Dangerzone

I don't quite know what you mean when you distinguish between "dedicated server" and "actual DCS world standalone". Dedicated server is the install that runs as a dedicated server (no client flying)- and it doesn't launch a DCS GUI install, and is in itself is the 'stand alone' server installation of DCS from what I understand. If when you run DCS you get a GUID that allows you to launch and interact with settings, go into Mission Editor, instant action, etc - that's the client install. You can specify which terrain modules you want on that. If the DCS you are running brings up a smaller DCS box in the screen and you can't do anything directly with it, but rather need to use a web browser to configure it - that is the DCS stand alone server that I'm referring to. Also - note that in your quote above it says "This version already includes ALL available terrains and WWII units module". The message is there to advise that the terrains included for free (aka - that you haven't purchased) that are included in the stand-alone server download can only work on the dedicated server" and not the client. This does not exclude the server from requiring or downloading them- but the opposite. This isn't on the client, so if you're running a client as a multiplayer server you're fine - but if you're running a dedicated 'stand-alone' install of DCS - I think you'll find all are downloaded. So unless ED does something and allows us to choose which terrains we install on our dedicated/stand alone servers so it's no longer including "ALL available terrains" but just those we choose - yes, I expect we're in for a significant HDD increase in the server install when the new terrains come out. I'd be grateful to be proven wrong!

I must have fluked going through the campaigns and missing the bugs. I think there was only 1 bug I encountered, where it wouldn't cycle through to the next mission, which was overcome by editing a .lua file. I admit, I flew the campaign quite some time ago, so I have no idea how it works now.

The Raven one campaigns are brilliant. I enjoyed playing the first mission, then reading the book up to the next mission and stop reading, and then play - and went through the whole campaign like that. It brought the book alive, and it brought DCS alive. A very unique and amazing experience. However in saying that - I would not dive into the campaign straight away. It does require that you learn a number of systems as you progress so it's something I'd save up my sleeve for a little later. With the hornet, you can start with some basic stuff and just slowly wean your way into different systems at your own pace. For me - I enjoyed learning online with some others - as we could ask each other 'what have I forgotten', or 'why isn't it doing this' when we'd forget something simple. But as you've mentioned -there's no need to learn all the systems. I think the first 2 months I spent was just enjoyment of launching and trapping on the carrier alone. I think that's an important area where the hog differs. The hog requires a lot of memory for the HOTAS - but as far as I can recall - most of the systems work in very similar ways to each other so once you learn that system - it's easier to progress. The Hornet has much less in the HOTAS memory department - but each system is employed to a certain extent differently to the next. At least though - the learning curve is much flatter. Good luck with your decision.

@rurounijones - I'm sorry to see the lack of response & support you've received from ED with this. (Personally, I'd love to see them go one step further and embrace you and give you API's to interact with their own internal radio as well - but the lack of enthusiasm from ED just with the API's you've requested already makes it seem doubtful). Just wondering with VAICOM's release to open source whether there's anything in there that's able to help at all as a workaround to the lack of response from ED? IDK what it would contain - just a thought.

I have both. For me I found the Hornet far easier. I think in part there's more than can be done visually, whereas with the hog it seemed to be more memory based as a lot of the controls are on the HOTAS and can't be done via clicks on the screen. This may vary for others, and maybe it might have been a bit easier for me if I had a dedicated warthog HOTAS that was a 1:1 bind, but my memory ain't what it used to be, so I definitely found the hornet much easier to learn. (To the point where I don't fly the Hog - my memory keeps forgetting all the HOTAS combinations). Was that TMS up, or Right? Press or hold? etc. However on the other side, the hog is probably easier to fly as a flight model. Feels like a Cessna. Very easy to take off and land - the hornet is a tad more slippery, but honestly both are relatively easy for the flight model. I think the Hog is a far better ground pounder for sure, and gets in among the action, but the Hornet just has more versatility. It's well capable of both A2G and A2A, but the carrier ops is really the icing on the cake. CASE1, 2 or... or go for CASE 3 landings for night ops. Never seems to be a lack for something to learn/try/do. I'd love to fly the hog more but there's only so much I can retain in my brain, and I have too many modules as it is - the HOG keeps on tripping me up trying to remember all the HOTAS commands. Since both are free to try I strongly suggest doing that first, but I'm completely bias to the hornet now.

Hey Bignewy. Just wondering if we could get an update as to whether this may be in the consideration pipeline at the moment, or currently shelved?

Not a bad idea. Only concern is that I'd probably need some sort of rubber rings as well, as the vibrations may be transmitted via the bolts that are there. However this does give me an idea in order to dampen vibrations. Thank you.

I'm glad you're having good success with your X55, but the X55 was never mentioned. I'm quite happy to concede & clarify that my comments aren't reflective on the X55 in any way (I have no knowledge about the 55's design. From what I've been told by others, the older stuff is better. I've heard great stuff about the X65f too). To be clear - I am not basing my response only on my experience alone as you have suggested however, but rather & I am encouraging the OP (and anyone else interested in considering the X56) to search the web for ghosting inputs, sticky buttons, inconsistent throttle friction, etc with the X56 and understand it's inherent design flaws and problems that frequent this particular model for numerous users before buying. While everyone can get a lemon - even with the best of reputable manufacturers and models. But I'm not and would never suggest someone takes my word alone (or the word from any other single person's experience), but rather to do research as to how common these problems are - raising their attention to real problems that exist and I'm confident if done - that they will be able to find plenty of information that this isn't an isolated issue.

Please... PLEASE reconsider and go with something else and NOT the X56, or at least look very carefully into reviews and know exactly what you're going to be getting first and be prepared to have to 'work around' numerous problems. I went with the X56 - absolute waste of money. Ghost signals pressing buttons when I never did, inconsistent throttle friction, slop on the stick, one of the 2 way switches on the back of the throttle doesn't return immediately after releasing, etc - it's really a poor choice. At the very least, consider the TM Warthog instead of the X56. Otherwise even though it is a little more expensive, I strongly suggest that you consider Virpil, VKB, or Winwing. I fought with the X56 for maybe 9 months, and then considered it a lost cause and purchased a VKB MCG and a Virpil. Really hurt to buy yet again - but the difference between them is huge. Please buy once - buy right.

Bob. Almost 3 years on, can you please give us an update on your experience? Is your HOTAS still fine? (And what HOTAS did you have)? Any regrets with the buttkicker?

It's always happened with me. I just figured that it's normal operation with DCS loading in the server list. I normally connect via IP as DCS seems to be responsive every second for a short moment inbetween, or otherwise just wait until all the servers have loaded, and then it tends to be smoother.

It'd be a niche thing if it did (DCS isn't really the most common application used), so would be unlikely to be exploited as such just by running DCS alone. It's when you start doing stuff outside of the norm of DCS that you need to start having some knowledge. Going to open up ports - have an understanding of what you're doing, why, and what may happen. Going to desanitize DCS - again, have an understanding of why. Running DCS by itself ain't a big risk, but making changes outside of DCS (or to dcs's configurations) changes things. If you're required to desanitize your scripting in order to run a mission - be vary wary of why. Sometimes it's normal for this (things such as saving game state for persistency, communicating with external software such as overlordbot, etc). For standard single player missions I don't see any reason though why these would need to be desanitized. DCS by default sanitizes scripts, denying access to the local file system (lfs), operating system (os) and reading/writing (io), so it's only when removing these that you need to start considering a bit further. The good news is DCS is a small community when it comes to scripting and mods, and most mods here that do require it are usually only for servers, and the content that server owners would normally be looking at come from creators that mostly have a good history here. However if in doubt, or if unfamiliar, etc - isolate the PC running DCS from anything else in the network, and be prepared to restore from backups, etc. The risk is probably far higher that you're going to be crypto-jacked by other means outside of DCS. (Like the OP). It's something you want to hope to never have, but prepare for that it will happen. Have decent backups, because if the hackers don't get you... then peripheral failures probably will.

Are you talking about a stand-alone server? If so - at this stage I believe the answer is "Yes". From my understanding the dedicated server requires all maps to be installed, even if you're only using one. I believe there have been previous requests before to allow server operators to specify which maps they want on their servers. If this is a client install, you can probably reduce your install size by removing some of the maps you don't use. Maps are probably the biggest culprit. It makes sense to me that DCS will get larger in size as improvements and details are made to maps (and as more maps are created and purchased). I have no issues with that - provided we can control what we have installed on our HDD/SSD's.

Hmm... I though that if they were going to implement this, they'd do it for WW2 plus use the same functionality for the C130 that's in development at the moment as well. Looking forward to seeing these features. (LOL - don't even need a 2023 & beyond video yet - lots to still look forward to).

As Grimes mentioned, what you're asking for is not possible. What some campaign writers have done though is used a real tanker, and the player has the opportunity to either tank normally, or otherwise a menu option shows up when they're in close proximity to the tanker. If the player uses the menu option to refuel, this progresses them on to a new campaign file ("part 2" of that mission) for players who are unable, or otherwise prefer not to tank at all - where the mission continues on from there. If the reason you're wanting to use a F18 / A4 etc as a buddy tanker is to give other players the option of being the tanker, there's a new module in development at the moment that IIRC will allow player to player air to air refueling. It's not out yet though, but maybe of interest when it's released. On the other hand, if you're wanting to simulate tanking on the other hand for players who don't have the skill level to give an 'easier' tanking experience, I'm afraid there's really no option to emulate 'in game' what you're looking for short of as mentioned above.

It does. I'm only asking for an update as to whether these things are close to being released, or whether they're still some time off. (as I notice it also says that all footage is in-game footage, so it appears as though these things must have at least being available in dev mode when the recordings were made). Wonderful. I misunderstood the hanger deck so appreciate, so thanks for the clarification and update Silver_Dragon!

I'm just running dark mode in the forum settings. Just letting the OP realise that whatever format they're using is showing up as per my screenshot for users using darkmode. Whether he chooses to do anything about it or not is up to him, just that others running dark mode may skip over his post due to the formatting, that's all.

That's why I've asked him to post the video he's referring to. Will make it much easier to determine what's going on.

FWIW - it's difficult to read the first post due to some formatting. @Schlomo1933 you may want to correct this (remove whatever formatting you have applied) if you're looking for some more responses.

It might be helpful if you post the video you're watching for reference.

I haven't had issues with the Spitfire, Mozzie, or the F16 with my VKB T-Rudders and no toe brakes. The only difference maybe is that I have my brakes on an axis, and not a button. The rest seems to work quite well. I don't know if DCS natively does some black magic behind the scenes or not. Especially with the WW2 birds - all I have to do is apply the slighest of breaking, and use the T-Rudders, and the turn is responsive as though

Sorry - I missed it being a joke. With your follow up question re Open Beta vs Stable for FPS - I thought your first question was legit. When it comes to your question re FPS - well, if DCS actually make improvements then on the odd occasion Open Beta may have better FPS's - but the long term track record seems to be more performance problems with Open Beta releases first. There's not a one size fits all approach really. At present, but OB and Stable have FPS issues with shadows now coz Stable was elevated to the current Open Beta.

Hi All, There's a couple of things that were shown in both the 2021 & 2022 "and beyond" video's I was hoping we might be able to get a bit of an update on as to whether we could expect these to be implemented in the first half of 2023, or whether they've hit a bit of a snag with the technology and they're likely to be further away. (Or more embarrassingly, if any have been implemented and I've missed them). I'm kinda hoping if they're not implemented yet - since all are from 'in-game footage' when recorded, they're not far away? (I appreciate definitive information probably isn't possible, but just a hint as to whether they're close or still some distance off would be great). From the "2021 and beyond video" - the ability to have aircraft parked below deck. From the 2022 & Beyond unit - a new ground AA vehicle From the 2022 & Beyond video - CB clouds: Looking forward to seeing what 2023 & Beyond has in it too. Thanks ED.

Hypothesizing on possible reasons: ED was saying that 2.8 would bring "Performance improvements to VR". My best guess (and it's only that - a guess) is that the implemented changes are probably a necessary step towards the development of MT and/or Vulkan - and they have done so with the expectation at the same time we should see improvements in VR but instead we're seeing the opposite. Another possibility - given that other additional features have been implemented (such as rainbows) when we still don't have performance improvements - it's also possible that ED are focused on improving the visual aspect even though it continues to be more taxing on existing systems prior to actual improvements being released, because let's face it - those youtube video's make DCS look good - even if VR users are hurting more with this update. Both of these are just guesses though. I seriously hope my first guess is closer to the mark. I'm disappointed to see Stable Release get elevated to 2.8.1 with this being an unaddressed ongoing issue. I hope both a fix, and a quick Stable promotion to said fix comes soon.

Stable and Open Beta are currently on exactly the same build, so it doesn't matter at the moment which one you run - it's the same so you'll see the same performance. However - for future reference BETA is not slang for better. Alpha and Beta are terminologies for builds of the software prior to being an official release. If anything Beta stands for 'potentially more unstable', so if you want a 'better' experience - don't go BETA. There are more builds released in BETA - which is normally meant for the public to test the changes and give feedback before the company releases one of those builds as an official release (commonly labeled here as 'Stable'). The poll here indicates that most people are not using BETA this way, but rather want the latest changes as quickly as possible - regardless of whether they're ready or the extra bugs they may have to contend with or FPS issues. The preference for the majority is quicker access over stability or performance hiccups. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To better understand how Open Beta differs to Stable - here is an illustration as an example with release builds. (OB = Open Beta releases, and SR = Stable Releases): 2.7.5.10869 - SR & OB on the same version (our starting point) 2.7.18.12852 -OB - New features added. Problems found with CTD-Crashes To Desktop (#A), new features need further refinement (#B) 2.7.6.13133 - OB - CTD Still occurring (#A)- new features refined 2.7.6.13436 - OB - CTD Fixed - new features working well 2.7.6.13436 - SR - We're happy with this version - release to stable 2.7.7.14727 - OB - AI new features added, but feedback shows some AI won't engage (#B) and causes problems with some campaigns (#C) 2.7.7.15038 - OB - Refined AI new features. #B and #C resolved. OB Testing shows that it's working well. 2.7.7.15038 - SR - Releasing updated features to Stable 2.7.8.16140 - OB - Adding new cloud features - CTD Problems (#D) & Performance issues (#E) 2.7.9.17830 - OB - Managed to fix CTD issues - but users still reporting performance issues with clouds at certain times (#E) 2.7.9.18080 - OB - Fixed cloud performance issues - users having a reasonable experience, although still some performance issue (#E) 2.7.9.18080 - SR - Release to Stable - performance issues considered 'acceptable' for now. 2.7.10.18996 - OB - New features added, new netcode done to reduce latency and rubber banding. Users report problems with new FM (#F). 2.7.10.19402 - OB - Tweaked new features. Applied fix for FM. Users report still having problems with FM & provided tracks to replicate. 2.7.10.19473 - OB - Further tweaked new features, and FM. User response seems to be at an acceptable level 2.7.10.19473 - SR - Release to Stable Release. From an OB experience, you get to experience all the major problems (show stopppers) of #A, #B, #C, #D, #E and #F From a SR experience, we get the last bit of #E only - as all the other issues were identified and resolved whilst in Open Beta and between the Stable Releases. It's a smoother experience for us this way. So stable isn't 100% stable, but it does reduce the number of issues we need to contend with. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If you're concerned about FPS - a real world example of the benefits of stable is that if a problem does come through to us (such as FPS in VR in the latest version) - we have weeks of data already available to us to find out what the issue is as those who run Open Beta have hit this first and researched prior to us updating (aka - Shadows in this instance), and can turn them off and play - instead of not knowing where the problem was as numerous Open Beta users experienced to begin with and spent much time tracking down the issues. Normally it would be better for ED not to promote stable to the current build until these issues are corrected - which is usually more often than not, but in this particular instance shadow issues have not been addressed in VR from my understanding, but at least we know the cause and can deal with it quickly. I hope this helps to clarify the differences between a "BETA" release of an application and the official (stable) release.