XCNuse

Meanwhile; let me remind you lunatic still a very large portion of this complaint. Why does my [read: ALL] Dedicated server have to have 12GB of paint scheme textures for the F14.... I realize part of this issue is ED for not having a solution; but the reality is, 12GB of actually very important space is being wasted on a single jet. How can you possibly defend that?

Whoops; forgot to share the ground image I never actually shared originally. Which shows the reality of how bad FPS was while on the ground... 23 FPS!!!! Absolutely was unacceptable! 44 now? Absolutely acceptable!

2.8 Follow up.... I'm not saying it's resolved; whatever the problem actually was, other than it clearly being tied to something going on in my images in OP. However..... Comparison images to my best abilities no longer see nearly as much of a FPS nosedive. (Compare these to the bottom two images on OP) NOTE: the weird texture glitch happening in top right of this image though. That is definitely a weird bug. No idea what's causing it or where it came from.

Finally had a chance to update (flight group forced me). I am one of the people not experiencing this bug. Shadows do however appear very different (SUPER detailed compared to what they were). They are however disappearing at a pretty short (if I were to guess 100ish ft) range. Images for comparisons. Nvidia Control Panel is all defaults other than an adjusted max FPS (hence the no vsync) As always I ensure FXO and metashaders are deleted (this time they oddly did not), and then rip through the encyclopedia and ME to cache all of the maps and vehicles. EVGA 3070 XC3 on 522.25 null null

Ignoring all of the liveries for the F14 that alone are nearing 400MB.... The median file size for the F16 alone is sub 100MB; whereas on the F14 it's well over 200MB. No other jet in DCS consumes my VRAM instantly with oversized skins like the F14 does. The fact that even IronMike here is saying that storage "isn't that big of a deal anymore," shows exactly the problem; and the fact that I now have to prioritize other purchases. Which means that I will be prioritizing a purchase on not their product instead.

Throwing this out there as a potential fix; what if you have ground crew throw on chocks?

I've been seeing this a few places. Is it really any different than it was?

I just noticed the F-14's liveries folder is nearing 12GB. And this isn't something I have by owning the module; this is something... EVERYONE has... INCLUDING! dediservers.... This is uncalled for. It's so large, it alone consumes more storage space than every other module's liveries folder combined, and that includes the Apache; which in and of itself is also ... WAY oversized. You wonder why the F14 is causing people's games to crash randomly? It should be no surprise that something like near half gigabyte folders are having to be decompressed on the fly and loaded into people's GPUs that are already lacking VRAM. Please... get your files under control, this is insane! No wonder the plane takes forever to load into and has caused crashes all these years!

these are just the ones off the top of my head so excuse me anyone else for me missing anything -drawing -ability to separately display threat and search rings -ability to set vehicle ammo (2.8) -compass rose (2.8) -magnetic declination (2.8) -ability to set custom default tasks -possibly mistaken but I believe many new trigger types have been added -autosave -flags can have names -importable/exportable tasks to make into templates -convert measurements (2.8) I feel like I'm still missing a handful of things

There... were quite a lot? actually... It should be worth mentioning that the ME actually requires the graphics engine to be running; so it cannot possibly be made as an external program.... certainly not the way it currently exists; maybe in some rudimentary format? But... it does require the game to be operating. Don't believe me? Look closer at your GPU stats. Still don't believe me? Turn up the wind and zoom in on the trees.

It's Caucasus; which saw zero changes. My point is that like for like, there should be ZERO performance differences in these videos. Not even a little. Meanwhile a guy in my group said his performance on PG dropped to half what he's used to; and crashed SIX! Times.

Not to mention on a map that didn't change and shouldn't show ANY performance alterations. No offense to the person that created this video; but we SHOULD be seeing ZERO difference in performance here; not a little... NONE! Howevever, by the end of the video we're still looking at still a very measurable decrease.

Ignoring that some things were changed; what was your Gamma set to prior to today? And with that in mind; what is your Gamma set to now?

First time after updates and especially a day like today; it's generating the shaders. It will take an exceptional amount of time; even when on a very fast drive. If you're on HDD... lord knows how long it might take, but on SSD it might take a couple of minutes. This is to be expected.

Chill out man; there's several other people in this thread already that have said they have the same issue and they didn't share any potential relevant information. That comment was not directed at you OP.

Another quick follow up then; to those it is happening to; please also share what GPU and driver version you're on!

Dumb question to anyone this is happening to; did you ensure FXO/Metashaders folders were cleared out? There are reports it isn't happening to everyone which seems like there's some sort of weird culprit in here.

Razbam redid the audio of the Harrier not that long ago. Not sure what you folks are on but the Harrier does NOT sound pretty..... But what we have currently from Razbam sounds FAR more accurate than that video recording DCD shoved into MSFS. In-cockpit you have to ignore the obvious GoPro rattles.

So like... Marianas? Or.. South America...

Please please please; this would be super helpful! Is there even a manual anymore? I'm unable to find one on the main website by checking just now. Even a refreshed [and public] manual would go a long way IMO. Beyond that, some in-game, and even a solid single video to go over the F10 map functions would be super handy; I always struggle to remember simple tasks because they're in weird unexpected [to me] buttons. (Some of that is likely down to how rarely I get to use it) But some generalized tutorial missions would be hugely appreciated I think; much like the ones we have for the aircraft for simple tasks to just get up and going in some of the more unique vehicles would be massively appreciated. If I have any other genuine recommendations; it would be hugely appreciated to have TrackIR locked down (so I can't look in one direction, but be shooting in another despite crosshair still pointing where I'm looking; or at least resolve that issue where crosshair and view do not match), and I know obviously VR users would hugely appreciate the ability to use CA. I know this is likely outside the scope of this thread, but I think it's worth throwing in the hat and hoping one day it's a possibility.

Personally I'm curious to see what "N1" will look like when N2 releases; at the end of the day... they match. That said, rather impressive how detailed this map is, it is, beautiful! I struggle to see the performance will match however, not with this incredible increase in detail! For anyone curious to see other comparisons don't forget to see here:

nullShould be fairly obvious in the track file; screenshot attached to make it more obvious.... I have steerpoint 5 set directly on top of the tacan station at the airfield.... meanwhile the HSI is showing them 2.7 miles apart in that screenshot alone, and I could absolutely keep going! I got it upwards of 15 miles off at one point.Tonopah TAC moves in space.trktonopah tac bug.miz

Point to me on the map and tell me I'm not getting the same plot of land, without pointing at the same plot of land and saying it's not the same. Until we see evidence of these "low detail" areas... nobody has said once anything about any "upgrade" to the Normandy and Channel maps. For all we know, Eiffel tower won't even be in Normandy 1 and Channel maps by the sound of it. These use of words like "low detail" aren't really giving a good explanation of how this is supposed to work.

Is it yes or is it no? How is missing objects even a possibility? Does that mean I can watch other people fly through buildings because they don't own the map? Offense to be taken; I'm not interested in this map until concrete evidence is given that this product even works.... Which so far; all we've seen is this map view, an eiffel tower, and big ben at the beginning of the year. I'm not sold on any of this, and I hate to say it; even at the deep discount, I'm struggling to see the reason to buy the same map a third time over. Except that I am; no matter how you cut it... I am... or would be; paying for a third time on an area that has been covered twice over already. I see a future to the possibilities for this to work with other maps assuming what is sold works as advertised; absolutely. But ... between UGRA and ED ... I hope you have this figured and sorted out, because this is incredibly dangerous waters that you're letting customers fall into. Purchasing capability of 3 maps that cover a portion of the same land. Telling customers you can buy any one of the 3 but can use your campaigns, missions, and multiplayer and it all "just works" ? These are... insanely bold claims.

The issue is; we're getting announcements about things that may or may not even come to fruition; that's what I'm trying to get at. And the announcements we are getting are supposedly locking in that content so if a new third party were to appear, and wants to work on that same thing ... can't? I've said it already and I'll repeat it; the third parties we have generally aren't doing this as a full time job. That's fine! Don't get me wrong about my "negativity," I'm trying to point out cracks in the system. I love DCS and I'm here to stay; but that doesn't mean other people less familiar are; and eventually that can turn into a fresh community that resents this style and moves on. "They owe us nothing", Except when they do. Let's take Grinnelli's Sabre as an example; freshly in the newsletter being slated to come 'one day.' What if that day never comes? What was the purpose of the newsletter if something happens and Grinnelli decides to move on? Literally nothing is binding this work to actually release. Meanwhile, we've got other third parties who have excellent aircraft in [other simulators] that could be brought into DCS in a better nature than how they are represented in said other simulators.... But they can't, because said aircraft are locked in by third parties who are supposedly working on it, but can't even toss out a possible year of release? Being able to guess a year of release really shouldn't be that big of a deal. Folks, it isn't about who owes what; it's about communication and the dichotomy of updates from third parties. We know for example the MB339 is close to release; how is there nothing to talk about with it? Yet, instead we get newsletters on things that genuinely might not release because they're too far into the future from a non-guaranteeable source (ie third party) I'm just requesting a change, that's all. I see no purpose to build hype for things that are years away, because it only grows levels of frustration across the community, silent or not. The purpose of news is to share things happening, right now. Not things about what might happen. (If it were, and I was a journalist, you can bet it would be about Godzilla all day every day!)