DCS Nevada - next gen flight sim engine is now live!

[Guest deleted@50488]

In my rig EDGE runs even better than 1.5.1, even over Las Vegas.

 

I look forward for their Normandy Map.

 

I am particularly fond of the systems depth and detail simulated in all ED aircraft modules I own.

 

Some are still WIP, like the K4, but getting better with each new update. The K4 actually suffered some update with EDGE ( 2.0 Alpha ), and it feels even better now  IMO.

[Trooper117]

I won't touch this... flying over Nevada, just not my cup of tea, flying around a training area, not for me...

All that time and effort for sightseeing?

I have 3 WWII aircraft from DCS and nowhere to actually fly and fight them in a meaningful environment.

I have 2 Korean war jets, same as above.

I will gladly pay good money to advance my hobby and help the DCS cause, but I don't think I can go for this somehow... 

[TheBlackPenguin]

I won't touch this... flying over Nevada, just not my cup of tea, flying around a training area, not for me...

All that time and effort for sightseeing?

I have 3 WWII aircraft from DCS and nowhere to actually fly and fight them in a meaningful environment.

I have 2 Korean war jets, same as above.

I will gladly pay good money to advance my hobby and help the DCS cause, but I don't think I can go for this somehow... 

 

Understandable, and as its modular we get to choose . Normandy Map for sure and maybe the Hormuz (spelling?) map for me. 

 

I got the Hawk from VEAO, so should be fun to fly through Nevada, but I think they're also making some WW2 planes which will also make me broke and left wondering how I can create more time.

[Cybermat47]

I won't touch this... flying over Nevada, just not my cup of tea, flying around a training area, not for me...

All that time and effort for sightseeing?

I have 3 WWII aircraft from DCS and nowhere to actually fly and fight them in a meaningful environment.

I have 2 Korean war jets, same as above.

I will gladly pay good money to advance my hobby and help the DCS cause, but I don't think I can go for this somehow...

 

Same for me. I appreciate and respect the effort the devs put into modules and maps, but I won't be buying any WWII, Korea, or Vietnam modules until I actually have a suitable map to fly them on. And to be honest, Nevada, while looking beautiful, just doesn't excite me. I can only see it being useful for training missions and fictional Russia invades US scenarios. I'll be sticking to modern day aircraft modules for now.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Same for me. I appreciate and respect the effort the devs put into modules and maps, but I won't be buying any WWII, Korea, or Vietnam modules until I actually have a suitable map to fly them on. And to be honest, Nevada, while looking beautiful, just doesn't excite me. I can only see it being useful for training missions and fictional Russia invades US scenarios. I'll be sticking to modern day aircraft modules for now.

 

Everibody agree about this, but T4 is a total different engine to create maps, and now it's possibile.....so we should have some more stuff coming.

Hormuz is confirmed as for Normandy, and for sure Korea will come as well.

 

Nevada is just a demo but it run incredibly smooth, much better than DCS 1.5. I'm really impressed for an alpha.

Windows 10 does work great.

Edited December 4, 2015 by 150GCT_Veltro

[Mastermariner]

Whats the point of Nevada and Las Vegas? Hookers! Painted hookers! Seriusly I have heard that the DCS have some orders from US MICs so what we are given is probably a spinoff from the sims where they train new pilots.

 

Master

[fdswer]

It is the best looking thing out there for flight sims right now the screen shots don't do it justice.  It doesn't bother me that its Nevada and not some real world war location its a game and I have just as much fun fighting there then I do in Stalingrad or France.   

[Guest deleted@50488]

For me, a true sim addict, aviation addict as a matter of fact, I'm AMAZED with the quality of NTTR, and I want to support the cause and really look forward for the Normandy Map, of course, but am perfectly fine with dogfighting over Caucasus in my ww2 modules.

 

Above all I admire the quality of their flight dynamics and overall systems modeling, the quality of their 3d models, and the more support users give to the ww2 line of modules the bigger chances we have of seeing ED investing on that Era...

 

For rotary wing flight dynamics, nothing comes even close to DCS, and I am really enjoying flying the UH-1H and the Mi-8 over NTTR.

[LukeFF]

Luke, I think you know better than to assume that "pixels on a screen" can't be a contentious issue

 

Just look at the debates we've had here over the display (or lack thereof) of swastikas on a couple of tail fins. And that's over a conflict and a set of atrocities that happened over 70 years ago.

 

Battlefront currently sells a game based in Syria, and it's never been a contentious issue. Heck, an even newer title of theirs covers a hypothetical war between Ukraine and Russia, and the community handles that topic just fine. 

[LukeFF]

For me, I think DCS makes some amazing individual content, but collectively they have a scattershot focus. One day it's helos, the next it's Korean War-era jets, the next it's trainers and WWII planes, and when they do put their effort into a new map it's for a training range. It's just way too haphazard for me to invest any more money in at this point.

Edited December 7, 2015 by LukeFF

[Sokol1]

 

 

... the next its trainer

 

And instead one, came three!!!     

 

If at least one these are NA T-6 

[ST_ami7b5]

Will skip this map for sure...
Normandy will be quite different story

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

To paraphrase a character from The Walking Dead TV Series.

 

I have come to believe that all sims are precious.

 

For now I enjoy Nevada for it's nicely done desert terrain. Once I am outside Las Vegas , I could be anywhere in the Middle-East.

 

Planeset is very much on time with planes that are currently taking part in fighting in Syria. Mirage 2000 on the way.

 

In the future when Strait of Hormuz map is released , we could see a campaign that starts with training in Nevada and then sends you into real combat zone in Strait of Hormuz.

 

Lots of cool possibilities in the future.

 

I think 2016 is shaping up pretty nicely for flight sims fanatics.

 

Battle of Moscow and possibly an announcement of new theater and maybe another early access.

 

Team Fusion 5.0 for Cliffs of Dover , almost a brand new sim.

 

Spitfire and other planes for DCS World 2.0 , possibly more maps.

 

Oculus Rift and HTC Vive releasing consumer versions of their VR headsets.

 

We are in for a treat in the new year.

 

 

https://youtu.be/5o4bzYZ-jao

Edited December 6, 2015 by 307_Banzai

[Cybermat47]

For me, I think DCS makes some amazing individual content, but collectively they have a scattershot focus. One day it's helos, the next it's Korean War-era jets, the next its trainers and WWII planes, and when they do put their effort into a new map it's for a training range. It's just way too haphazard for me to invest any more money in at this point.

Have to agree with you there. While the WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and trainer aircraft look superb, I just can't invest money in them when they have no map to go on. For now, I'll only be investing money in modern-day combat aircraft.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I get the impression that DCS World as it is will be a long-term success. There are relatively few third party additions out so far while lots are in development, and most of the ones that are coming complement the others. Little by little there will be maps, aircraft and so on to create many full-fledged scenarios as we had in the Black Sea. All in all, looking at everyone's roadmap it seems DCS will still remain the world's go-to modern combat simulator, which is where I believe it works best anyway.

[gavagai]

The Nevada map was promised to beta-purchasers of the A-10C many years ago. I'll fly a Bf 109, a Mig-21, or anything over that map.  The scenery is top notch.

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

Stuff possible in DCS.

 

All footage was recorded online. There is one ugly lag spike before F-15 take-off . The rest is in my opinion quite spectacular.

 

https://youtu.be/2x17iuZXy60

 

https://youtu.be/2loob3fqEVg

 

Turn a blind eye to non-collision roof and little head glitch.

 

https://youtu.be/vwYJAC5_Jpc

 

Little walking tour.

[johncage]

I won't touch this... flying over Nevada, just not my cup of tea, flying around a training area, not for me...

All that time and effort for sightseeing?

I have 3 WWII aircraft from DCS and nowhere to actually fly and fight them in a meaningful environment.

I have 2 Korean war jets, same as above.

I will gladly pay good money to advance my hobby and help the DCS cause, but I don't think I can go for this somehow... 

 

the game has two maps, east black sea region and nevada. why did you buy ww2 planes if those are the only available areas?

 

the problem with dcs is them constantly pandering to people yelling for diverse range of aircraft while never considering what their main goal is. and i don't think they honestly have a clue. they just want to produce as many different planes as possible so they can get that niche money from guys who absolutely must have the mustang or some other plane, modeled in that renowed study sim level of quality.

[Finkeren]

the problem with dcs is them constantly pandering to people yelling for diverse range of aircraft while never considering what their main goal is. and i don't think they honestly have a clue. they just want to produce as many different planes as possible so they can get that niche money from guys who absolutely must have the mustang or some other plane, modeled in that renowed study sim level of quality.

Nailed it.

 

Not that there's really anything wrong with having the focus be simply on having a study sim where you can both fly and fight properly in a range of warbirds (mainly Cold War-era ones) on a modern day map. That's fine. It's just never gonna satisfy someone like me who craves a realistic historical setting and atmosphere more than having every single little detail about the planes recreated flawlessly.

 

With the Normandy map still far off in the distance, the new thing to wait for, if you're into WW2 stuff, apparently is an Iwo Jima map with a single flyable F4U. That's the thing about DCS: It always seems to be about what's waiting just beyond the horizon. With BoS/BoM we at least have loads of stuff we can actually play with. It never rests on the promise of great things to come.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Finkeren

[steppenwolf]

...they just want to produce as many different planes as possible so they can get that niche money from guys who absolutely must have...

 

...It never rests on the promise of great things to come.

 

This place hasn't been doing both those things??

 

Both games have big holes, but face it guys - Nevada's the new standard in map design. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

ED made the Mustang for a reason. They had long term plans with DCS WW2 (which they put inot the wrong hands) and have been doing jet stuff for a good couple of years already. And, let's be honest, by the time the Mustang and Dora came, Flaming Cliffs 3 was nothing but a slightly graphicly pimped verison of FC2. No 3d pits, no EFMs ect.

 

What the 3rd party guys do has nothign to do with ED. They simply sign their products if everything fits without breaking stuff and thats about it.

 

Not that I'm completely happy with their marketing strategy but it's not all black and white as soem try to put it. Now that the Normandy map has been taken over by a 3rd party dev I'm glad work on that and WW2 aircraft will continue simultaneously.

[kestrel79]

I'm not getting smoother fps like everyone has claimed. Can everyone post their graphics settings with the new DCS graphics engine? What's a resource hog and what's not? I need to mess with my settings. Everything looks great!

[Urra]

I'm not getting smoother fps like everyone has claimed. Can everyone post their graphics settings with the new DCS graphics engine? What's a resource hog and what's not? I need to mess with my settings. Everything looks great!

Resource hogs for me are lens blur. Have that off. 10 percent less usage using flat terrain shadows. And reduce shadow quality setting to reduce gpu usage further. Shadows off to ultra setting is another 10 percent difference. Also gain 4 percent usage by turning off sli.

Edited December 31, 2015 by roaming_gnome

[89-]

Great review from Froogle. "There is no better scenery in flight sims at the moment - even ORBX FSX scenes are way behind".

 

 

I fully agree

Edited January 15, 2016 by 89-

[No_85_Gramps]

Beautiful video! Now, if I could only fly the KA-50 that smoothly...need more practice.

[1./ZG1_ElHadji]

I bought the Nevada map simply to support one of few developers that sticks with this niche market in an era of dumbed down AAA games. It looks great and 2.0 performance seems promising even if it is still just in alpha (and my rig isn't brand new with 2xTitanX's - see my sig for details on what I run on). But it IS pretty boring once you have found all UFO's and passed the Hoover dam a few times. As a tech demo NTTR is great though! I agree with what was said above of the unconsistent releases for DCS but by the looks of it, things will change with the new T4 engine. My fav 3rd party developer, Leatherneck Simulations, will release scenarios to go with their planned modules. Can't wait to fly a AJS 37 over Sweden! And they will release a Pacific scenario for the F4-U.

 

Personally I never understood the Normandy 1944 choice though. I can think of many other scenarios that would make more sense from a gaming perspective. Battle of Britain is of course almost too obvious, but I would love to see North Africa, Malta and plenty of others as well. How will battles be realistic in a 1944 scenario? 600 AI bombers escorted by a couple of hundred P-51's will surely kill any Titan Waterforce configuration... And speaking of bombers. Where are they? A WW2 flight sim without bombers seems utterly pointless and so far no development of B-17's or Lancasters have been mentioned. Not even light bombers... The K-4 was made to shoot down bombers and so was the fighter version of the 262.

 

If ED and the 3rd party devs got their act together and focused on ONE scenario and era at the time it would be great and it would probably speed things up a bit in terms of releases.

 

DISCLAIMER

Everything in this post is subject to change.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Edited January 16, 2016 by -=XBOYZ=-ElHadji

[89-]

My screenshots  Note the reflections on the TV tower. All windows have reflections like these.