robgraham

Is it sad that I can understand this from both view points? From ED's viewpoint it's we shifted a coder and it's quicker and easier to get him to finish the code he's working on there, because once it's done it should be plug and play almost into the hornet for the most part as the new API will be completed. Yes that API was most likely almost already complete before they moved him but since then he's finished it over there and easier to just ship it. From the point of Hornet EA people of which I'm one, we've been promised TWS now for months, we were told it was just around the corner on more then one occasion only to then be told it was pushed back due to 'issues', we were told that the viper was not going to take from the hornet's development at all only to have that change and not be the case and now the Viper is getting a feature that the Hornet has been screaming for now forever.. Yeah there is gonna be some people royally upset. And while Silver, Nine etc can all go this is how it is, at the same time you also have to stop and remember that in the past 4 weeks a lot of 'Good Will' Eagle has built up has been burnt, this in a lot of ways to many is just the icing on the cake. It might make 100% sense to you and the development team and yes I applaud the transparency but lets face it right now your gonna be damned for it if you give it and even more if you don't, so I'd honestly suggest having a thick skin for a very long while and asking Nick to actually get that proper feature timeline done so that people do have some idea of what to expect and when. Honestly to me your best case scenario would have been to hold features that are co-located until they are ready for both and while you say that wouldn't be 'fair' to the Viper users, it would be IF you explained that is what was going to happen, just as it would be if it was explained to Hornet users that's likely to happen in turn for them. "Hey guys, moving forwards as systems that exist in both aircraft come together we will be releasing them at the same time, this is to prevent any cries of favouritism or accusations that we are pushing the development of one aircraft for more sales over the other, it means that you can expect the TWS, AGR and updated FLIR features to hit in both birds at the same time'. boom your PR issues at least some what negated, but instead of that we get this. Still i can get why there is a lot of upset and angry people atm, I just beyond it at this point because i've given up believing a word i'm told until it's proven otherwise.

I had this start to happen about the same time as the 16 release as well though it's hard to tell if it was the 16 or a steamvr update that's caused it (they both released updates about the same period). I know that the new lets pause a frame thing rather then drop to the time out screen seems to compound things at times.. wondering if there related?

Newy, Might but at the same time, working one OB release fine, then broken the next with no changes to the Moose version etc, no changes to the Scripting etc. That would suggest that the issues being caused by a change in the core simulation code interacting with the script yes, but in that case what was changed with the scripting engine that wasn't documented in the patch notes? I don't recall seeing anything about Scritping function changes etc, and we can't trouble shoot what is causing a crash easily if those types of notes are missing/not documented either.. All we can do is go 'well its working fine with out a crash on DCS: DCS/2.5.5.36986 (x86_64; Windows NT 10.0.14393) but the moment we switch to DCS: DCS/2.5.5.37626 (x86_64; Windows NT 10.0.14393) we suddenly get the crashes.

Been debating commenting on this, given I said a lot of my piece directly to Nick on Reddit and well there is always that looming spectre of voicing anything here, As many others have said X-Check, Jabbres, Magz, and even a big chunk of users on hoggit etc who voice concern aren't doing so because we 'hate' DCS, lets face it the fighting and the arguing that can and some times does happen comes because every one of us users have a passion for this simulation/game to the point that DCS is a GAME but we attack people for calling it that, because we point out the S in it.. Simulation. We wouldn't get annoyed and frustrated by having to deal with game breaking bugs every second patch release or having bugs that have been in the sim for years, or features that were in other games 10+ years ago missing.. IF we didn't feel passionate about the game. We constantly see though what I'd term almost an abusive relationship (actually I did term it such on Hoggit) were if this was very much a real relationship then a judge would have thrown a restraining order on both parties by now! We as users allow ourselves to be abused and to take it and be quite except in the very few places we have had (hoggit mainly) because.. we have no other choice, there is no other MODERN combat simulator on the market anymore, and yet at the same time we are also almost just as abusive at times back at Eagle forgetting that there are people who are pouring their lives into giving us our fix. That being said there have been a number of times (countless) were in the past knee jerk reactions to comments result in 'You've been Warned' or 'OFF TOPIC' etc warnings from those in power even when the comments have been completely on topic, just not in the way that ED 'likes', or where you start to compare things and find your thread deleted with Rule 1.15. As I said to Nick on Reddit that shouldn't be happening at all either DCSWorld can stand on it's own MERIT and it's own Feature list and be open to CONSTRUCTIVE critique about what other games have done and what the competition even if it's 20 years old has, or it can't but discussion of that shouldn't be shut down unless it becomes abusive full stop. Now Nine and the others have said this will 'change' and be less 'enforced' but rule 1.15 still exists and as I said to them last night before I went to bed, because Rule 1.15 exists what I'm about to post next technically breaks the rules, because I'm about to do some comparisions, instead Rule 1.15 should be made less restrictive and more 'non constructive, or abusive discussion of other simulations/competitors products will not be tolerated'. That leaves things open so long as people can be adults. X-Check is right when he says that DCSWorld has failed to truly 'change' and grow and while yes we can point out that Falcon 4.0 was a mess on release etc we also see time and time again people pointing to it as the great example of the biggest feature request by most now for YEARS, that being the Dynamic Campaign. But what people also forget is that FALCON/BMS was not the only game around 10 - 20 years ago that gave us Dynamic Campaigns, Battle of Britian 1 and 2 both gave us a DYNAMIC air campaign of the WW2 skies over the Southern UK and England, B17 gave us a dynamic Bomber campaign over the skies of Europe and while the Mighty 8th was never truly completed it too was a Dynamic campaign and yet despite this we see little in the way of progress on it, beyond the vague post every now and again about well we have a programmer working on it. Weather is another area people have commented on and X-Check does as well, we've been promised a weather update now forever and yet none of us are allowed to sit here on the forums and with out breaking rules go, ok why hasn't some one broken DCS's weather API out into it's own subset of code base, on it's own thread and with its own hooks to be scripted and adjusted simular to the way that Microsoft did with MSFSX or that Xplane has done? This would allow for dynamic updatable weather and even if done correctly the ability like the other simulations to allow for texture updates etc. I could continue and constructively break down and compare DCS against the 'other' options on the market but I'm not going to because It's flogging a dead horse, DCS does some things amazingly, it's systems modelling especially on the likes of the hog, the 14 etc are amazing and show the level of detail that Eagle Dynamics and 3rd parties can reach, the Graphics engine is visually stunning, but the threading locks that tie it's rates to the CPU cycles mean that for some things we never see a true performance increase to match our horse power, watch most 20 series Nvidia cards in NonVR, it's sad to see 50 - 60% utilization with out Vsync on etc and at times be dropping to 30 - 40 fps.. when you know if it was using all 100% you'd be at 80 - 100fps, just like it's sad to watch a 8700K hammering one core hard and only lightly touching the others, but again there not easy fixes... just discussing them seems to become a 'taboo' subject, were you might be banned because rather then be adults, people quickly devolve into slinging mud at each other, accusing them of not knowing what they are talking about etc... Despite the fact that amongst this community you have a very very wide user base, some of us have worked THIS industry itself, coding for other simulators as part of other companies, some of us have worked the Games industry, some have programming experiance, some have VFX experience but the 'well you don't know what it's like' card gets pulled and people get shouted down. So while yes X-Check might use some harsh words like 'Pathetic' stop and ask yourself this? If it was anything else and you could detatch yourself from the emotional response your having would you actually be happy with how things have been? If you moved the relationship on both sides to a personal one would you actually allow it to continue? Because I think you'd find that you'd be ashamed of how things are on both sides of the fence, Eagle Dynamics is at least finally listening, it's up to BOTH of the parties, them and US to make a difference now and for that I have to give them some credit for at least being willing to say 'Ok we understand we have a problem, we will try and change'. On the other big glaring topic that I've ignored in this small essay of a post, the $$ side, it's a hard one that almost every Developer in this small Industry of 'Flight Simulation/Gaming' has to face, on one hand the user base is fairly small and has limited funds, on the other hand we the user base demand more and more complex and technical things, and the computer changes mean that things get more and more complex, requiring more and more man-hours of coding. This in turn means higher development costs.. and yet we as a community always bulk at being the ones who have to well soak up that cost, it's a trend seen across gaming actually were costs for Developers have risen while the community bulks at a movement of the end unit prices, something has to give eventually. Early Access might be the stream ED is using at the moment, but how long can it last? How long can you keep pushing half finished products out before it gets to the point that you've built up that much of a back log that if you don't keep doing it your never going to finish? and yet because your doing it.. your never going to finish. That's part of what generated the 'backlash' towards the Viper, people see it taking away from the Hornet and fear that. So how can ED change it? Good question and no doubt one that Nick and the rest are all asking themselves, I mean Nick's openly said on Reddit he's other businesses some times help 'pay' for both ED and the fighter collection, it makes me wonder though why can't Eagle do something like a Crowd funding campaign for KEY engine features, Set a base price and give the option for people who BACK that campaign to be ALPHA testers of the product or to get there names in the credits or the option to do some voice work and have that immortalised, It would eliminate the EA constant hand in fist issues and also allow a dedicated milestone/goals list and funding stream for CORE features to be done, the community wants a dynamic campaign as a priority fine.. LET US have the option to FUND it, The community wants some one other then Wags for JTACS and voices? fine let us FUND IT. But at the same time if we DO Fund it, then Eagle Dynamics needs to be transperant and give us PROPER updates and timelines. Anyway I've written enough of an essay no doubt some one will object a thousand times over to half of what i've written. just my $2.00 -Rob.

newy I'm running the exact same script after rolling back wiht out any issues. I had to roll it back the server was unstable and crashing every hour, so original F-16 release missions running fine no issues for 6 hours at a time. update to currently Open Beta - Mission becomes unstable and crashes every 45 - 2 hrs at the most. -Rob.

yeah but it shouldn't that's the point. Case in point here, I ave crash logs for almost every hour for 14 hours until I decided to roll back to last weeks Open Beta, and I've not had a single crash in the 18 hours since I did that. Exact same mission, exact same server, just the DCS version changed. Something is triggering a Memory Access Violation, at first I thought maybe it was the Helicopters again (wouldn't be the first time) but that doesn't seem the case. The exact situation when the crash happens isn't the same each time in the logs either, so all I can presume is that it's AI related or something. Frustrating as hell.

So since Patching the Server today gone from stable to basically highly unstable with crashes happening almost ever hour or so. The logs are being automatically reported but I've dropboxed them here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tqn04pbyhq1mkpb/AAD5Wy5dD37Qo0X5YTulAW-ta?dl=0 but a string of Access Violations all at the same memory address each time these were NOT happening prior to the open beta patch today. 2019-10-11 17:46:58.722 INFO EDCORE: # -------------- 20191011-174659 -------------- 2019-10-11 17:46:58.723 INFO EDCORE: DCS/2.5.5.37626 (x86_64; Windows NT 10.0.14393) 2019-10-11 17:46:58.723 INFO EDCORE: D:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin\dcs.exe 2019-10-11 17:46:58.724 INFO EDCORE: # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at CE11DDA2 00:00000000 2019-10-11 19:24:22.034 INFO EDCORE: try to write dump information 2019-10-11 19:24:22.035 INFO EDCORE: # -------------- 20191011-192423 -------------- 2019-10-11 19:24:22.035 INFO EDCORE: DCS/2.5.5.37626 (x86_64; Windows NT 10.0.14393) 2019-10-11 19:24:22.036 INFO EDCORE: D:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin\dcs.exe 2019-10-11 19:24:22.036 INFO EDCORE: # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at CE11DDA2 00:00000000 2019-10-11 19:58:52.530 INFO EDCORE: try to write dump information 2019-10-11 19:58:52.532 INFO EDCORE: # -------------- 20191011-195853 -------------- 2019-10-11 19:58:52.532 INFO EDCORE: DCS/2.5.5.37626 (x86_64; Windows NT 10.0.14393) 2019-10-11 19:58:52.533 INFO EDCORE: D:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin\dcs.exe 2019-10-11 19:58:52.533 INFO EDCORE: # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at CE11DDA2 00:00000000 and these are actual hard crashes readable in the windows error logs as well. -Rob

Or you could just look on in game plates at the airport compass which lists the mag var as well, like all airport plates do even in the real world given its kinda needed, though the plates are for 2010 at least for Caucasus example kobuletti is 6 degrees east variation.

LJ, that's why i listed as Possible bug, not confirmed because with out access to the FM and the like it's hard to tell, the issue is though that if you go to DFLCS limiter sections it lists the exact AOA limits etc for Pitch, Roll and Yaw under each category and how they come into effect eg pitch is G limit (9g) until 15 aoa then blends to stop anything over 25AOA roll has the same limits (I could type it all out but haven't slept due to pain tonight), CAT III pitch has a lower max aoa limit (18 AOA) but in the roll it simply states that it's a 40% reduction ontop (eg if it was 100 you'd be 60) of the CAT I limit, that's what I tested here.. the ROLL limit and it's giving a 60% reduction not a 40% reduction.. which seems like a possible math error. the actual DFLCS block diagram is an interesting one because of the AMOUNT of inputs it comes in, I've played with modelling them in the past for another sim but left the company i was working for before i got too far into it (one of the reasons I like the 16 there are some nice NASA etc documents from when it was used for Digital Flight Control experiments ;) ). But yeah I figured I'd mark it as a Possible bug and let Wags and the Dev's check the evidence etc, because the issue is as well different levels of documentation etc.. the DFLCS has had a number of changes even over short periods especially as ordiance loads etc were added, great example was when the CFT's were brought out they changed it's limits for those, etc..

I can't tell ED what to do, I've given Nick my thoughts on Hoggit about the Viper and the way I feel ED has been towards it's customers etc and while he responded I'm taking a 'wait and see' attitude. I can understand the OP's point of view and a lot of others, I myself am of the same mind, I really don't feel the viper should have ever taken resources from the Hornet, full stop end of question. But it has and it did, we can't change that fact and we can't really comment on how "ED" runs things, we never get to see that type of stuff. What we can comment on though is if they are going to live up to the things Nick's stated over on Hoggit and that is to change some of the current culture and lack of transpanency that is happening, we kinda saw some of this with todays News Letter.. which had a lot more information then the Hornets release ever did on some of the behinds the scenes etc... And yet at the same time we have only a list of 'well the future' rather then a road map of 'near, mid, long' which was one of the things Nick had said he would look into fixing. I'm not going to defend Eagle Dynamics for their choices because I don't agree with them, but there done. What I can hope is that as I've said we see some of these systems actually finished finally, not only for the Hornet, but also for other things (The weather, FLIR, Multicrew for the Huey) but lets face it we ALL knew that the Hornet wasn't getting a big update today, Matt basically told us as much a few weeks back :/ I doubt we'll see a proper Hornet update until November but I could be pleasantly surprised. In the end we've paid money and while I hear Early Access thrown around a lot at times it's become very much a shield to use to try and silence any critics of the development pace etc, which isn't fair and I even said as much on hoggit.. The EA was in itself a suggested promise, Buy our product and we'll use that money to FINISH the product as quickly as we can. I can forgive bugs, I can forgive things taking longer then expected to code.. it's harder to forgive resources being moved away from something already paid for... even if in the end I brought the viper the day before EA release.. but then if you've looked at the AUD vs the USD atm.. the cost savings was the only real reason why.

he means AFT ;)

can confirm this one, was a laugh watching a Hornet flying past me with his ladder down

same again earlier today seems ok now thou

Track and Tacview Graph showing R/R first is CAT I second is CAT III rollrate.trk

I'm saying this as a possible because It's late and my maths could be out the 2004 documentaiton states a 40% reduction in the roll axis inputs on what you get with CAT I (for Matt/Nineline/etc FM section on FCLS Limiters, specifically Roll Rate Limiter) testing just now as I posted in another thread I got in Cat I 225 Degree's +/- 2 per second. in cat III that dropped to 90 Degrees +/-2 per second. in a clean aircraft at 1 degree AOA. That seems like a 60% reduction not a 40% reduction and it may be because some one did the same mistake as I did when I was calculating just now in my testing. 225 * .4 = 90 but that's a 60% decrease. 225 * .6 = 135 which is a 40% decrease. you can actually check this properly... 225 - 90 (40% of 225) = 135 not 90. You can recreate this easily. Load up a clean bird, take off get her level at about 400 - 500 knots. CAT I Deflect the Aircraft full Left Stick in a roll you'll get the 225 etc rolll rate. Select CAT III reset up at 400 - 500 knots same altitude level do the deflection again. you'll get 90ish roll rate. Now maybe the limiter was increased in the 3 years difference to 60% but seems a little strange, and more likely some one's made a simple math error like I did above in the roll rate calcs which is causing the limiter to kick in slightly early.

So just took the bird up and checked her.. she matches even the 2004 documentation for the FCLS Limiters in both CAT I and CAT III, in all 3 axis. CAT III gives you a 40% reduction in Roll Authority, you go from 225ish +/- 1 to 2 degrees per second to 90 +/- 1 to 2 and if you do the math 225*.4 = 90. The Pitch etc matches the limits as well.. across the board as does slide, actually impressed me a lot because you can watch the bird blend from the 9G limit (which is an actual G limiter) as you cross the 15 Degree mark into the AOA limiter.. same goes for Roll etc. the only part that might be a little maybeish is that 225 roll rate.. that was full stick deflection at 1degree AOA which is 'possibly' 15 degree's slower then it's publically reported weight.. but that could have been due to my speeds as well. edit: though actually a 40% reduction should be 225*.6 right? not 40.. which would have been 135 degrees oer second... it's late my brains not up to maths atm but if it's 225*.6 then there is a bug.. if it's 225*.4 then there's not *shrugs*

I think I'll believe LM's publications over wags, no offense here. Roll rate is LIMITED as part of the AOA there own diagram states such I'm looking at it Roll Axis: Cat I - Maxium Roll rate command decreases with : AOA above 15deg - speed less tan 250 knots - horizontal tail deflection more then 5deg trailing edge down - total tail rudder command (from pilot and FLCS) exeeding 20 degrees - combinations of horizontal tail greater then 15 degree trailing edge down and AOA above 22degree Cat III - Maximum roll rate command reduced by approximately 40 percent of CAT I authority. Additional decreases as function of AOA, airspeed, horizontal tail position and total rudder command. and the FLCS is behaving correctly for both modes .. one of the things i wanted to check when i started to fly.

CAT III should reduce rates as it's designed (both are by limiting AOA) to stop the AC from departing while carrying heavy loads, there are a few things that putting the Aircraft into Cat III should do. 1. Reduce the maximum AoA to less then 15.8 degrees (which in turn means that your unlikely to get 9G's in it.. you can but as you hit 15 degrees the limiters kick in) 2. Reduce maximum Commanded Roll rate by 40% of CAT I 3. Reduce Rudder Deflection.

Ok this is a bug so please don't go 'No but DMS long up' Track file is attached but the steps to reproduce it are easy. load up in the viper. turn on your HMCS look to the left or right DMS short Left watch your LEFT MFD cycle (Correct) & your HMCS turn off (INCORRECT) DMS short Left again, Watch your left MFD Cycle (correct) & your HMCS turn ON (incorrect) DMS short Right watch the above happen. DMS short up watch the above happen. Track is attached. Simpel start on ramp didn't even load vr or track ir just did the above. DMS shorts left right especially shouldn't be killing your HMCS that's how you interact with your MFD's to cycle pages. tried DMS long up etc didn't change the logic. HMCS-F16-ISSUE.trk

normally means somethings locking it down, antivirus maybe?

patch still hasn't dropped yet so nope. well updater patched.. but main patch not there.. yet weird.

If we ever get the Syria etc map we will kinda need/really want the ability to hae multiple coalitions, heck even if we ever get Korea etc.. why? because you might want: Syria: Faction 1 - US/Coalition forces. Faction 2 - Russian/Syrian Forces Faction 3 - Insurgent forces. (ie current mess over there) Korea Factoin 1 - S Korean/US/Coalition forces Faction 2 - N Korean forces Faction 3 - China zealously guarding it's boarder and claiming it's neutral to both but at times helping 2. n that doesn't bring things up like limited warfare situations were you might have civil etc traffic and things needing ident, so yeah I'd love this to finally be actually integrated fully and properly.

don't care about the whole EA fight atm, what I do care about right now though Newy, Norm, matt etc is this is the second time now we've been promised an Open Beta patch and it not appear especailly when that OB patch is meant to have the bug fixes for things like the Carrier Bug in it :/ I mean you guys put this in the NEWS letter.. :/ some of us really need that bug fix so that people stop making our server lives hell.

yeah missed that post some how when i was switching through.. (think i missed the entire second page some how) sorry for the double up grimes. you want to either merge this into that one or lock it.. or have newy or nine do it

He could though mean on some of those that the aircraft aren't showing up under the country list for example doing a quick run in the ME of the jets that are in DCS already for the SU27 it's missing from Abkhazia despite it being in the game already. So rather then saying that you know this is not going to happen etc I think part of it is that he's suggesting that the Country lists and aircraft be updated to include the Aircraft that they should be able to use and then also listing the AC that are now used that aren't in DCS as well. I don't think any of us are going to hold our breath on the F35 etc turning up in the sim any time soon though.