XCNuse

I wouldn't call it good, just less bad. Apache and all third party aircraft capable of FLIR seem to be up to Apache's systems. All ED aircraft [sans Apache], however are in a very weird mixed state of not the old system, and also not the new system.

Pictures show steep hill, and locat ion.

Update on Facebook Red Star Simulations

Do we do campaigns here? Reflected just announced a Spitfire campaign.

Haven't seen HSEL being an issue on my end but to answer the BALT, since I've struggled with it a lot recently when it greatly seemed like it sometimes worked and didn't. As Foka said, your stick has to be at 50%/50%, dead center. If it isn't, BALT will not engage. Two ways to fix this; increase center deadzone (which, I don't recommend), or, figure out why your stick isn't centering. So say your stick is 1% forward from center, BALT will not engage; I don't want a big deadzone (1% is as high as I'm willing to go with my new Virpilwarbrd), and why some of us run into this issue against people with something like an X52 who have like a 5%+ deadzone who don't struggle with this issue and are confused. For now, I've just found a better way to center my stick, and/or press BALT a lot until I get it.

For what it's worth, it would be very unwise to assume DCS gains any amount of performance when multithreading releases. It's an unsafe bet at least. Where things should improve, would be comparing your FPS on an empty mission, versus a mission with a lot of action ongoing. By offsetting AI tasking onto other threads (would be hoping for this at complete minimum), but knowing we're also getting multi light sources etc. It should be a safer assumption that your maximum performance might not actually improve (empty map, flying by yourself); but the performance will be gained, when you're in a large mission with a lot of AI units. Essentially; if you have the ability to run a mission on a second computer, and connect to it locally, it's a safer assumption right now to assume the performance will be the same as playing "multiplayer" (even if it's LAN), than hosting the same mission on a single computer. But.... there are no guarantees; and performance itself, might not be at the top of the list at initial release. All multithreading is doing is opening up more doors, that's frankly it.

Hmm, in that case, you'll likely have to find them instead of in your savedgames/dcs folder, but in your main DCS/mods/campaigns install folder. It'd be easier at that point to rip all the missions out of the campaign zip (I think it's a zip if I recall?), and run them one by one. At that point though realize it's not a campaign according to DCS, but individual missions.

Does aware mean they know that it exists, or does it mean they know how to fix it / have the information they need to fix it? This is what I'm trying to get at. "Reported Earlier" isn't giving that answer. Just trying to wrap my head around where this bug stands; if it needs information from OB players, or not.

So then what's the point of the huge closed beta team when something as simple as the inverted BHOT and WHOT aren't caught? Besides, open beta is a release platform for modules... Back at 2,0 days, OB/Stable made sense... now that DCS is several hundred GB, expecting anyone to have both versions installed is unreasonable. And please, don't tell me "well just go to stable period"; because how much longer will I have to wait to fly the Apache; as I already had to wait 5 months from purchase to now..... I asked a simple question; what does reported earlier mean, does it mean it'll be fixed in a hotfix, or not....

Use Dynamic Weather in the ME weather settings if you either want completely nothing relating to the 2.7 weather; or even just the old cloud system (yes it's still in game), or, as Flappie showed at the beginning of this thread; the setting that says "Nothing" for clouds settings.

Literally did one of the takeoff "quick start" missions last night and almost had to give up even getting in the air because it was like half an engine was missing. Can we get a more formal response ED? "Reported Earlier" isn't exactly helping us here.... Is the bug found and spotted and ready for the hotfix or what? Because this is actually unacceptable.

Referring to the Reach for the Skies video: It has been over 13 months now that this video was shown off.... for some apparent reason. Any news on this AI module ever coming to public? Seems weird it was shown off so long ago and still not appearing in-game.

That shake is insane, I almost had to take my TrackIR off and walk away yesterday. I've never been sick playing DCS, in 2D nor VR, and that yesterday, with whatever on earth that shake is, got me on edge. HMCS even shaking around independently putting mark and steerpoints scribbling all over my screen until I was in a stable cruise, was a horrendous experience. I don't know what happened with this patch, but the A10 for me is now unacceptable.

Okay, I think for clarity sake, as this thread is continuing; there might be some communication fault that's occurring. Breaking down your words BN; I assume you're telling us, how it works right now, is by design. Regardless of reasons or choice, how Tankers and TCN work, was a decision that was made, and is functioning correctly. I think confusion in this thread is ensuing because others are saying this is "wrong." The point I want to make with this post however is; while it may be wrong, this was a game engine choice for an unknown reason; regardless of accuracy. Is this assumption correct? And if this is the case, WILL we see the Tankers code be fixed to where they are A/A only TACAN? Or do we have to continue with, what I would call a "working solution"? Again; being innaccurate, but... required for the game to function properly.

Think you can chuck the AH64 into that same mission and see how it compares visually? Ground textures (obviously ignoring the river difference) are indeed different. I don't have any computer with stable and OB to really test between the two versions sadly What is still intriguing to me is that the airport asphalt textures are so drastically different

Caucasus, down at Batumi. Something that I find super interesting though is look at the runway texture on the AH64 versus the other aircraft. If anything here should be consistent, it should be the runway texture; as... even if we had a basic implement, we've been informed FLIR textures have been implemented but.... I'm not seeing that. For what it's worth, and I need to move the helicopters; one set of vehicles had just driven, and the closer together ones stay stopped; I have no idea how long it takes for "heat to build" on a vehicle, so more testing may be involved (and I've played with it a touch, so what I have here isn't the same as my screenshots from here at work) Attached for the sake of keeping things easy is a miz that... in theory should go into activepause 10 seconds in. I was hoping to catch heat jet wash from vipers taking off ala Wag's video, but... I haven't been able to freeze frame with them taking off. FLIR Testing.miz

Okay, excuse the really poor execution here. Attached is BHOT/WHOT with CCD below for the F18 (using center MPCD to keep things as same as possible), A10Cii, and F16 This is really hard to do at work without input devices or not using a controller, but as we already know, colors are inverted. I'm also not entirely positive this is any different than the FLIR we had before the patch. Unfortunately, I am unable to figure out how to slew the TADS in the Apache, because the documentation is using incorrect wording on how to manually move it; "SIGHT MANUAL TRACKER" and "Thumbforce controller" do not exist in keybinds.... so I'm at a loss and cannot use it for comparison at the moment. Scratch that, got someone to help on discord. Although it's still a bit of an unfair comparison as AH64 was closer to the targets, and no idea how to switch it to CCD (if it can) But that said, the AH64's FLIR looks...... not at all the same as the other modules. If I had a guess....... I'd say the updated FLIR did not make it to ... any module short of the AH64.

Also true! I just want that stated, and at least with HB, it's in the channel there with proof from Cobra, RB I got a response from RB Alpha Juliet on Discord I'd say if changes were made, and weren't supposed to be added, that should probably be noted as well, as that can be a bit dangerous.

Do you mind taking a look at the Harrier? Because its FLIR behaves the same as the Jeff's and shows all the new features, for me. Just going off statements from Razbam and Heatblur. I haven't had time to check anything yet, but one thing is for sure, it's not 100% the old system, but definitely doesn't look like that picture from the Apache earlier in this thread, especially with that jet wash! EasyEB's picture of the A10Cii definitely looks like the old system, I do agree. About to head into work myself, so I can't get TGP pictures from every jet, but I'm hoping the rest of community can, otherwise, I'll do it when I get home!

Confirmed, A/A TACAN does not seem to be fixed in yesterday's patch (or somehow didn't make it in patch) Attachments show for now standard T/R seems to suffice in a not correct way, but still seems to temp work. A/A continues to spin and cannot find. Further testing, interestingly, if air station is set to a Y channel, I'm unable to find the tacan at all.

Let it be stated that the Harrier and F14 did NOT get the FLIR update. Those are the only two with FLIR capability that aren't / weren't supposed to be altered and still on the old system

Overcast and Rain 3 preset, raindrop effect CONTINUES to not show raindrops on canopies. However, presets 1 and 2 work just fine.

No mention of FLIR here either; is it safe to assume the updated FLIR engine did not make it to the F14 this patch?

https://forum.dcs.world/profile/27504-rudel/

Meanwhile, we know the Gazelle and Harrier already have the updated FLIR API in their systems and ready to go with the upcoming patch. It really would be a shame if ED delays it on their modules without reason, and by shame, I mean... annoying.