2021 (and earlier) DCS Newsletter Discussion Thread

[Jack_Veil]

Viper's users, like me, obviously love the last huge amount of update to the F-16!! 

[LooseSeal]

20 minutes ago, Jack_Veil said:

Viper's users, like me, obviously love the last huge amount of update to the F-16!! 

 

I mean, I find it understandable. They're trying to get the Hornet 'finished' and once it is then work can be kickstarted on the Viper. I see a huge amount of progress on the Viper happening over the next 6 months. I just think... it isn't magic, they've got limited resources and budget and they're doing the best they can, so... patience 

[cuchara]

hace 3 horas, LooseSeal dijo:

 

I mean, I find it understandable. They're trying to get the Hornet 'finished' and once it is then work can be kickstarted on the Viper. I see a huge amount of progress on the Viper happening over the next 6 months. I just think... it isn't magic, they've got limited resources and budget and they're doing the best they can, so... patience 

patience is the mother of science

[Hotdognz]

I really cant say I'm excited by the new propellers (and I fly WW2), I mean apart from Youtube movie makers who's movies maybe will look better, sounds like it to took a bit of time and effort to get them working nice, so many little things in DCS that need tweaking or fixing that should have been way ahead of some thing like this being implemented, the eye candy will keep us distracted though.

Still looking forward to the F18 updates.

[Gierasimov]

12 hours ago, - Voight - said:

New propeller tech looks mindboggling. Like you could feel the power of the engine. What a great addition!

I wonder if the same tech in appropriate dimension will be applied to the rotor blades of Hind and Apache(?).

[Rosebud47]

47 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

I wonder if the same tech in appropriate dimension will be applied to the rotor blades of Hind and Apache(?).

 

I´ve read yesterday somewhere in the forums, that Bignewy replied to that question, that they don´t know yet, if the tech is scalable to helo rotor size and how it may look like there.

[some1]

7 hours ago, Hotdognz said:

I really cant say I'm excited by the new propellers (and I fly WW2), I mean apart from Youtube movie makers who's movies maybe will look better, sounds like it to took a bit of time and effort to get them working nice

On the contrary. The current propellers in DCS are terrible in VR, break reprojection and just look bad, so if they made them appear more realistic, that's certainly a step in the right direction. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by some1

[Wrcknbckr]

2 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

I wonder if the same tech in appropriate dimension will be applied to the rotor blades of Hind and Apache(?).

 

I honestly think the representation of a propeller or rotor is the hardest thing to accomplish in a visual. I'm also impressed by the movie. I think due to the large range of RPM's a solution for a rotor will be completely different from that of a prop. Considering also the monitor's refresh rate and GPU frame rates it's quite an accomplishment as it is already (not even mentioning the challenges for VR...) 

[Jack_Veil]

14 ore fa, LooseSeal ha scritto:

 

I mean, I find it understandable. They're trying to get the Hornet 'finished' and once it is then work can be kickstarted on the Viper. I see a huge amount of progress on the Viper happening over the next 6 months. I just think... it isn't magic, they've got limited resources and budget and they're doing the best they can, so... patience 

I find understandable to publish a plane with half or less of the capabilities that it should have, meanwhile push forward to new things.. I mean, it will look much better if they finish the Hornet, then publish the Viper. 
If you had bought the Viper, you would probably understand.
But if you only bought the Hornet, I understand that you don't understand this frustration.

[twistking]

52 minutes ago, Jack_Veil said:

I find understandable to publish a plane with half or less of the capabilities that it should have, meanwhile push forward to new things.. I mean, it will look much better if they finish the Hornet, then publish the Viper. 
If you had bought the Viper, you would probably understand.
But if you only bought the Hornet, I understand that you don't understand this frustration.

i bought the yak-52

[5ephir0th]

1 hour ago, Jack_Veil said:

I find understandable to publish a plane with half or less of the capabilities that it should have, meanwhile push forward to new things.. I mean, it will look much better if they finish the Hornet, then publish the Viper. 
If you had bought the Viper, you would probably understand.
But if you only bought the Hornet, I understand that you don't understand this frustration.

 

I bought Hornet and Viper and right now i fly much more the Viper, with that i find understandable that they stop (which is not) the development of the Viper to finish the Hornet, remember they did exactly the same thing but on reverse to push the development of Viper months ago and i don´t see Viper users complaining about that.

 

I prefer to have the Viper right now the way it are that they finish the Hornet on next patch and release a more complete Viper on the next six months, i have enjoyed much the Viper until now

Edited April 10, 2021 by 5ephir0th

[wowbagger]

Between the clouds and the prop calculations I'm starting to wonder how my framerate will like 2.7.    I hope the impact is minimal.

 

And before I get jumped all over - as is all too common on here - I'm not complaining or advocating for keeping things static. I'm as eager to see the new toys as anyone.

[Gryzor]

10 minutes ago, wowbagger said:

Between the clouds and the prop calculations I'm starting to wonder how my framerate will like 2.7.    I hope the impact is minimal.

 

And before I get jumped all over - as is all too common on here - I'm not complaining or advocating for keeping things static. I'm as eager to see the new toys as anyone.

Specially in VR... I´m afraid not reaching 45 fps in reprojection with my current config (3090 and 5900X...)

[Mr_sukebe]

41 minutes ago, wowbagger said:

Between the clouds and the prop calculations I'm starting to wonder how my framerate will like 2.7.    I hope the impact is minimal.

 

And before I get jumped all over - as is all too common on here - I'm not complaining or advocating for keeping things static. I'm as eager to see the new toys as anyone.

 

Maybe they've both been optimised (hoping so).  It's possible that the new props might require fewer resources than the existing ones.

[Harker]

7 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

 

It's possible that the new props might require fewer resources than the existing ones.

I recall ED commenting that the new prop effects actually improve performance, I think it was either a YT comment or a FB comment.

[Pride37]

8 hours ago, Harker said:

I recall ED commenting that the new prop effects actually improve performance, I think it was either a YT comment or a FB comment.

Correct, it was a NineLine comment on YT.

[Corvine]

So the newsletter says that prop effects "are coming" to DCS 2.7. Are they in yet or not?

[Eldur]

They're definately in, I've seen that on videos made with 2.7.0.4625 already.

[rrohde]

On 4/9/2021 at 7:35 PM, Hotdognz said:

I really cant say I'm excited by the new propellers (and I fly WW2), I mean apart from Youtube movie makers who's movies maybe will look better, sounds like it to took a bit of time and effort to get them working nice, so many little things in DCS that need tweaking or fixing that should have been way ahead of some thing like this being implemented, the eye candy will keep us distracted though.

Still looking forward to the F18 updates.

 

There's a little more to these new props than eye-candy: 

 

"A notable update coming to 2.7 is our unique and new technology that calculates the exact location of every propeller blade. This offers the possibility to draw a very accurate representation of the spinning propeller dependent on the type of prop, the number of blades, specific RPM and prop pitch.

 

This approach allows for smoother blade transitions from still, to idle, through to taxing and take off, as well as proper transparency from all viewing angles, aircraft speeds, power settings and blade pitch"

[Northstar98]

Okay, so about the newsletter where it mentioned that more than 10 V-1 launch sites have been added.

 

Firstly, the area has been corrected to better reflect reality (mostly by making the road layout more accurate and removing building), but none of the structures are there at all - it's essentially just a flat area of land. It's especially noticeable at some of the larger structures - the patch notes mentioned Wizernes, which I'm pretty certain refers to a planned V-2 site, the site is pretty famous and is called La Coupole "The Dome", due to its massive dome - this is not present on the map. Same with Siracourt, which was a planned V-1 launch and storage site, the road layout lines up with Google Earth, but the famous bunker isn't there at all.

 

Here's a link to a post I did about it in the DCS Channel subforum.

 

Secondly the .lua locking - they haven't just locked the .lua files of the weapons (and IC should pick up on those anyways), they've also locked all the .lua files for all of the stock units. This is pretty disappointing as I used these files to correct the various display names and to format them to how I personally like it - low hanging fruit - not really important, sure, but this is a bit of a kick in the teeth.

 

Spoiler

Worse, is that personally, the new naming system for ground units and ships didn't fix it, and in some cases even made it worse. 

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[HC_Official]

As our online community grows and grows, we recognise that ensuring a level playing field for all has become an important matter and therefore, on popular demand we have locked the LUA files relating to weapon systems. 

 

 

@BIGNEWY @NineLine  Can you guys link me to the thread where this popular demand was requested by DCS users  please?

 

Is not the job of online IC supposed to deal with cheating ?

Edited April 23, 2021 by HC_Official

[Eldur]

Quote

As our online community grows and grows, we recognise that ensuring a level playing field for all has become an important matter and therefore, on popular demand we have locked the LUA files relating to weapon systems.

 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Secondly the .lua locking - they haven't just locked the .lua files of the weapons (and IC should pick up on those anyways), they've also locked all the .lua files for all of the stock units. This is pretty disappointing as I used these files to correct the various display names and to format them to how I personally like it - low hanging fruit - not really important, sure. But this is a bit of a kick in the teeth.  

 

My 2¢: I haven't had the time to run 5118 yet to see it, since it already happened. But my first thought was "isn't that what the IC is there for?". On top of that, I never saw any of that "popular demand".

 

EDIT: Being totally out of whack, I should not try checking my folders with a complete and utter lack of sleep

I was looking into "DCS World" and not "DCS World OpenBeta"

 

My supposed Mods\aircraft list was shrunk down to that:

 

Quote

A-10C
Bf-109K-4
F-5E
F-86
Flaming Cliffs
FW-190D9
Ka-50
L-39C
M-2000C
Mi-8MTV2
MiG-15bis
MIG-21BIS
P-51D
Su-25T
TF-51D
Uh-1H

 

And I thought ED has been locking more recent modules out of that visible structure to prevent us from altering things in there...

 

It's all still there just fine

 

I'll keep the original "rant" in for some laughs

 

Spoiler

My old, not relevant grain of salt, just because I browsed the wrong DCS inst...

 

But now let's get real here. They even removed most of the mods from the Mods\aircraft folder substructure, making it absolutely impossible to edit the input luas which is vitally mandatory for me to run and actually use DCS, since I rely on heavy editing of those to compensate for the utter lack of proper bindings on many modules (2/3 way switches anyone? But also many switches that are just not mappable by default), but also having revamped some of the default mappings I don't want to change for every single module separately (some view keys, SP time control etc) and - for the now rare cases of me flying in pancake, but still very important - my fixed 30-60-90 deg zoom level keys. ED inherently broke that with the hotfix and I'm now officially offended. Worst move ever. Thanks for ruining the utterly great experience I had with those clouds for just a mere week.

Add: I just checked, my custom mappings still do load, but they all have been unmapped. Although that might have been my own fault, I loaded the sim without my input files once to take some screenshots of things.

Nevertheless, I won't be able to copy over changes anymore in the future it it stays like that since I can't see the original files anymore when they get updated and I'd have to alter mine accordingly. Always loved how open DCS was in this regard and it often was possible to fix some issues without having to wait for updates.

 

I really hope that will be reverted, at least for the input code. I sometimes (very rarely though) made some fun of editing some weapons data just for the LOLs in SP (things like higher RoF or higher shell velocity just to see how this changes things - and, most importantly, less for the LOLs, I changed the M61 and GAU-8 dispersion values before ED officially improved those), but I can live without being able to do that, but being able to optimize and personalize the controls is a must. A good portion of that has been taken away, and we need to get it back since all that massively influences how DCS can be used, it directly affects our interaction with the sim. Would highly appreciate.

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Eldur

[BIGNEWY]

The change is necessary to ensure a level playing field in multiplayer,

there is already a community tool available to view the files, you just wont be able to edit them. 

 

Thanks 

 

[Northstar98]

56 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

The change is necessary to ensure a level playing field in multiplayer

 

Isn't that what the IC is for?

 

56 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

There is already a community tool available to view the files, you just wont be able to edit them. 

 

Damn, I was hoping to make the new buses be able to be driven directly using CA, among other things... 

 

Spoiler

Yes, I did just say that. Don't judge me!

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[Tippis]

58 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

The change is necessary to ensure a level playing field in multiplayer,

Why is it necessary? What does it solve that existing solution can't do, and in particular, how does it solve the implied problem that what's on the client's system affects others? Doesn't that mean they can just circumvent this whole measure in three seconds flat by downloading something as basic and trivial as CheatEngine or some similar real-time memory editor?

 

Because that's really how this thing reads: you're saying that IC is dead code that can be ripped out because it serves no purpose, and that cheating in MP can be done with the most readily available tools commonly used to cheat in single-player games…

 

58 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

there is already a community tool available to view the files, you just wont be able to edit them.

…which means that it can't be tested.

 

Look, I'm all for your exposing critical values in a browsable database so you don't have to wade through dozens of overlapping LUA files to figure out how SA-10 target selection and unit linking works, but that's a pretty mundane use-case that entertains data divers like myself — it doesn't help with the the most useful use case of having direct (editable) access to the values. And there really shouldn't be a need for a community tool to begin with.