XCNuse

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!)

Serious question though; don't we end up in quite literally the exact same place we basically just were? Projects are locked up and key tossed out, and when that case is handed to a developer who gives zero news.... we end up being fed information about future releases. This system is still just as bad as it has always been..... We need to be getting news of IMPENDING RELEASES. Meanwhile, we're sitting here with knowledge of all of these third party developers, and what they're supposedly working on, but... they're free to do as they wish when it comes to communication. My perspective: I'm a supporter of DCS because there are expectations of what is being sold. I'm familiar with those expectations, and like knowing these things.... things other flight simulators have never and likely never will do. It's unfair [to me] that we're informed of products that MIGHT not even release! What's the point of sharing this information? We've got companies like Polychop who have had the Kiowa lock and key for how many years now? And what's the progress to show? We've got companies like Miltech/Leatherneck, who have been working on the F4U Corsair FOR FIVE YEARS!!!!!!!!! We've got companies like Heatblur who have the A6 wrapped up somewhere under covers, that's allowed to be in trailer videos, and was announced 4 years ago. The list can keep going because we know about 20+ ongoing projects including aircraft and scenery now.... Simultaneously, none of these companies are willing to give a status update but MAYBE once a year, if it's even on topic! It's "fun" and "exciting" to hear about these potential products to DCS. But ED.... take a step back. Seriously. What's the point of having the same issue you did 10 years ago, talking about all these products release, and then they never come? You should genuinely be forcing your third parties to be giving quarterly updates (that is LEGITIMATELY not asking for much), and we should be fed that. These recent newsletters are getting out of hand. Some of these are frankly being shared far too soon... Knowing full and well that these third party developers are doing this as side jobs. They cannot be trusted to release; so why should your customers be informed about them? The news up eventual releases is going to give a majority of your newer and younger customerbase whiplash and walk away sooner than you think when they realize that the stuff being shown off, won't be around for years to come. It's a dangerous move when showing this younger customerbase who are generally gamers, not flight sim enthusiasts, "DLC" that may or may not release. It's still equally confusing to th ose of us who have been around for a long time, imagine how people unfamiliar will react? These newsletters have turned into clickbait...

Yeah my issue is kind of the same. They're showing off untextured models (Grinnellis Super Sabre), that we shouldn't be expecting for another what.. 3 years at minimum? And we still have ZERO answers on what's going on with the base of DCS... The hype train can only roll for so long when literally not a single timeline is in the eyes of the public. "Normal" gaming companies hype things when they're within a few month's release... at most! Meanwhile what we have here is ... literally no ETA. We still have videos from last year showing off things unreleased to the public, and "no news" on them. And entire portions of maps from videos at the start of the year with no comment on those either. Same with the weather which has had broken aspects for a year and a half now, and still not a PEEP about multithreading. There has to be news on literally any of this stuff.... It's mind blowing that there's nothing to talk about. But they can talk about stuff well over a year out?????????? You're not making any sense ED.

For anyone wondering about the map; it is indeed southern Guam. It's the Fena Valley Reservoir. Excuse my beyond horrendous absolutely minimal settings on my work computer, but you can see it indeed matches up. So no, it's nothing new, and not the WWII version of the map either.

Yes you can; but you'll have to do a little research on how to do symlinking. In the meantime, I've put a request in to Nineline with this subject in mind, and he seems to have accepted it, and understands the necessity of it in the coming timeline. But for now; what you're looking for is called symbolic links.

Textures on this thing are... hilariously overkill. 2K textures for almost every gauge in the six pack???? I also think it's funny that the "RESET" on the generators says "RESCUE" Fun mod though at least! But those textures... woof! No reason for those gauges to be any larger than 512x512; or at least if you want to keep the 2048x at least don't have it texture out sides of polygons that aren't visible for every unique cylinder; tons of wasted space, and makes the loading time... minutes long practically. Either way, it's good fun, and the sounds at least are solid! I also wish I didn't have to bind the fuel levers to an axis being a set it and forget it kind of thing.

Interesting; so follow up on this. Updated 21H2 to the August update this morning, and went back through all windows settings ... and shockingly did see some weird changes (or new things?). And apparently... no issues anymore. Very weird!

Is anyone noticing SERIOUS performance hiccups with this patch? If I'm in-game (aka in an aircraft), and go into my controller settings / keybinds, my FPS probably cuts to half or less than half, and start getting insane frame drops, almost to the point of the game wanting to lock up and crash. This wasn't an issue earlier this summer...

Please tell me the singular air force base Tabuk isn't actually being lobbed off....... As it appears just outside the south-eastern corner of your box....

No idea if the Huey is going to get a more serious overhaul at some point, she is looking a little sad on the inside; but the outside still looks fairly decent. But it would be nice to get some more helicopters on the new prop tech that the Apache seems to have.

I have everything except a handful of campaigns. No extra skins or mods. DCS' main install for me is 446GB SavedGames I think I usually have it kept around 10GB give or take until I trim out the tracks etc. In the meantime, yes, it is possible to symlink maps and the like to other drives currently, if you know how to do it. Personally trying to convince the CMs how important the ability to offload maps to other drives will be here in the near future, so hoping it's taken into serious consideration. (aka symlink... but in an easier way for users to know what they're doing, when they... don't know what they're doing.)

Cancel the alarm; figured out what I did. I don't fully understand why it isn't making the menu, but resolved what I did so that the menu does appear. Unrelated to patch; just apparently made the same change to both files and had forgotten.

Anyone else having issues with comms / radio menus not appearing? No changes to any script files, but it appears September 2nd's patch has is no longer allowing menus to be created by MIST? Not getting any errors or anything of the sort; just not getting menus appearing anymore. But were literally just working days ago.

Would really love to see a zone trigger system that instead of relying on unit, all/part of group, or coalition, can be triggered by ANY client aircraft.

you don't; but at least they have LODs so they disappear when you get far enough away. But as the complaints have continued; all of the awful performance is when on the ground. And I'd argue 38FPS to 80FPS is a pretty significant impact for something that isn't offering anything anyone asked for.

This is a simple test of looking straight down at one of the hangars at Mount Pleasant, and FPS goes from what really averaged to high 30s, all the way up to what was averaging to over 80. Before anyone argues "triangles don't seem to change," which is correct; that's only showing drawn aircraft; not all visuals. Also; there doesn't appear to be any loss of shadows or anything else; the only things not being drawn seem to be the additional fake grass and rocks. Which I will remind once again... is not visible when DCS' grass slider is... used. Same test again; but spawned in an F16; FPS went from again what was high 30s (seen as 41 in image), up to 57. That's an incredibly significant bump. And no you can't argue LOD's; as the F16 still currently does not have LODs.

Haven't seen an official bug report for this, so putting it in here. Harbor Tugs that were added with the SA asset p ack have no smoothing across all elements, giving hard facets. nullnull

Bumping + ability to do line-breaks as well so text doesn't have to go all the way across the screen horizontally when it doesn't need to.

Australia is an interesting choice. It only offers two military airbases, and two internationals; and of the two military bases, one of them only offers about 7 parking spaces. This spells out how this map will absolutely not be used for multiplayer servers due to lack of parking support. Parking/spawning locations.... is going to be what makes a map conduce a lack of sales. That's a weird thing to think about... but here we are. RAAF Curtin and RAAF Katherine. Here is an image of the actual airspace; it's quite desolate. Was excited for this map, but I might have to skip out because I don't play singleplayer... And this map is far too small support wise for even my small community of under 10 people... Additional Correction; Darwin Intl is a split military airfield as well:

The answer once again falls into more along the lines of data cartridges and users being able to better prebrief and set up their aircraft. The reliance right now stands on the mission editor to setting everything up correct on these jets that don't have programmable radios. There's just no way around it unfortunately. Thus, knowledge isn't always the issue; but lack of inability to fix the problem by the user. That said, all of this comes a bit down to uniqueness of modules and DCS as a whole, and lack of global settings that.... should or could be global. For example; the A10C/ii doesn't even have radio presets in the ME.... why? Either way I think you see a bit of the issue at hand; which is, it isn't always the end-users' fault, but the situation they're put into. a DTC system or better briefing capability before loading into your jet is [IMO] the solution.

Assuming the mission creator sets up ALL comms correctly for each and every aircraft... sure. But as it stands, even in the ME, each aircraft even within the same groups can have different presets, which adds a lot of work for mission editors to double check these things; and in mass multiplayer missions, this is essentially several hours of work. And no easy comms in preset-only aircraft spells disaster. Personally I'm surprised this is even something third party devs had to deal with; I was under the impression this was a core feature of DCS.

They talked about fixing fog a year ago; and haven't since. My point still remains lol, which is that the windsock is a sad reality of being swept under the rug of "not a priority" like many other things... but one can dream. The real "issue" I have is almost the incredible lack of windsocks in game, I'm kind of surprised how not very common it is to see them. I usually end up placing the static ones in places I assume they would or should be.

Never said it is hard or difficult lol. The fact the weather engine we got hasn't received a single update in almost 1.5 years despite chat about what all would come to it should tell you something. The fact Rain3 still doesn't even have raindrops should show you how little they care about these smaller details.

This probably wouldn't be implemented in literally forever.... BUT, it blows my mind a flight sim game never took windsocks into consideration over a decade later. I hadn't noticed this until I was testing a mission the other week, and the windsock was pointed straight out; despite winds being fairly calm. It's super confusing to put in like 4kts winds, and the thing is pointed straight out and fluttering like it's in a hurricane!