Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ShadowXP

  1. I'd say that unless you have a very specific reason to run what's basically a Beta-OS on your computer with all which that entails: wait with installing it until it's released mainstream into the update-channel. Since I'm a mental muppet with less sense than your average broom and a glutton for punishment to boot, I'm running it everywhere I can, even on my daily driver at work
  2. Quick update on my own post: I ended up just wiping the system and installing Win11 from a USB-stick. Couldn't get DCS to function properly before I did, but after a reinstall it works just fine. Got the same or slightly higher framerates with the same settings I used on Win 10, no issues with for example SRS, OpenTrack or other applications I use with DCS.
  3. I've been spending my workday doing something productive so far, namely researching Win11 and framerate-issues in various games. There's been multiple people that have had lower framerates in various games while running Win11. Some have reported that changing/lowering the mouse polling-frequency from 1000Hz helps a lot, plus not running things in Borderless Fullscreen or with VSync on. Another option is to disable the "Send Optional Diagnostics Data" option under Privacy & Security -> Diagnostics & Feedback, so I'll have a gander at those when I get home and report back. If that doesn't work, I'll try nuking the box and reinstalling Win11 from an USB'ed ISO and see if that helps. There's rumors of a new Dev-build coming today and will test that too if it drops before I faceslam my pillow.
  4. Win11 basically nuked my framerates. Went from 45-55 on Cauc/PG and about 40 on Syria to 15-16 on all of them. Game mode is off, GPU accelleration is off. Zooming in on one of the Harrier MPCDs basically slams my framerates down into the low single digits. Will do some testing later today to see if I have the same issues in for example the Viper. If so, it'll be back to Win10 for me.
  5. I'm running Win11 now, and have two issues. The first is a massive FPS-hit on all maps (sitting at 16-20 where I sat at 45-55 while on Win10), and the second is that I can't even load Marianas at all. Doing a driverupdate on the Vidcard now to see if it helps. Edit: Driverupdate for the GTX1660Super didn't help, but I did manage to get into Marianas through the Mission Editor. Fast Mission goes up to 9% before it just poofs out of existence. The game itself doesn't crash, however. Will do some more testing, but taking that large an FPS-hit is a no-go for me. If I can't solve it I'm reverting back to Win10.
  6. Was lucky enough to server at 331/334 during my mandatory year in the RNoAF, so it was an obvious choice Already running DCS BIOS for the Logitech Flight-panel I have, so it'll be the way I'm going. Hoping to base everything off an Arduino Mega, since that'll give me more than enough room to expand should I need it.
  7. A silly question: What have people plannet for displays in the UFC? I'm in the process of looking into what I'd have to get to build one, but the prospect of the displays and the inputs they'll require is daunting. Especially since I was thinking of making a UPD as well, which takes 5 buttons and 5 displays. That's a wee bit of inputs needed.
  8. I actually figured out what I was doing wrong (i.e. I was being an idiot again and didn't RTFM properly). Two main problems: Not testing that the export actually worked (wrong syntax in export.lua, with a ' that snuck in) through the ConREF-tool, and secondly not reading the part where I have to set up the Export.lua correctly, start a mission and then check that DCS actually exports things before I can actually program the buttons from within DCSFlightPanels. So yep, a clear case of PIFOS/PEBCAK. Right now I'm looking at getting the landing-light status to show up on the panel. Can be programmed through DCS BIOS, from what I was told on the discord.
  9. I get much the same error with the same panel, although with an AV8B-profile. 24.03.2021 10:27:27 version : 1.0.324.6091 System.NullReferenceException Objektreferanse er ikke satt til en objektforekomst. ved NonVisuals.ProfileHandler.set_Profile(DCSFPProfile value) ved NonVisuals.ProfileHandler.NewProfile() ved DCSFlightpanels.MainWindow.CreateNewProfile() ved DCSFlightpanels.MainWindow.WindowLoaded(Object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) 24.03.2021 10:27:16 version : 1.0.324.6091 System.NullReferenceException Objektreferanse er ikke satt til en objektforekomst. ved NonVisuals.ProfileHandler.SetEmulationModeFlag() ved NonVisuals.ProfileHandler.set_Profile(DCSFPProfile value) ved NonVisuals.ProfileHandler.LoadProfile(String filename, IHardwareConflictResolver hardwareConflictResolver) Doesn't matter if I run DCSFP in Admin-mode or not. I can clear the errors by deleting the DCSFlightpanels-folder in %appdata%\Local, but as soon as I load a profile it's back.
  10. I did some testing, and ONLY the Harrier has this issue. I tested the Hornet, Viper, F5, A-10C II and Viggen. Only the Harrier has the issue, and it gets progressively worse as you zoom out. To other aircraft you basically look like Santa Claus. It's a minor issue all in all, but an issue either way. No idea whether this is an ED-specific issue or an RB-issue.
  11. Key words are trim and small stick-movements. I've found that I also have to adjust the nozzle-angle slightly once I enter a hover. Oh, and practice. A LOT of practice.
  12. Understandable :) I'll continue my search :D
  13. Thanks, derammo :) I'll take any hints on things that can do the same as IRIS and that works with Helios eagerly :D
  14. One question I've been trying to get info on: Can I use Helios to export viewports/MPCD's to a networked unit with a touchscreen, such as the Surface Pro 4 I have sitting collecting dust? I know there was a system called IRIS that was used earlier, but that seems to be discontinued.
  15. Because the intent makes absolutely no sense to me at all. The ARBS is a major system. It's also present in the jet. Sure, not a very GOOD representation of it (or very functional one), but it's there. And as said before: Feature Complete doesn't mean that development has stopped, and there will be changes going forward. If not...well, then Razbam has gone off to use a pogostick in a minefield, with much of the expected reactions. There isn't one, but it was a good place to use that quote :P
  16. I used ETA as an example to show that people misunderstand things willingly. Estimated Time of Arrival damn near always turns into Time of Arrival and a tremendous amount of screaming, just as we now see with Feature Complete. People chucked the word Feature, went with Complete, and then started screaming. The screaming could have been mitigated with communication, which we've touched upon a number of times. People would still scream (because that's what we as a community are EXTREMELY good at), but probably not as much. Not the worst example, but also not the best. We're not talking about a house, we're talking about a piece of software. The comparison isn't valid. Isn't everything? People say that the devil is in the details. I like to say that he's equally present in definitions.
  17. Your post is factually wrong: the Harrier is NOT complete. Feature Complete doesn't mean complete, which is a fact that has been stated NUMEROUS times by both ED and Razbam themselves. Development on it continues, and yes, I know we can sit here arguing about just what feature complete actually entails. We've been down that road before, two threads have already been closed because of it. This is why so many software-devs have stopped giving out ETA's. People chuck the first word and then scream bloody murder when the remaining ones is pushed back. Same sort of lazy, silly thinking, and it really does have to stop.
  18. And now we're firmly into the discussion about just what Early Access entails, and what feature complete actually entails. That's something we can discuss until we're all dead, buried and turned into tiny droplets of oil. Maybe the whole EA-program needs to change. Maybe if they called it Alpha, Beta and Release-products, we wouldn't end up in this gigantic discussions that frankly we all perpetuate. Couple that with milestones defined by ED that constituted the various stages so that all developers were playing on the same sheet of music as well. That would at least give us as customers firm(er) reference-points to when we wanted to buy into the product. While we have no guarantee that Razbam suddenly won't go "NOPE! FINISHED AND DONE!" on the Harrier, I SEVERELY doubt they would survive as a company in doing so. Given how many modules they have in the pipeline, it's pretty safe to say that they'd never sell anything to anyone ever again, across multiple sims and regardless of what their company was called as soon as people learned who were behind said company. And sure, humans are idiotic creatures on the best of days, but doing so would effectively be committing suicide as a developer. Just look at what happened to VEAO, and then think about whether or not you'd buy anything from anyone involved with the company ever again. It's no secret that Razbam SEVERELY mishandled comms. Damn near ALL of this mess could have been avoided if there were proper communication.
  19. Simulating a system IS a matter of licensing when you are also selling said simulation for profit. If you don't think so, make a simulation of something and see just how many company lawyers and/or cease and desist-orders you get. And besides, it doesn't matter if a system isn't used anymore or not doesn't mean that the info on it is exempt from classified etc. If you want proof: Find official documentation from official sources about the actual top speed on the SR-71. Key word here is official sources, aka USAF/US DOD. I'll wait. When it comes to GPS-guided weapons in DCS (or others, like the AIM-120 and AIM-9X), most of them are approximations. For example, JDAMs are in essence a MK-82 with with a GPS guidance kit. The JDAM as a weapon isn't classifed. The techincal data, however, is. I.e. certain aspects of it will be, such as for example true range, accuracy/CEP etc. Same goes with the GBU-54. The DSU-38 laser-sensor that turns a GBU-32 into a GBU-54 isn't classified, the technical data and other documentation, however, is. Looking at the AIM-120: Everything I've found say that the actual true range of the missile is classified, as is much of the technical data behind it. Approximating it based on publicly available data isn't really hard, nor is modeling it in a sim. Also a valid point. That would depend greatly on the EULA that you agreed to when you purchased said thing. And I'm pretty sure that ED has secured themselves against just such occurences.
  20. I know it's possible to have a discussion without personal attacks. That wasn't one. That was merely an observation that everyone should ask themselves before buying anything hobby-related. I bought an honest product, and I bought it at EA due to not just the price (I'm a cheap tosspot, after all, with a limited amount of free money to throw at my hobbies), but also with to the promise that it would be as finished as it could be at some point in the future. Whether that comes to pass is yet unknown, but that was the risk I took with my $49,99. If it DOESN'T come to pass, I'll just ask myself this: Did the fun I have had in the module meet the expectations I had when I paid for the module? AKA have I gotten $49,99 worth of fun? Yes or no? So far that answer is yes. Your mileage may and will vary, of course, but that's how I see things. Buying a product in Early Access, or Beta, or kickstart or whatever you want to call it, is ALWAYS a risk It's ALWAYS a gamble. You ALWAYS risk the company producing it go tits-up or just not deliver at all. Or deliver a product that's flawed at best and outright nonfunctional at worst. We don't set what constitutes an EA-product. That's on the producer and/or supplier. In this case: Razbam and/or ED. What we can do is to actually start critically thinking about whether or not to fork out for a product in EA, whether the risk inherent thereof outweighs the reduction of cost for said product or not. Have you ever contemplated whether or not Razbam are allowed to actually model those systems accurately by either the US DoD or Boeing? Or the USMC, for that matter? Because those are a HUGE factor in terms of contracts, since they hold various licenses and trademarks, and without those RB couldn't field the module in the first place. And then there's the whole issue of whether or not the framework for said systems are actually present in DCS in the first place. Plus, of course, whether RB has the skills and can translate the documentation for the systems into DCS.
  21. Again, read what I wrote, and have written multiple times. I have NEVER said that the Harrier is all good. It's got issues aplenty that needs to be looked at, but it is NOT, in my opinion and experience, the absolute trash so many people make it out to be. And nobody forced you to buy the Harrier, even when it WAS defined as an EA-product. You knew full well that there would be issues, and you did so knowing full well that it would take time, maybe years, before it got to the point it is in now. That's the choice we make and the risk we take when we buy anything in EA. The fun thing is that you're arguing definitions in a day and age where people can barely agree on what day it is. It doesn't matter what we say: The product is out of EA and in sustainment and further tuning/bugfixing. You make it sound like this is the end of the road of the Harriers development phase, while the only thing that's really changed is the pricetag on it. Because that's what EA in DCS is: A chance to buy a product with usually massive lack of functionality to a reduced price in order to further fund development. The dosh we paid for it goes towards the goal of seeing it as finished as a living sofware-product can get. If that bill is too much to foot, well, then maybe flightsims isn't for you.
  22. Because that isn't carried for the AV-8B NA, only the AV-8B+. Lets wait for the NA to be in a better place before we start going all gaga for the Plus, shall we?
  23. Eh, I have no problems with people being as passionate as they are, even if we're also an extremely analretentative bunch of people. I think that's what drives us all: Passion. Sadly, patience is not something the DCS-community is known for. Passion always clashes with patience, as people always want something to be perfect as well as wanting it right now. Which simply doesn't happen. Also, the community as a whole also has a tendency to be extremely binary in their views. Stuff is either absolutely perfect or it is completely and utterly unplayable. Those of us that are able to look past the flaws, bugs and issues (and in some cases missing features) are usually a silent minority to the two groups, and whenever we DO speak up, the result is much of the same as has happened here. And when people are more interested in being pedantic than see reason, it always becomes a gigantic mess. ALWAYS. Is the Harrier perfect, even with the latest changes? No. Is it completely unplayable and unusable? No. Can it become better? Yes. Do I hope that it will become better as time passes on? Yes. Is Two Weeks™ in hilariously fully effect? Eh, yes. Do people want to accept that? Well, would we be here if that was the case? Yeah, didn't think so.
  24. Perfectly usable for me, yes. I can fly it, navigate it, do the mission it was designed for (i.e. CAS), I can land it and that DESPITE the issues it does have. I've never claimed that it doesn't have issues. We can also discuss just what a feature is until we both turn green without getting anywhere. What I AM claiming is that it's not as horrendously broken and unusable as so many others do in here to the ridiculously idiotic levels that has been done previously and still is being done. Your mileage may differ, and reading through this thread it's a pretty safe bet to say that it does.
  • Create New...