DCS

[Lusekofte]

I get about the same smoothness in PG map as I do in GB. 

[DD_Arthur]

12 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I get about the same smoothness in PG map as I do in GB. 

 

Hmmm....not sure I can quite say the same but the PG map does seem to give the best VR performance out of all the DCS maps.

 

I should have put in my question;  don't worry about the Normandy map.

 

Has DCS made any pronouncements on whats happening with VR performance or whats in the pipeline at the moment? 

[Lusekofte]

Not as I have seen. I think DCS never will be as smooth as GB.  When updates come you never really knows if it will bring havoc or improve. 

I many times feel like a scientific research mouse for codes firing up DCS after an update. 

[DetCord12B]

On 9/2/2019 at 8:35 AM, LuseKofte said:

Normandy map is a fps killer itself. Nevada and PG map is much smoother. 

 

New feature is improvement but can also be a curse.

Do like me say f***k loud and clear and turn off that game for a while when frustration get too high. And do something else. One have just to accept it for what it is  

 

Quote

In this case a improvement. Automaticly you guys assume those making it can be put on what you mean should be done. In most cases that is not the case.

 

I don't assume anything. That's you're own bias seeing and associating biases.

 

Spoiler

Every complaint in this topic has been said in numerous groups on facebook and in ED forum.

 

Yeah, a series of complaints or observations by a userbase clamoring for reform made almost a decade ago. Let that sink in for a moment, a friggin' decade, in which almost nothing has been done to address the rampant and glaring issues associated with the engine and to bring parity up to modern standards, let alone optimization. 

 

Spoiler

It is a known factor we all have to live by.

 

No you/we don't. This is what I don't understand. This nonchalant, uhh whatever, suck it up mentality when people talk about DCS. It's just so grossly negligent, abysmally lazy and is nothing but a free pass to ED to continue their time honored tradition of never, ever, addressing anything. Stop enabling them.

 

Spoiler

Meeting a new feature with attack simply is stupid.

 

No its not. New features are great and all, but introducing new features without fixing decade long issues is not only haphazard but moronical. All that tells me is that they're comfortable with the status-quo and will only add engine parity and optimization when enough people complain and or it becomes financially beneficial to do so.   

 

Spoiler

I will ask Luke to come here to beat a dead horse. There is so many obvious faults and things to disagree on. But it is also a maximum amount of times the many issues got to be mentioned. 

 

How long until that dead horse actually renders a result? Perhaps, maybe, another ten years?

 

Spoiler

....One have just to accept it for what it is 

 

Ugh, sounds like an IGN or the myriad of other lackadaisical paid-for apology letters around the industry. You wouldn't post a positive review of a mediocre game from the likes of Ubisoft, EA, or Activision with regards to awful optimization, system use or anything else, so why does ED get a pass? They get said pass because they're the only game (Modern Combat FS) in town. ED has no incentive to fix anything because no-one can challenge them, period.  

 

On 9/2/2019 at 1:28 PM, Art-J said:

On the contrary. With its current, very rough implementation, the effect throws me around severely every few seconds during dogfight, when following ever-looping AI warbirds in high-G turns. That's why I turned it off until they tweak it more (not to mention negative performance impact) ?. I guess jet-head guys will have to take it into account when doing aerial refueling as well. All and all, every FM fidelity related update is welcomed, though I also wouldn't mind other aspects of the sim being updated as well.

 

Yeah, that's you placing yourself into a jetwash situation. Combat pilots specifically avoid those encounters when approaching a formation, APD'd, taking off, ect. My point stands.

[Aap]

1 hour ago, DetCord12B said:

New features are great and all, but introducing new features without fixing decade long issues is not only haphazard but moronical.

 

DCS has it's issues, but DCS World did not even exist a decade ago. The only stand-alone DCS module that is more than a decade old is the old version of DCS: Black Shark. Their second model, Warthog, as well as DCS World's first version was released in 2011, 4/5 of a decade ago, after which it has had at least a couple of major upgrades.

It is of course possible that some people were complaining about everything already before anything was released, but that probably tells more about these people than the product.

 

1 hour ago, DetCord12B said:

Combat pilots specifically avoid those encounters when approaching a formation, APD'd, taking off, ect. My point stands.

 

Pilots specifically avoid stalls, too. I wonder why flight sim developers waste time in having stalls simulated.

Edited September 4, 2019 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, DetCord12B said:

assume anything. That's you're own bias seeing and associating biases.

You can look at yourself as a victim, but buying multiple modules and then look at yourself as a victim   Such behavior I call stupid.  

[LuftManu]

Well it's not a secret that DCS is the worst and the best study sim on the market. You won't find something worse in terms of bugs and performance but you also won't find anything else in the study department. Well, BMS offers both but it's not pretty nor has more than 1 full fidelity aircraft.

 

I am out of the wagon from DCS. I hope I can say that without somebody telling me to go back or we will lose DCS!!!! ?

The fanbase of DCS is full of white knights applying denial on their forums, a place where you can't even mention another sim or your message will be deleted and every problem is just a feature you are not able to master, cause you are a casual. The purism and shortsighted on their critics won't help anybody. And yes, you can say the same about some Il-2 fanboys here but at the end of the day, the product woks as they stated and I am still waiting for my multicrew huey for more than 5 years...

 

You still enjoy DCS? Congratulations, that's a valid opinion but I would like to have what they promised to me and better QA for stability. Thats not an opinion, that's a fact.

Edited September 4, 2019 by LF_Gallahad

[bzc3lk]

On 9/4/2019 at 4:15 PM, LuseKofte said:

You can look at yourself as a victim, but buying multiple modules and then look at yourself as a victim   Such behavior I call stupid.  

 

No, I would call him a person who can speak from experience by supporting the developer with his multiple module purchases,  hoping that things may be fixed as a result of his financial support.  The behavior I would call "stupid" is the blind fanboi rhetoric I see from some individuals who see no problems with ED's business development and business practices and then attack people who highlight such issues.

Edited September 6, 2019 by bzc3lk

[Lusekofte]

41 minutes ago, bzc3lk said:

No, I would call him a person who can speak from experience by supporting the developer with his multiple module purchases 

Well stupid was a hars word. I should have put naive. 

Because it takes only half of a hour in ED forum to get nothing will change ever. 

This is why I never really been disappointed by ED and DCS. I found what I like and stuck with it. 

This continued frustration about what should have been is simply futile 

[DetCord12B]

On 9/4/2019 at 1:08 AM, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

DCS has it's issues, but DCS World did not even exist a decade ago.

 

DCS as a platform launched in late 2008-09, that's a decade.. plus. The same observations made then are being made now time and again, over and over and over, and little if anything has been done about addressing them.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 1:45 AM, LuseKofte said:

You can look at yourself as a victim, but buying multiple modules and then look at yourself as a victim   Such behavior I call stupid.  

 

Continue to avoid my observations several posts back, points relayed and backed up by facts. They are facts after all while yours are just hearsay and personal opine. Continue to shove fallacies and your own opinions into any and all responses of yours in an attempt to avoid addressing them. It is what you're doing after-all, as blatantly evident to everyone.

 

The above is by far my favorite, veiled, ad-hom, diversionary tactic. You say I've bought multiple modules and consider myself a victim. However, you have no knowledge as to my DCS purchases yet state them as fact. Typical avoidance tactic of an intellectually bankrupt nit (see, I can do ad-homs as well). But for your edification, the last DCS addon I bought was the Huey, a module launched back in 2013. I decided then and there not to float anymore money to ED until they fixed the glaring and haphazard issues associated with the platform. That was six years ago...

 

Now, if you're ready to address the concerns of the vast majority of the community they're on the previous page (taken from Hoggit and ED posts), though something tells me you won't. You'll just tow the party line or engage in another diversionary tactic. Honestly, I have to admit, you're really good at it and its almost like you work for ED. Wait...do you?

[Aap]

5 minutes ago, DetCord12B said:

DCS as a platform launched in late 2008-09, that's a decade.. plus. The same observations made then are being made now time and again, over and over and over, and little if anything has been done about addressing them.

 

That is just not correct. DCS: Black Shark (first version) was released back then. When they released DCS World in 2011, they had to do wholly new Black Shark 2, because the "platform" was so different. After that they have released at least two major upgrades to DCS World, where "platform" was changed so radically that the versions were not compatible with each other.

But anyway, as I did not have the original Black Shark, could you maybe list some of the "rampant and glaring issues and observations" that "nothing has been done" about during this period?

[dburne]

5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

That is just not correct. DCS: Black Shark (first version) was released back then. When they released DCS World in 2011, they had to do wholly new Black Shark 2, because the "platform" was so different. After that they have released at least two major upgrades to DCS World, where "platform" was changed so radically that the versions were not compatible with each other.

But anyway, as I did not have the original Black Shark, could you maybe list some of the "rampant and glaring issues and observations" that "nothing has been done" about during this period?

 

Yes in 2008 the original Black Shark was released, and I purchased it then.

Very much a stand alone product.

 

The DCS World platform as you say came a few years after that.  I remember all the hoopla that went on when original Black Shark users were told

they would have to purchase Black Shark 2 in order to be able to use it from within the DCS World platform.

 

These debates are never productive, all games have their pros and cons - and each individual is different on what they enjoy and what they can live with or not.

I myself enjoy both IL-2 GB and DCS, but they both provide very different experiences for me.  I spend more time in IL-2, as I find

DCS much more complex and more time needed to learn the aircraft I am interested in. IL-2 I spend more time flying and having fun with, and the single player aspect with the Career, PWCG, and scripted campaigns just can not be beat.  DCS I spend more time studying before eventually getting to fly the way I want. It is very rewarding to me though when I do. Problem for me is the older I get the less time studying I want to do.

 

There really should be no need for one to defend their choices, or critique others choices. Flight Sim community is already small as it is.

Both developers play a huge role in helping keep this niche gaming genre going, and we as a community are lucky to have them both still developing the products.

[InProgress]

5 hours ago, dburne said:

Flight Sim community is already small as it is.

And this is kind of a problem, because you have crazy fanboys on both sides who will hate and wish death to other product. Like buying one sim will block you from having others. They see it as threat to their favorite game.

[OrLoK]

I fly both DCS and Il2 (and other Flight Sims)

 

None are perfect and I believe the devs are doing their best producing whichever game they are in charge of.

 

If I could take the best of all the sims and squish them together, id be happier but im sure we could all point out flaws even then.

 

For my money BoX is (for me) the best "allrounder" of the lot but I do need my other sims to get my fix of things not present (DCS clicky pits/ Xplane nightflights etc)

 

Even if aspects have been delayed for years changed or dropped in sim X or Y, dont feel that the devs are doing so to spite us, development is a very slippery beast and with all the will in the world, sometimes things simply dont pan out as planned 

 

I bet the devs are as just as irritated when stuff doesnt work out as we are, if not more

[bzc3lk]

I was hoping the Dev's may have considered one of these for the Bos collector aircraft. Gives the a20 a sting in the tail and looks good too.

 

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, bzc3lk said:

I was hoping the Dev's may have considered one of these for the Bos collector aircraft. Gives the a20 a sting in the tail and looks good too.

 

 

A sting in the tail?

Check out the sting in the nose.

[MiloMorai]

That A-26 must be under remote control as there is no pilot.

[InProgress]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

That A-26 must be under remote control as there is no pilot.

[gn728]

Just curious  - has ED ever done a multi crew AC. I'm familiar with the current catalogue, but don't know what they may have done in the past....?

[DD_Arthur]

On 9/7/2019 at 9:55 AM, MiloMorai said:

That A-26 must be under remote control as there is no pilot.

 

Correct.  AI only as part of expansion of WW2 assets pack.

[MiloMorai]

I know what it said, just trying to get exposure for the A-26.

[Aap]

11 hours ago, gn728 said:

Just curious  - has ED ever done a multi crew AC. I'm familiar with the current catalogue, but don't know what they may have done in the past....?

 

I think Yak-52 is the only multi crew (two-seat) aircraft that ED has done by themselves.

[nirvi]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

I think Yak-52 is the only multi crew (two-seat) aircraft that ED has done by themselves.

And the L-39 Albatros

[Bremspropeller]

Lots of new F-16 videos in a short time. Gonna be out pretty soon, I guess.

[Lusekofte]

F 16 might be the one I probably will spend time learning. Or the F 18 or the Harrier. Fack there isnt going to be time is it? 

[dburne]

5 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

F 16 might be the one I probably will spend time learning. Or the F 18 or the Harrier. Fack there isnt going to be time is it? 

 

Lol, I have resumed my efforts to learn the Hornet - determined to make it through this time.

I hope...

 

I just love that plane and Carrier Ops.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Been buying the WW2 modules. Enjoying them quite a bit. 

[9./JG27golani79]

On 9/10/2019 at 8:35 PM, LuseKofte said:

F 16 might be the one I probably will spend time learning. Or the F 18 or the Harrier. Fack there isnt going to be time is it? 

No there wont be time ... speaking out of experience ? 

 

May buy the F-16 nontheless .. ^^

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Allies are advancing in Normandy pushing back the few Wurgers.. 

[DD_Arthur]

On 9/1/2019 at 9:09 PM, DD_Arthur said:

I wonder if those of us who are using DCS with VR could tell us about the performance they're getting at the moment?

 

A few weeks or perhaps a couple of months back we were told of a 'fifty per cent increase' in VR performance....or words to that effect.  Since then we must have had at least four or five minor updates to the game.  My impression was that the beta received an update that really did improve performance.  Subsequent updates seem to have decreased this performance increase.

 

Looks like I got the answer to my question here;

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=249511

 

So after an initial announcement of a fifty per cent performance increase in VR, it now turns out they need to build a new graphics engine?

 

Truly bizarre

[Lusekofte]

Well I believe the mess can only be solved by a complete rebuild. I dont like the VR performance in Caucasusmap. And that map have all the good campaigns for MI 8   

One oddity though. I tried for the first time in VR the KA 50. And my cockpit setup is just like it. I reach for the stick and it is excactly where it is in game collective too with buttons at the same place. Truly mindblowing

[Rolling_Thunder]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Looks like I got the answer to my question here;

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=249511

 

So after an initial announcement of a fifty per cent performance increase in VR, it now turns out they need to build a new graphics engine?

 

Truly bizarre

You remember when we said we were working on a 50% increase in VR performance? Well we were talking sh1te, as usual.

Everything is subject to change, except our incompetence.

[dburne]

15 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Looks like I got the answer to my question here;

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=249511

 

So after an initial announcement of a fifty per cent performance increase in VR, it now turns out they need to build a new graphics engine?

 

Truly bizarre

 

I was apparently one of the few that did get a nice little performance increase. Can't say it was 50% but was certainly noticeable.

But yeah with so many not seeing any increase, was certainly a let down.

[Jade_Monkey]

21 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Looks like I got the answer to my question here;

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=249511

So after an initial announcement of a fifty per cent performance increase in VR, it now turns out they need to build a new graphics engine?

Truly bizarre

 

[Hoots]

21 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Looks like I got the answer to my question here;

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=249511

 

So after an initial announcement of a fifty per cent performance increase in VR, it now turns out they need to build a new graphics engine?

 

Truly bizarre

 

Yeah no change for me, if anything it seemed slightly worse but nothing scientific to test it. Caucuses seems up and down with VR performance. I’ve got a pretty decent set up too. 

[Sokol1]

"One of the most anticipated WWII modules for DCS is the P-47 and we are excited to say it is getting close"

[Lusekofte]

7 minutes ago, Sokol1 said:

"One of the most anticipated WWII modules for DCS is the P-47 and we are excited to say it is getting close"

The most antisipated? 

Not heard anyone mention it

[gn728]

Haha - just checked my Kickstarter paperwork - Oct 2013 - they're moving right along... But hey, when the whole thing collapsed I guess they could have just said sorry, adios.

Last I checked I still get one - and an Me-262...... 

[Jade_Monkey]

Honestly, it dosen't look too good. I am a huge P-47 fan, it is my all time favorite plane. Based on that screenshot I feel nothing.

 

I'm not hating on DCS, I think their improved P51 model is excellent and the spitfire is great (i have some qualms with this particular FM). But this thunderbolt  looks meh, and the lack of ww2 content makes it even more awkward.

[Feathered_IV]

1 hour ago, Sokol1 said:

"One of the most anticipated WWII modules for DCS is the P-47 and we are excited to say it is getting close"

 

1 hour ago, LuseKofte said:

The most antisipated? 

Not heard anyone mention it

 

Most anticipated module of 2014