Today's newsletter


Um, no, not really. The A-10C's A-G capabilities are impressive. Shooting rockets and dropping dumb bombs from a pointy-nose is not impressive when a snub-nosed A-10C has stuff like LGBs and Mavericks. The F-15C has the AIM-120 while the Hornet only has the AIM-7.



Which sensors, weapons, and sub-systems? Not even a link to their previous announcements with this info.



Most of that potential is just that... potential. It won't really be realized until maybe a year or more from now.



No carrier ATC yet, so you'll just have to "call the ball" by yourself.



I get it. Focus on what you have. But when what you do NOT have is more than what you DO have, I find it misleading to say "many, many more," especially when it does not detail what is not included in early access.



Blatant lie. Do you really have access to GPS-guided and laser-guided ordnance at this point? Even if you do, how are you going to use it without TGP or A-G radar?



ED is trying to sell a module that does not exist and most likely will not exist for another year or two. Why lie? Why mislead potential customers? Do they really want to create hype then disappointment in a new flight simmer? That's how you LOSE customers, not how you get them! Imagine if you bought the Hornet believing this newsletter and got disappointed, how do you think you'll react to when the FC4 module comes out?

Funny you should raise this.......I read the newsletter via email today and thought exactly the same. Their promotion media really is pushing the boundaries of blatant lying.

I dont get what is problem. ED have also wrote this.

"There have been a lot of questions regarding what sensors and weapons will be available at the launch of the early access DCS: F/A-18C Hornet. This decision is based on balancing a great, first experience, while getting quickly into the hands of those prefer early access adoption. We realize that early access is not for everyone, but for many, it is. If you prefer a completed product, we ask that you wait for the final release. Take that time to monitor previews and early access reports to make an informed purchase."

Haven't bought the Hornet yet. Will wait until things shape up and A/G radar is in and 2.5.xx stabilize a bit. If I waited for 6+ years another one, two or three is no big deal as long as I'm still alive by then - LOL

That being said the F/A-18 looks really nice and from what I've seen the carrier launches/traps looks awesome. I'm hoping for the best but until it is - pretty much - complete I will keep my CC in my pocket.

But the Hornet is excelling at eye candy at least with a future combat potential. WTH does the Christian Eagle have to bring to DCS?

Where is that on the newsletter or is there a link to that at all anywhere in the newsletter? No? That is **EXACTLY** the problem.



Haha! That Christen Eagle came out of nowhere! To answer your question, it's for when you want to practice aerobatic maneuvers in a COMBAT flight simulator. For when you absolutely must do this on a COMBAT flight simulator as the civilian flight simulators simply won't do!

I'll treat the CE2 like the Yak, Spitfire, FW, Mi8, FC4, Mig15, etc., not interested won't buy. It's a great thing this free market thing is.

The news letter could be a bit more clear

Whether it's the result of ED conspiring to mislead or computer nerds with no PR skills it's hard to say. It would be helpful to understand who's writing these newsletters and the process involved, I do not know who 'The Eagles Dynamic Team' is.

But I don't even care enough to want to understand.

Now if I could just figure out how to launch GPS guided bombs on my F 18! No joy yet

Is it really hard to say? What, someone is just writing this stuff and releases it with no review from higher ups?

lol Ice, no for me with little understanding of the process it is hard to say. But i'll bet you have proof that it's not hard for me to say

But again Ice I JUST DON"T CARE ENOUGH

If you feel so strongly would it not be prudent to avoid ED and their products

Sorry about that, I fail to see how you don't care enough... but care enough to tell us that you don't care enough
Or maybe you just don't care enough because you know you won't like the answers at the end of the road?



What does the process of writing of newsletters have to do with the accuracy or truthfulness of the content of the newsletter? Who cares of the process of how the newsletter came about? That is not what I'm pointing at, it is the content of the newsletter. If the newsletter was approved by ED powers-that-be, what does that say about them? If the newsletter was NOT approved by ED powers-that-be, what does that say about them? Take your pick and tell me what you think. Or don't, if you don't care enough. I don't really care about whether or not you care.



AFAIK, I've not bought any ED products in years so I'm good there, thanks!

OMG dude, what is this hard on vendetta you've got?

I have the ER Hornet and so far it's a blast, and I am not easily amused nor impressed.

I recommend ignore options, he has no valuable post except poison and hate.

Nothing to add to the discussion and no way to counter the points being put forward? I know!! Let's attack the poster!!

It's hardly a surprise is it!

ED have been selling unrealized promises for nigh on a decade now.

They just need to continually replenish the supply of gullible fools after they've burnt all the goodwill from the previous lot.

Its a newsletter, not a bug tracker.



It will have them at release of the final product, so no.



It is Early Access which was mentioned at the top of the newsletter. Of course the final product doesn't exist yet. Of course they're going to advertise what their product will have once finished, like every other company in existence.



If you read the damn newsletter you'd read "Early Access". In particular:



If someone is dumb enough to be expecting a perfect, fully featured product after reading that newsletter then point them to me. I have some snake oil to sell.

So we have a company who is purposely misleading it's costumers AND their strategy is to sell products to gullible fools. Really? How is this supposed to be taken seriously

I have not seen enough evidence to support any of this

Ice. Attacking the poster is the modus operandi in this forum

I recall in one thread in this forum I had members question my ability to cope, made reference to my emotional state, etc. The disconnect to the topic was head scratching. And all the while you making reference and sharing your level of hilarity

Links would be too easy

I never said it should be a bug tracker. What I'm saying is that it's peddling lies or at the very least, being vague on purpose.



So why say From simple rockets to high-tech GPS and laser-guided bombs, experience what only Hornet pilots have experienced ‘til now if you can't experience them now?



"'til now" doesn't sound like "once finished" at all. It doesn't sound like "1-2 years" either. Maybe you have different definition of "now"?



If you'd read my post, you'd see the points you've missed.



And after reading the newsletter, would you know exactly what you were getting in the Early Access? What features are available? Can you do mud moving? Even if you get LGBs and IAMs, do you have CCRP and a TGP in Early Access?



The newsletter is not evidence?



For those that cannot counter arguments with evidence of their own, yes. Even if it were the MO, you would join them?



And I've had them question my life priorities and other non-simming, non-DCS stuff as well. It just shows they've nothing else to say so do an ad hominem instead. It still doesn't make it right. You would join those ranks?



And again, those who claim to be evidence but have none make that exact statement. You'd engage in that practice as well?

You are arguing with sock puppets. Today I discovered some of the same folks who backed Kinney (and still defend ED) went to Twitter in 2014. Guess which candidate they've been supporting? Let the Russians do their thing. Mueller is doing his.

Thats is a pretty accurate assessment

Who is Kinney?

& the F-18 module, even with only bare minimum weapons systems working, is still a blast to fly. Easily one of the most enjoyable modules & taking up all my time at the moment - with the potential to be a truly great module if/when it is completed.

Edit : found out who Kinney is - behind the fake/failed DCS f-35 module

There are enough of them on the ED forums. I am happy that SimHQ allows us to set the record straight where and when we can.



I'm glad you're enjoying the module but how long can you play with limited A-A modes, gimped A-A missiles, ground rockets, and CCIP dumb bombs before you get tired of it and ED has nothing new to offer you? I do hope that ED can keep pace with those who have bought the module to learn-as-they-go but judging by their track record, they won't be able to do so.

Just wanted to share a gif with ICE but its inbox is full so ill post here....

ICE enjoy the ultimate RL combat simulator

[img]https://gfycat.com/AdoredTediousDragon[/img]

Yup! Working as intended!

The SA-18 (9K38) has delayed impact, magnetic and grazing fusing. No radar proximity fuse. You could argue the magnetic or grazing fuse (back of missile passed through F-15) should have fired.

Except that is not a SA-18 (9k38) but a Vikhr (9K121) which DOES have proximity fuze since it is also used for air defense. However we are talking about DCS and proximity fuze is basically non existing.....digital COMBAT SIMULATOR ....

DCS has proximity fuzing. It isn't great but it is definitely there and it is testable (you can change the range etc). The Vikhr has a short proximity fuze, and more to the point - if this was an online engagement then it is easily possible that either the aircraft or missile trajectory is not exact, among other things.

Yeah, I was wondering where the SA-18 comment came from when that is clearly a Vikhr Working as intended!!



So we're blaming online "inaccuracies" now?

What do you think, GG? Is that close enough, do you think?

2 possibilities:
- Massive de-sync betweenclient and server, the missile was actually pretty far from the aircraft (server side) but the player saw it pretty close (client side)
- Fuze code simply didn't work (one of the thousands unfinished features or simply bug?). Otherwise the server code would have detected that at some point both were pretty close and would have triggered the detonation....maybe with a huge delay/lag making the missile explode too late (way after the clip).

Either possibilities represents critical behavior that is kind of unacceptable for a combat simulator. This is the problem with DCS, they focus too much on individual airframe and eyecandy stuff ignoring everything else (combat, netcode, ATC, etc...).
Let's be real, unless you are a real pilot of one of the DCS airframes and you want to compare, as long as the flight model is credible you are happy (that's why after a new patch everyone says..."wow the FM is so realistic, this is the best FM"). What makes difference for us, at least for me, is the experience as a whole where DCS fails miserably. They provide a great FM experience (not perfect as some like to repeat over and over) and this is it.....

So it is MP, NightEagle?

Either way, it's a bit LOLZ for DCS. Either the MP needs fixing or the code needs fixing, something needs fixing!

That video isn't mine, someone posted on re***t and i didn't want you to miss it. Whether MP or SP my comment doesn't change.

Ah, thanks Whether MP or SP, it just shows stuff is still broken with DCS. I mean "working as intended!!"

Wow Ice, you were able to find a screenshot proving ED is incompetent. Again! Man you are good

Not sure who 'we' are Ice. GrayGhost's counterpoint seems valid. And you come up with 'blaming'? Disappointing

Yes, I'm an expert in hitting the pause button at the right time. Some Photoshop skills come in handy too!

To be fair, not all credit goes to me. A big chunk of the credit should go to ED; they make it too easy.



I'm sure you can easily figure out who "we" are As for "blaming," what would you suggest?

In my understand ICE is saying that they cannot hide behind multiplayer inaccuracies which is 100% correct. This is not a case of a MOD team that can't do a heck about the core product but just work on the MOD content. ED is responsible for netcode development and maintenance, any "inaccuracies" falls on them. There are tons of MP games out there that transmits way more data than DCS in real time and still manage to work fine. Besides i'm sorry but this specific situation (entities position distribution and trigger detection) is really basic topic which is kind of ABC of developing MP logic, screwing this up is screwing the foundation. We are not talking about advanced MP programming topic.

Unless as i said the fuze code is simply messed up like many things in DCS..........

Nothing about netcode in a sim is not advanced.

Games that have far more forgiving constraints (e.g. shooters, because the phantoms move much slower) have issues when the connection is poor (high ping or even worse, packet loss).

I'm not saying that EDs netcode is perfect, but if you think that a) other games don't have the same problems or b) the things that don't work when the connection is poor are easy fixes, you need to have a good hard look at information theory.

I have a theory about your information

Scientific concepts care precious little about our opinions, yet they govern what can and can't be done with technology.

Who was it that put forward that the game engine sends data about flight surface deflection over MP and that's why ping issues or delay is the reason why sometimes aircraft teleport all over the place? That was a LOLZ one for sure!



Do you have any evidence that this was taken from an MP session and not SP?



Have you mentioned that to the guys over at ED?

If the net code was any good it would prevent physically impossible things from displaying. Jumping up and down every other second at 1000 m/s when parked is not a net code that is advanced in any way but in years.

There is no point to discuss with some people, they will blindly, or on purpose, defend whatever is made by ED no matter what. Everything bad happens is not 100% ED fault. There is always an, IMO invalid, excuse. Everything will be either made more complex than they really are so it will somehow explain everything.....who cares if there are counter proofs.....

To be fair, he did not say WHEN it was supposed to be considered advanced. It may be advanced in reference to 1995 tech?

I think that you don't read unless it fits your narrative. That the missile on the two different clients may not be displayed in the same position is a known thing, and has been known for a very long time. Heck, the mechanism for how/why this happens has been known for a long time, how

In my book desync are one of the most critical error to be corrected in multiplayer games...........

You've just confessed that the MP sync is broken and has been known to be broken for a very long time and yet nothing has been done about it. I didn't know you supported my narrative, GG!

For a game that is focused on COMBAT (or at least claims to be), isn't accuracy of unit and weapon position paramount? I guess ED thinks it's okay to show one guy that his missle went through the target while showing the other guy that the missile missed by miles? In a high fidelity COMBAT SIMULATOR?

Hey Ice...
Maybe they should rush out the F4. That missile behavior would be almost just right for the missile technology back then!

Nah, I don't think ED should rush anything But yeah, aside from the clipping issue, weren't fuzes quite unreliable back then?

Oh a confession! I haven't confessed anything - like I said, this has been known for a very long time. The missile 'sync' consists of sending the launch signal and then each client simulates the missile independently.

As for fuzes of that era, they were as reliable as the rest of the electronics. A lot misses at that time were due to lack of training and good DLZ display/knowledge as well.

'The MP sync is broken and has been a known issue for a very long time and nothing has been done about it'. Is this what you are trying to say Ice? Good point. A good starting point for interesting debate

I lose the goodness of your point when you make judgement statements re posters, that are a disconnect to the conversation about the flight sim

Doesn’t that mean that the more clients that are present, the more likely it is that different sets of data with lag/latency and jitter will be formed and interpreted? It sounds like it would be impossible for one missile to guarantee the same coordinates are output as each client has different network properties and behaviours!

I don't actually know the answer to to that because I don't know the exact mechanism of transferring the launch command, but that sounds like it would make sense. You are right, it is impossible to guarantee the same coordinates - this method depends on the two missiles behaving the same way on both clients. It all works fine _most_ of the time, but it would be nice if guided missiles (I suspect unguided rockets aren't as big a deal and given that MLRSs and other entities can put a LOT of those in the virtual air ... ) would be synced every second or five to ensure they're on track in both simulations.

I have seen significant desync even with a low number of players - it's rare, but very obvious when it happens. Guidance improvements can actually alleviate a bunch of it because it will smooth out missile reactions at longer ranges, but this is only one part of the puzzle as things happen as shorter ranges also.

You must be confused as to what "confession" means. Would "admitted" be a better term?

"each client simulates the missile independently" -- I'm no coder but that doesn't sound like the best way to do it. What if you fire a missile at me and in your client, your missile hits me but in my client, the missile doesn't? What happens then?

I suppose each client also simulates the FM of aircraft independently?



I wonder if it works this way for shooter games? Each individual client calculates ballistics and penetration values of each projectile individually? Must deal with a lot of inaccuracies and no matter how small, it will all build up to some messed up results!



Not sure what you're trying to say here, bisher.

I'm not. 'Confession/Admitting' has a negative connotation, as in someone was doing something bad or trying to hide something. Neither of those is true.



In the case of THIS game, the missile on the shooting client's machine is taken as correct. In your scenario, you watch the missile not track or barely miss or explode far from you, but you take damage assigned from the detonation distance on my client.



They do ... kind of a strange question. FMs might not be super-heavy things to simulate (not simple either) but if you can avoid running them all in one place, you probably should.




In ARMA3 the standard way of dealing with someone close up was to run circles around them while reloading your gun. I haven't played for a while, but it was an effective way of avoiding hits. It always struck me as strange that I could put a stream of bullets in someone's way, they'd run through that stream and not take a hit. There is no game that isn't affected by these MP issues. It's just that some are affected more, others less, IMHO.
You can say what you want about a given solution being good or bad ... there's no perfect solution. In the case of this game, we appear to be using an older solution that reduces network traffic but results in the aforementioned artifacts some times.

Sure. Suggest a better, more fitting term? Either way, you've already helped me prove my point. Thanks!



So in THIS game, it's possible for me to watch me do a successful missile avoidance maneuver but still blow up from a direct hit (your client) even though I just saw it fly past me (my client). Wow. Such advanced MP netcode. Why not simply use the firing client's calculations to extrapolate missile coordinates and use those coordinates to show the defensive client where the missile is? One calculation, done. Why do two only to ignore the other and when the other is also totally unneeded?



No, you claimed each client simulates each missile independently.... so does each client simulate the FM of each aircraft independently as well? ie, in a dogfight, your client simulates the FM of the missile and the FM of both our aircraft and my client separately simulates the FM of the missile and the FM of both our aircraft? It was kind of a rhetorical question, obviously if each client calculates the FM of each asset in the air --- aircraft, weapons, missiles, etc, then the game is doing a lot of work it does not need to.



I agree! Like you said, it's been broken for some time, ED knows it's been broken for some time, and has simply been accepted as the norm rather than be a priority fix. Who wants accurate positioning of missiles or correct simulation of fuzes if the community has already made up excuses for this behavior? Now let's go back to ensuring accurate wing vapors and correct water droplet behavior on the canopy!!

What have you proven that we didn't know? As for a more fitting term? You've been informed of the facts I guess?




It's more likely you'll never perform a missile avoidance maneuver
Calculations are done at all times - there's just no coordination.




Right.




It isn't broken ... what it is, is old.

What we're looking at here is an API problem. The only API I care about though, as well as with other sims, is that their game engines are being updated to use Vulkan tm.

Okay Ice. What community has an ear to ED and is ruining this game by making excuses? I would like to kick their ass

I do not have a dog in this fight and I will not be following at any regular bases, but what you have described is the client / client protocols of the Y2K era ( ie DX6 and DirrectPlay). With server / client protocols, the firing unit should send the time / action to the server. The server then updates the other clients and adds the entity to the servers 'world'.

There are two types of MP code. Client/Client and Server/Client. I would hope that a modern PC simulation is not using Client/Client.

a quick google for client/client found this explanation.
https://gafferongames.com/post/what_every_programmer_needs_to_know_about_game_networking/

I know, the concept is oldish. I don't know the guts of the implementation, but the server is definitely involved. I don't think this thing has been client/client since Flaming Cliffs came to be.

Go to the official forums and have a field day




I've already stated the point twice; feel free to re-read previous posts. Thanks again!



Sorry, what??? I can't see how that connects with my statement. Why would I never perform a missile avoidance maneuver; read: go defensive?



Good.



It's old and broken. Maybe it would pass for when we had 56K modems and could blame it on that but in 2018? I would like to hear how you can say it's not broken?

If your point is that the algo should be updated, sure, otherwise, you don't have one




Because when this desync happens the missile might not even look like it's coming at you at all.




The same way a 1970's car engine isn't broken, even though it isn't nearly as clean or efficient as a modern car engine. Just because you want to call things broken, doesn't mean they are. This thing is doing its job as intended with known caveats.

Nope, not that one. Try again.



I was talking about just slight differences in missile location as displayed by the sim (such as that in the gif), now you're talking about a massive discrepancy? And a discrepancy that occurs for most if not all of the missile's time of flight, and is not corrected? The aircraft just explodes?



Well, this isn't a 1970's car engine now is it? How old is ED MP code, really? If there's a Vikhr in it, so that's BS released in 2008 at least. Are you telling me that the MP code has not been changed/updated/fixed in over 10+ years? Good God! But at least we have correct wing vapors and droplets rendered on the canopy, huh? Shows what is priority in a COMBAT simulator with an emphasis on MP.

How does this tie in with Sobek's claim that the netcode is advanced?

In that it takes several years to master all the engineering concepts involved in writing net code.

So is the netcode advanced, Sobek? Or is it old? Or did you mean it was advanced when it was made all those many years ago but not it's no longer advanced but rather it's old?


And how many years has ED been in business now? How many more years do they need?

Ice would you like a lamp to go with your questioning?

Ice these guys offer an explanation for an errant missile and now they are suddenly expected to answer for ED?

You are funneling poster opinion to fit your narrative.

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I take exception to how you say it

Both. As already mentioned, it has some caveats that need work because the state of the art has improved a bit. That doesn't mean that they screwed up when they wrote it.

Well, client/server netcode isn't exactly a breakthrough in technology. You have to ask the question why on Earth ED uses a mechanism whereby missile flight is calculated on every single client.......it can only ever mean that due to every client having different network overheads and performance then there are different missile flight coordinates being reported to the server. A 2 year old could see that is ridiculous and the more clients there are, the bigger the problem.
l

There is no better fix to this. Planes and missiles cover huge distances between network update ticks. If each client didn't perform some form of dead reckoning in between network updates, you as a client would see missiles and planes jumping all over the place *all the time*. There are some things you can do to make sure that there is less desynchronisation between the phantom and the actual missile/plane/whatever, but unless you're on a LAN, you have zero chance of updating all clients fast enough without them doing dead reckoning.

I'm sorry but dead reckoning is something, independent calculation on client side is something else. Dead reckoning is position estimation that will still be in control of the server side (or instruments reading like sat navigation). What your pal, grayhost ED Paladin, wrote is that each client has a bigger degree of independent missile simulation which is simply ridiculous as concept. Not only it is a concept old as f**k, which has already been said, but also it has huge flaws which is why it is an old method and has been dropped by any serious real time gaming developer.

I understand that watching players or objects teleporting in the map is not a nice thing to see but people way smarter than me and whole ED itself (at least netcode wise) already came to conclusion A LONG TIME AGO that the benefits that comes with methods that lead to this behavior is way better. It is up to the software to deal and minimize or even reduce completely the teleporting behavior.

I'll go even further, with what has been said by grayhost i'm 100% sure that DCS has even more issues that are basically hidden by many factors. For example, AIM-120 that swaps target (eg. another aircraft cross the target path between missile and previous target and the missiles starts tracking the other aicraft) which would increase even further the degree of error between clients but since long distance missiles are already bugged by themselves this error is simply not visible yet.

There are many ways to deal with teleporting issues, one very effective way is to kick whoever is outside ping limit. Then a smart software will release the aircraft to the AI which will continue the mission but wait.................hold on a second..........last time i checked most online matches did not consist of flight plans for players like IRL but a very arcadish method (take off here, kill in this area, land here) which of course will instantly lead to how the heck we deal with this situation since we actually had a void since the beginning?

This is the problem with DCS, the core stuff is so basic and/or unfinished...yeah we have a new word now........ OLD


PS: Actually pure client side calculation is not a 2k concept but rather a 90's concept, that worked fine for lan's party but failed miserably in the internet. Though this is still used for turn based games.

Oh yeah? For what?

I'm not convinced that it is actually the client firing the missile that does the calculation of the missile flight path, i think that is done on the server and each client only calculates its own phantom with periodic corrections from the server, but i could be wrong.



Yeah right...except they didn't. All the real time MP games use a form of dead reckoning in between network syncs. Most of them just don't have to deal with objects moving at 500 knots. What you propose is nonsense.



Which has to be enforced by the server admin, not ED. I'm sure that this is perfectly possible right now, if not out of the box then with the help of one of the server admin tools.

Speed by itself means nothing when talking about dead reckoning. I can have things moving at light speed but still do a reliable dead reckoning....... what really matters is how fast things changes its velocity vector thus acceleration magnitude or even better velocity derivative. Now missiles should not do any drastic acceleration or velocity vector that cannot be updated properly within an acceptable time range, unless.... unless.....unless it is buggy as hell and basically bleed speed....oh wait........this is actually what happens in DCS .........

I mean do you really think that a flight GAME provides a more complex dead reckoning problem than a racing game where players can drastically change both velocity and acceleration vector in a bat of secs, specially considering extreme case like collisions? Specially considering that the degree of error must be relative low due to the VERY close proximity between vehicles....... really?

I'm sorry but your narrative does not hold because of many examples out there with similar or even more degree of complexity.......

You might argue that there are less information to be shared and i agree to an extent but that's up to the software to do smart data propagation with adaptive refresh rate

Consider that some racing games allows 32 players to race each other which is not as simple problem as you like to sound

I don't get the reference to the lamp. Care to enlighten me?

Sorry to not deliver the message in a form that's palatable to you, but then again, I've no clue to what you find would be better? They offer an explanation, yes, but they're offerring two different stories. I'm just asking which is which and how it ties in to what we're currently seeing/experiencing in the sim. They made the claim that *this is the reason for X* so I'm just asking them to clarify.



So just like the F-14 Tomcat was advanced.... but still old. That both makes sense.... and doesn't.

Even if they didn't screw up when they wrote it (read: worked with what tech was available at the time), why have they still not fixed it since then? Why are we getting wing vapors and water droplets and new maps and new modules and yet the netcode, that code that EVERYTHING in the sim uses once they go online, is not fixed or updated? Funny how they ask people to buy more RAM to get with the times and yet they still run old netcode!



I'm sorry, but let me just ask this question --- how fast is network speed nowadays? How often does this network sync you speak of happen per second or per minute? We can stream HD movies, play all sorts of twitch shooter games and fighting games online, yet you're claiming that it's impossible to sync a missile location accurately between two clients over the internet? Do we not have network refresh or whatever it's called measured in milliseconds now? I'm guessing the reaction to missile behavior would be measured in seconds whereas reaction to other games like fighting games are in fractions of a second, but we can't have that in DCS?

I hate to say it but you're kind of wrong on this one. I'm aware that ED did something regarding the server, but it is provable that the shooting client's position is correct and sync is absent. Things could be changing right under my nose and that's fine, especially if it's for the better (and I know ED is working on the missiles constantly, the missile guy is doing a lot of work - I just don't understand what it is that is being done ... I only see the entries ) - but right now, in air to air same ole same ole.

Your selective reading is showing again. I mentioned ARMA's desync's already. Other games have desync. You're going down a path of self-righteousness in which you are alone, because you are plain wrong. And you're certainly doing a lot of guessing. Yes, there ARE better methods, they exist. No, what ED is doing isn't wrong, they have reasons for it. It literally works well enough as is, and some times you experience interesting behavior. Balancing the amount of information that needs to be sent and received with a good experience is not trivial. I'm sure it isn't trivial even in a simple shooter, though at least for those there is a lot experience out there.

This is intriguing to read and look forward to seeing what is being done regarding missile performance

I wouldn't say that it's entirely accurate that Ice is alone in his beliefs. Sure, now that the hornet is out, it's easy to forget the past. While a lot of work goes into their projects, some of their endeavors seem to have been useless, if not an enormous waste of time, and there's no getting around that it consumes resources that could otherwise have been delegated elsewhere. It would be hard to believe any other motive than generating a quick profit, based on established technology, most obviously in the realm of releasing numerous similar propeller type aircraft with very few systems or avionics. There is no question that there have been many useless if not inapparent updates over the years that address at best very peripheral things, while the hard work of developing a new consumer product that most people actually want is left untended. The only group I have seen actually go out of their way to not do that or take that route is Razbam. This is the difficulty of having very few options and very few competitors, in what is really a very targeted niche for a very specific group of people. There are several modules which I have bought, albeit usually at a sale price, which in retrospect I have no idea why I purchased, except to say I had nothing else to do and no other options, and that I like different flavors of ice cream, but in reality they have very little functional use to me. However, it has accumulated to a few to several hundreds of dolars directed to one sim and one developer, where in reality in comparison for other sims I have paid very little. I am almost certain that there are others who have paid the same, so I do not hear any sob stories about ED. The hornet itself, for all the hype is still in a very rudimentary stage, and the systems they are talking about not being implemented are very complex, perhaps much more complex than the ones already implemented, and I think a full and complete module is still at least two to three years off, and I believe they released it partly based on Wagner's very general tutorials, there is some sort of frustration or craving to show that we have done something, and because the optics started to become silly. As I have probably mentioned before, this is not an erudite way of saying it, but I regard ED as a type of lazy bugger operation, I remember in the good old days of BMS, I used to eagerly await their release which they did for nothing. While I don't share the same fervor as Ice, I don't think he's incorrect, and generally I am in agreement with the overall views he is trying to express.

You conveniently ignore that missiles can pull around 30g if they have to, which they do against a maneuvering target.



Granted, it's about the same complexity.



Again, same as DCS...



Ok, back to the basics.

You are mistaking bandwidth for latency. Bandwidth determines the amount of data that can be transferred per time. You are correct in that bandwidth has increased considerably during the last 20 years. Bandwidth however means precious little for online games, as the amount of data you are trying to transfer is very small (when compared to a HD stream, e.g.).

What is important to games is the latency and the packet loss. Latency is how long it takes for a packet of data to get from client to server and back, measured in milliseconds. You can theoretically have a bandwidth of 200Mbit/s (good for streaming) to a server and still have a ping of 500ms (bad for gaming) because for example, the server is physically far away from you or the signal has to pass a lot of hops on its way to the server. The important part is, latency has been hitting the limits of what is physically possible for at least 10 years now. There is simply no way that information could be sent with significantly less latency.



You can have refresh rates as fast as you want, by the time the update reaches the client, it is already somewhat outdated. The trick is to show every client the past of all the other clients. This can however only work as long as packet loss and latency do not become too severe.



It would actually make sense somewhat, since that is the model that is used in shooters as well. The client checks whether the phantom was in his crosshairs when he pulled the trigger. It is just complicated by the fact that missiles have to act on the position of the phantom.

Anyway since netcode is starting to really push DCS to its limit, netcode wise, i hope ED decides for a complete re-design and improvement. They actually did a good job improving graphic quality (ignoring performance here), let's just hope that they keep improving but at a considerable pace.

What turns me down is the fact that there are multiple accumulated bugs/issues/unfinished features but i've always hoped that they would start to sort them out one by one after the release of 2.5 (still no seeing this tho). This product has everything to be the king of the hill by far they just need to enforce their core code and features on which airframes rely to.

I just don't like when people defend a given company even when there is no reason to, criticism can be good as long as it's based on real problems with realistic solutions (both technical and financial). On the other hand, denying/ignoring/minimize problems (not referring to anyone specifically) can do a lot of damage to the product growth.

I'd like to be pointed towards any person that argued that the netcode should not be improved. As far as i'm concerned, there was none.

I am reluctant though to see words like incompetence be thrown around by people who don't know the difference between bandwidth and latency. Anyways, i think i've had my fair share of SimHQ for another few months.

Don't worry Sobek i wan't attacking none of your directly, sometimes i make a few jokes but they remains joke (even though is hard to understand the tone over a post). I understood your point and i would be surprised if you didn't want things to get improved.

As i told, as long as the criticism is genuine there is no problem about it, however sometimes it is not or sometimes is just pretending too much (not pointing any finger to anyone).

Speaking for myself, i would say that DCS has just delivered 2.5 thus for me they have another 1-2 years of "trust" since they did a lot of work with the graphic and terrain engine. I would expect now free workforce to be spread among others critical area that are clearly remaining behind to others who has made UNDENIABLE excellent advancements. IMO no one can say that DCS has made no improvements in last 2 years, it is just that the program is not at the same level in all areas.

Have a nice day mate

BTW, new patch to OB just out, hornet got lots of fixes.
And other planes , not all things are in changelog.



Things move fast now .

I heard that the update broke Harrier NVGs, and the FLIRs were already messed up earlier - sounds like a perfect night attack plane.

But in what direction?
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3554067#post3554067

Not to worry, ED have been hard at work creating cattle.........it’s not like there is anything else at a higher priority.

I think Wags is just mocking his customers when he titles this video “Making the world a bit more alive....”. How’s about putting the effort into the actual combat as a start point. Biggest April fool if ever I saw one or alternatively just someone with his head up his own ass which is why he can’t see the wood for the trees.

Perhaps someone can educate me as to how moving cattle enhance a stagnant sky in a supposed combat sim.

Ya that'd be a bugger if the making of cows took away from the development of the combat element of this sim



Nice! Two metaphors in one sentence

You think that it increases the development progress of areas that actually need it?

This is another shining example of items that just aren’t needed. If Wags can’t think of a better use of time and resources than this then nothing more needs to be said about his incompetence. If you do like the cows I assume you’ll be looking forward to goats, deer, sheep and rabbits next!

You also forgot to educate me as to exactly how this makes the world more alive......that’s even if you notice these little pixels within the ground clutter even in a helo.

Do you think there are ANY managers at ED, or is it just an assortment of devs in different rooms just doing whatever the hell they fancy. One of them clearly bloody well loves trains!

Sheep.

We need sheep.

I'm certainly glad Wags posted that video when he did. I was about to buy the Harrier since it was on sale but decided to save my money given the importance of cows over, Ohh I don't know, maybe a combat environment. I mean really, are they going after the FSX crowd with this stuff or what?

That's something DCS is filled to the brink with already, they're just not ingame.

I'll confess that i'm already excited for first cow skin by tom_weiss, his works are always perfection!

Good call, Tom.....can I request a 'Holstein Friesian' complete with nose-ring?

Aah, old skool cow with low vis markings.

Omg, what a useless thread, can't believe it's still blathering on.

Tip: Threads continue when people reply

Can you make some usable thread? Or are just you happy to snipe useless ones? If you are, why are you then complaining? Shouldn't you be happy when you just got some anger out of you?

sad but true. the most trash section on SimHQ.it has nothing to do with the freedom of speech.some people pour out their private frustrations here.and moderation allows it

Cows ... hmm could think of other in game things that could do with sorting out before making cows


Suprised some one has said ... cows in DCS ... i suppose it goes with all the bullsh!t that ED come out with

Bommer & xii, if you two want to echo chamber circlejerk, h*ggit is over there------->

And your sentence differs from those comments.. how exactly? I don't see much difference, other than the sentence and the negativity in it is directed towards other posters.

What's that got to do with an internet forum?
Have you ever checked up on the definition of "freedom of speech"?
Do you get hurt inside when people voice opinions you do not like?

your comments have nothing to do with criticism. it's pure hatred.think about your life.because something really is wrong with him.
I'm going , I do not want to stick to #%&*$#.
btw yes I also hate dcs, but this is not my idea of life.

theOden you and ice got a ban on bms for hating dcs.and here any discussion ends, it's a waste of words.

Sorry but that statement is quite Stupid. I myself don't hate DCS, but I am angry at some of the incompetent decisions and priorities they have. 4K Cows and trains, really? Come on, there are so many things to fix in DCS besides these two items. The funniest thing to me is, when the pilot is walking through the field the immersive cows swish their tails, lift their heads, but the can't walk or move? Maybe the immersive part is that that makes cow tipping much easier and no longer only a nighttime activity? One other serious gripe I have. It now takes up to 10 minutes to load a quick scenario DCS supplied mission if one doesn't have an SSD. To the OT, the deliberate mislead, 8GB for minimum specs and the later statements of actually needing 16GBs and 32GBs for heavy missions and MP. They knew this from before 2.5 release and deliberately held out on making this Public for as long as they could to soften the potential outrage of its customers. At least that is IMHO how I see it unfolding.

S!Blade<><

PS: Tom Weiss, I see there is a flaw in the cow template.(pic 1) Could you please build a new one.(pic 2) This is killing the immersion for me. Thanks in advance.

Sweet cows

Nope, I got canned for calling out a mod's immensly weak behaviour.
I totally see his need to ban me for that, internetspowers adds alot to some folks life.

And no #2, I do not hate DCS but I find it a very weak simulator - but it sure is a very well made cockpit simulator.

it really depends on what you expect from it.

GCI play following AFTTP, DCS is must.

As a mudmover I am not looking for GCI

I think we're getting a little off topic here but, why is DCS a must for Air Force Tac/tech/procs?
I can see intercept routines in IL2 Dover screeching through the air in an hungry Spitfire could fall off the mark but if Jet Fighters is mandatory it seems to me you guys choice of DCS is due to lack of alternatives (BMS should be fine though or why is that sim out of the question?)

Isn't this gameplay you guys do based on your efforts more than DCS?

(Maybe we should open a new thread discussing what one can and cannot do in DCS and some good gameplay suggestions? )

so here we have another example about how the proximity fuze is completely useless in DCS

[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/7HvRcVmeMy8?t=6m23s[/video]

Wow, that's two examples

But ya

LMAO! I love the smugness of the Admins here. Bet ya didn't see that coming. Seriously, I really appreciate the even handedness of the Admins on SimHQ. Not kissing up, as for the record, I have had a few vacations.

S!Blade<><

Pretty funny video...

I agree this thread is boring and protracted, and seems to have no real purpose, a filler thread, innundated with drivel, i.e. useless, whoever previously said that. Posted by XIII, the comments have nothing to do with criticism, it's pure hatred about your life. What does that mean. It's all about criticism, mostly valid. I think it's this kind of ED inspired culture, cultivating blind allegiance within a large number, that is aimless, very detracting and ultimately counter productive, such as giving cows instead of improvements or new additions to existing aircraft. There are simple typos in the manual that haven't been corrected since lomac was released. Also, this community, or more so this developer, does not spend that time rather or to produce in depth training missions which is very unusual, to utilize the systems. Most of it is assorted tips that are scattered everywhere, that are disconnected, or I just don't have time now to get into it because I'm an extreme expert on the subject, posting videos about things everybody knows, except for the German guys and some BMS postings. Need someone to translate German. Or scattered tips if you're in a virtual squadron, hint: you're not a real pilot. It can't just be "Stay focused, keep your head in the game, don't get discouraged, keep your chin up, and practice, practice, practice, or discussing the scenery, there's Sally corridor or there's Rachel farms", I don't care about Rachel farms.That's a reason I have serious disagreements with posters that constantly praise ED, how they view this sim, and despite the expenditure how this sim is presented. That's the idea of education, so you build upon something already discovered, you don't have to develop Maxwell's equations over again, make them up yourself or wing it. Most of the "training" missions are "It's Showtime, and we're keeping score". I don't know what that means, I can do that myself in the mission editor, would much prefer to have the time spent developing exercises that actually explain ACM for example. That's the difficult work.

For those of you on the fence buying Hornet early release after reading the fair and objective criticism in this enlightened thread, I would say go for it, especially if you have an Oculus.

In my opinion, in it's current unfinished state, this module is a masterpiece. It will only get better. This week they will be adding ILS and NVG's.

6 months of testing and only now have implemented NVG's? seems like another 5 years before the aircraft leaves 'Beta' state at this rate of common system implementation......

well deserved vacations?

not as funny as the 'official' response.



In other words, "the server that is hosting the mission is bugged, wait until the 'dedicated' server release and all missiles will be fixed"

If you have not seen that on other MP games you are totally blind. It's called lag, but sometimes someones brains lags much more.

oh wow .... ED

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/90b45a/the_dcs_ns430_seems_to_have_been_enabled_for_a/

9 pages of SimHQ humour on the initial release of the GPS module......many people called out this business model too - link

Some people get mad when someone say something negative regarding DCS/ED but sadly facts is that the amount of negative news......facts.....coming from DCS is incredible higher than the positive ones........

enlighten me - this ns430 replaces the map view ? I looked at the e-shop and they are charging $5 for each airplane, so for FC3 that would mean maybe $60 ?
I am sorry to ask such a basic question, but I am really out of the loop.

When it comes to buying anything from them, I just patiently wait. Then when there's a sale, and the item I want is half price off or more, I buy it. I've gotten all of my DCS modules at half price or more.

@ Tom

I believe this is just an add-on to apply more modern navigation and radio functions to some of the older aircraft instead of using the native ones. I do not believe it will impact the use of the kneeboard as a "GPS" through the use of marking your location

OK - I've used something like that in P3D with the Twin Otter and Mustang, once while going all the way from Washington to California then to Arizona ending in Utah, it was fun.

Yea it's a good navigation tool for aircraft which can't use mission editor waypoints.