Okay, without speculation I wish these for 2.5

Worrazen · November 26, 2016

So with the whole multithreaded support very complicated and unlikely, I can now without any additional testing, speculating, or figuring out just wish:

- If DCS would properly pause the graphics engine when it is paused, so it is not taxing the GPU at 99% , only "Active Pause" would keep running the graphics. And also the CPU as well.

- If DCS wouldn't take 16-20% CPU utilization when idling in mission editor/menus.

This would definitely be a good replacement cookie and would fall into the overall CPU optimization genre (but also power saving)

I do a bunch of things sometimes, browsing, running things like ffmpeg (misc only) while I keep DCS paused in the background, (some missions are long, and no save game feature). but also it's heating up the room, I know it's a bit spoiled convenience, but I'm just a big multitasker, if it's not that hard to make this happens it shouldn't be a big deal.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Worrazen

BIGNEWY · November 26, 2016

What system do you have? I have been known to multi task and don't have an issue's

Worrazen · November 26, 2016

Well it's fast enough to do stuff normally, but I think these aren't that hard to try.

It's a Core i7 3820 sandy bridge E with 3.6 Mhz

I run Win7x64 on a 128SSD and games installed on a WD10EZEX HDD.

ANd 16GB of Corsair Vengeance DDR3 at 1333 MHz

And right now I have R7 370 which I will soon replace with RX 480

BIGNEWY · November 26, 2016

the R7 370 is known for power consumption if I am not mistaken so would be a good move to change it.

hope you see an improvement once you do change.

Worrazen · November 26, 2016

So you think it could be the GPU's fault for not slowing down then the game is paused?

That would be quite bizzare.

Rangi · November 27, 2016

My gtx970 does the same thing, I go to F10 map view before I pause so it cools down while paused.

Worrazen · November 30, 2016

Ah well, I just don't think it's the GPU imo, then all games would have this effect, right?

I'll add more miscalaneous things in this thread since I don't like making so many theads I made this week (I play in large sessions, holy crap my monitor looks like it's moving up and down from all that A10 dive and climb sickness haha)

Aa - Editor: Airfield runway separation and landing/takeoff direction
Ab - Separating "Runway" spawn point into A and B slots, 25 A & 25 B, labels on map
Ac - Separating multiple runways from eachother, opening free slots for each runway on each end. Currently multiple aircraft get stacked on the same GUI point when Runway point is chosen.
B - Editor: Ability to specify Circle Radius for AI Orbit path task. Orbit marked on map as a subitem of the specific waypoint, similarly to how an additional yelow line for bombing and attack displays that's only visible while editing that specific waypoint.
C - Editor: Ability to specify width and rotation (using heading) of the for AI
D - Editor: Ability to specify which end of the runway to use for AI landing.
E - Editor: Ability to specify "CARRAR" Type Landing Waypoint for AI. Continue after repair rearm and refuel, so the next waypoint specified is going to be just like taking off, but with the use of properly selecting which end of the runway to use for landing the ETA could be more accurately calculated.
The use of this would help with some background flights such as AWACS and Tankers, making sure they go to the proper airfield intended and go back to a specific path that was intended by the mission builder, (also I see big planes taking small airfields and they just disappear at the end)
F - Editor: Ability to optionally select which Runway&Side to takeoff from when using Takeoff From Runway (default: Auto)
Ga - Editor: Ability to change waypoint parameters for all waypoints at once, A button "Apply For All WPTs", applying either height, avg speed, type of waypoint, to all the waypoints that exist for that unit.
Gb - The "Apply to All" button should come with a confirmation dialog because this is way to risky to be considered okay for accidential press.
H - Editor: The right panel should be resizable for width, or default increased a bit, to accomodate extra few characters that usually get cut off, I moved to 1440p a week ago, not gonna hurt that much to lose a few pixels of map viewport.
Ia - Editor: Original Path Inheritance, Ability to specify (checkbutton) whether to inherit the existing path when copying unit groups, only adjusting the position of the SP where the mouse button is located, and offseting DP in relation to how much SP was offset, path is fully recreated, it just follows all the original waypoints (technically maybe just some small decimal diff to avoid tech problems, too little to notice on biggest zoom.)
Ib - Additionally, a feature that can be separate to this could be made if possible without total overhaul, to move waypoints in-sync with the selected one in a determined radius which can be adjusted, this would help in this case where the original path would have to be adjusted, adjusting each waypoint that is now on-top could be extremely time consuming and impossible if the adjustments required would be too small for the maximum zoom and GUI scaling.

Notes:

-I think ETAs aren't being calculated properly when you specify takeoff from parking, but I didn't do that much testing.

------------------------------

//////////////////////////////

Discussion:

CARRAR CASE: All parkings full:

Should the AI aircraft be allowed to repair,rearm and refuel(do CARRAR task) by not taking a parking slot if all the parking slots are taken? If we try for this to be allowed, a compromise could be made by creating a special CARRAR slot, maybe debatable 1 or 2 per runway,

I know it's kinda pushing it with 2 slots, which means 2 max on the same runway,I mean this on opposite ends, so if you have F16 and takes CARRAR SLOT A, no aircraft would be able to land on the SIDE A for obvious "runway-not-clear" reasons, and the aircraft should abort and fallback automatically to queue up for landing at SIDE B if the mission path specified a SIDE A landing (no way to know), for very long runways fighter jets, now if it's not done anywhere in real life, then I guess 2 isn't standing a chance for official support.

The solution to the collison problem for large aircraft is very simple, just make them take both CARRAR slots, and then the whole

Sorry forgot to mention, this CARRAR Slot functionality would be the same slot that would be used for "Takeoff from Runway 25 SIDE A", so when landing at full parking it functions as CARRAR but it also functions as a Takeoff slot so even if an aircraft is in CARRAR mode taking the CARRAR A slot it's also taking the Takeoff From SIDE A slot, it's the same slot with dual functionality.

The CARRAR aircraft would always be forced to continue, because of a more complex case scenario where all the parking slots of that CARRAR aircraft type could be full, but there could be other type aircraft slots empty, so if any other types want to land the AI scripting should recognize this scenario and they should be QUEUED AND NOT REDIRECT to another airport, the other types should be in holding pattern until the CARRAR plane/s that have taken up all the slots preventing any landing taking place, have finished and taken off.

Now you guys chime in if you think this wouldn't impact realism too much, I'm not sure how rare a full airfield is in any DCS mission, but these big AFB airfields are quite big, probably campaign missions don't rely on those little town ones.

Well yeah it kinda adds a complexity where you could just have it do it's rearming on taxiway, but this isn't really complex compared to other things, it makes it more proper, more organized, the taxiways are extensive so you could just fill them all up with planes technically, that would be totally unrealistic and also in the case of a game, like cheating, there would be no point of having limited parking places then.

It definitely makes it more interesting than just "okay you can park on a slot you normally aren't suppose to", so I actually endorse this added complexity because this is not kindergarden here, that's why I play DCS, i don't want my brains to fizzle out.

Well, if devs would think this landing obstruction thing is just my weirdness, you could then separate the CARRAR Slot from the Takeoff Side Slot and move it to the corner taxiways only, not anywhere on the tarmack, just that holding position at the side of the runway, but then, the aircraft AI would need more scripting to avid those taxiways and pick the ones in the middle that connect to the parkings, on some airfields it would be forced to do a 180 degree turn on the runway, so here's another problem.

The CARRAR/TAKEOFF Slot would not be used if the parkings are not full, the AI aircraft should always proceede to parking if possible, to balance this out, then this would just be a bit cheating and unrealistic to get a faster pitstop and creating a jam.

Except in an emergency scenario ofcourse then you get to, but that wouldn't be handled by CARRAR, that's separate emergency procedure and I'm not sure what plans are about that, certainly at least for AI's it could be great, but that's just a simple damage checking radius around the airfield, a loop checking damage level and giving that aircraft priority to land ... without much fanfare that you'd hear in reality.

The only thing I as of yet know about emergency inbounds is some IFF message to Tower setting mentioned in the A-10C manual, I didn't come to figuring out more yet.

CARRAR is primarly intended for mission editor, when you plot a long course, maybe you got some AA that fires along the way, you may have used some flares,

This CARRAR thing then shuts off ofcourse and the main AI takes over if the aircraft is under attack has other enroute tasks or has to immediately land etc , there could be an option to force it however, just like there is an option to force disable bingo fuel response so the AI plane just dies eventually.

I like this figuring out, even tho if I wrote all this for something that already exists in some mod or script I don't know about, don't worry, it's all taken as experience, I won't feel bad, not a loss of time either, all healthy thinking for brains!

I put that in a quote for clarity, CARRAR would normally happen in parking slot, totally bypassing all this, it's just a big explanation for a specific case scenario.

EDIT:

Well hehe oops didn't know runway numbers correspond to compas angles, so they're different, so it'll just be label accordingly, not A or B side.

I also made a screenshot for added effect, it's not just words:

When selecting takeoff from runway, when you select one specific side, normally the other side automatically disappears for that airport for all other aircraft in the editor, regardless of labeling, in the programming code they do have to regard it as 2 sides.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Worrazen

MikeMikeJuliet · November 30, 2016

In reality there exist a lot of dual or even triple runways. Those are marked Left, Right and Center (in case of three runways with the same heading). Say your RWY heading is 138 degrees and you have two of them. These would be marked 14L and 14R respectively, and the opposing ends would be 32L and 32R.

Just to let you know.

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

Worrazen · November 30, 2016

In reality there exist a lot of dual or even triple runways. Those are marked Left, Right and Center (in case of three runways with the same heading). Say your RWY heading is 138 degrees and you have two of them. These would be marked 14L and 14R respectively, and the opposing ends would be 32L and 32R.

Just to let you know.

Regards,
MikeMikeJuliet

Yeah took me a while.

So the symbol for runway is RWY already established, then replace the RNW I used in the picture, I meant the same thing, just a draft.

Torso · December 1, 2016

Is anyone aware if new lighting in 2.5 will address the lack of any glow from aircrafts afterburners on surrounding objects/terrain?

I tested last night with a couple planes and none seem to produce any type of influence on the lighting which seems odd with a huge fire ball shooting out the rear. I had things cranked up too on a 1080 FTW.

Sign In

Okay, without speculation I wish these for 2.5

Recommended Posts

Worrazen

BIGNEWY

Worrazen

BIGNEWY

Worrazen

Rangi

Worrazen

MikeMikeJuliet

Worrazen

Torso

Recently Browsing 0 members