can make. That is all great. We'll keep on waiting, thank you for being upfront with us.

No, this is wrong. I measured CPU and GPU frametimes with my Rift S (I have made multiple measurements in SP, and some in MP as well), and I consistently have higher frametime with my GPU (2070S) than my CPU (2600X). This means the GPU is the bottleneck. The situation becomes a little bit less clear once in multiplayer, but still on average, the higher frametime is for my GPU. You might be happy with 20fps but I have a steady 45 at SS x1.4, 20 is quite unplayable I think... @coldViPer: I wouldn't be adamant about it, but I had serious stutters after a while in DCS (SP and MP), and it was due to my pagefile size. I have 32GB of Ram but the game seemed to run out of Vram (my 8GB was reported full but some monitoring software) and then would stutter like crazy. After setting a much higher pagefile size, it never happened to me again. @jim keller: saying most people do it so it must be the smart choice is proven, time and again, to be wrong. After all at some point, almost everyone believed the Earth was flat. The fact that nVidia is a larger company, investing a lot more in marketing over the years, means it has built a much larger image than AMD. AMD also never really gets praised for their accomplishments, only cut down for their mistakes. I have personnally no stake with any of those huge corporations, I seriously don't care and just buy the better product. That's why my Intel CPU got replaced by an AMD, and my former AMD card by nVidia. But right now as I look to upgrade again for VR, the RX6800 looks like a much smarter choice for me, using mostly DCS and VR to decide (and yes, I will not replace a 8GB card by another one). And by the time cards are finally available at their MSRP price, the early problems will all be solved, and the cards will run beautifully.

Generally speaking, I am assuming the implementation we are seeing on the Viper (like HARM's with search tables for HAS mode, or Mav boresighting) will also be coming to the Hornet, right? I have no real life experience of course, but the HARM on the Hornet in TOO feels too easy and simplified. I actually like this approach more: instead of trying to add as many features as possible, it seems what we are getting on the Viper is closer to the final implementation. I've only owned the Viper for six months, but I've seen many improvements and features added to it. Software development takes time, I respect that. I certainly do not get the impression the Viper is left out ; it is just not in the final stages of development, like the Hornet, and ED did not commit to finish the jet in 2020 unlike the 18. I'd be happy if they finish most on the Hornet this year, and give the same focus on the 16 next year to give us a complete Viper by end of 2021.

Yeah, you are probably also very experienced with AMD GPUs given your very open-minded and clearly fact-based approach. You strike me as an nVidia fanboy who hasn't owned an AMD GPU since it was called ATi. I totally agree with you, we should only have nVidia producing GPUs for gamers. This way we can all pay 2000$ for 1080p gaming GPU and see absolutely no innovation. You realize that RTX 30x0 is so powerful because nVidia was afraid of Big Navi and developed their own cards accordingly right? No big navi, no RTX 30x0...:music_whistling: Early releases are typically rocky, and yes sometimes AMD has had problems like early 5700XT drivers, as have other companies (how many third-party card builders, like MSI or Gigabyte, had to release a "V2" of their custom cards because V1 had issues?). That is a cautionary tale to not get the first batch and wait for others to iron out the kinks. I love how you are defending somehow the RTX3070 when no one mentioned it here. You are obviously happy with your choice, go and enjoy your GPU, no need to ruin everyone else's day with off-topic posts.