DCS

[Lusekofte]

I liked Nevada map better before the latest patch, now I get blue shadows and flickers. 

Normandy map surprised me , I could fly in it with fps up to 60 and had absolutely no stutter while flying choppers in it. But when I sat in the Dora and was up high to take care of some flights of B 17 i had major lagg several times, but it started to run smoother after a while. Turkey-shoot  all the way with no gunners. I liked it in many ways. But I think I need a new computer to be able to fully enjoy this map. caen was amazing, absolutely adorable to fly over

[Guest deleted@83466]

I liked Nevada map better before the latest patch, now I get blue shadows and flickers. 

 

 

I think everyone is getting that, and I'm sure they're fixing it.

[Trooper117]

I've just been flying the Spitfire for the last two hours... good fun.

I haven't bought the Normandy map or the assets pack yet... funds are low. I might have to wait for a sale in the future... wait!... fathers day?

[coconut]

The patch released this week was really good.

 Great improvements with the lighting and performance when using deferred shading.

 

I captured a quick video in the Mirage just to show you how gorgeous the sunset looks now in DCS.

 

https://youtu.be/WAxlJY4jx5c

 

Don't mind the spastic track ir movements, just check how gorgeous the sunset looks.

 

I just captured it with shadow play and uploaded it as it was, so it looks like youtube messed up the quality quite a bit.

 

I really like their new Mars map!

 

... Joking, you're right, it's pretty. I found the ground very red, but it's possible it looks like that in reality at sunset, I suppose.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So with a 1080Ti I've managed to crank up settings quite substantially and run game at 1440p DSR, it makes game look very good and run quite pleasantly with 75 - 120 FPS with Fastsync. However, when I have tried to raise the bar to 4k DSR frames dipped to 40-60 FPS and I'd have cut some other settings to get more which did not seem worth at given point. Still, it takes the most powerful GPU on market to get this game running well. There is a lot of optimization they have to do. 

[Lusekofte]

Well I have a old TV and pc, I run the game in mediocre settings and without mirrors I got over 60 fps and with under . low altitude around 40. I do not know if it is my rubbish screen and pc, but I do not notice stutter with 40 fps. Do you?

If there is no noticeable effect for low fps I personally do not care about the numbers. I think however as it is now it need a lot of work. I think this will be fixed because it has been until now very stable visually for me. I only see the limitations on my old rig by using fraps.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Do you?

I did, severe and apparent with my 760 GTX when I was flying with fps below 60. I can clearly see the difference on my monitor between 40-60 and 75-120 FPS Luse, so I feel like 1440p with high settings right now is acceptable. Fast sync is also keeping ms in 7-12 range so its not bad. Wish I had funds for G-sync monitor, but will have to wait for that a couple of months.

 

Regardless though, after sitting in DCS for a few hours I think map is looking quite good and has plenty of detail (except for roads, missing towns and that kind of historical "detail") but neither weather effects, nor other features impressed me. Il-2 might not have such good textures but after recent patches it does look about as good as DCS for me, and effects in Il-2 are superb. Flying at dusk with medium clouds on spring/autumn maps is great. While I appreciate the job, I'm not impressed and blown away by the graphics. 

[Lusekofte]

Ok , I was genuinely asking if that was the case. I know some see fps stutter under 60 fps witch is claimed to be fps stutter. In my tv this is not noticeable. And many times I wonder why. Is it so slow that it is not detectable.

I can only see stutter when I use Fraps for recording 

[Trooper117]

I've been flying the Spitfire of late... just a few screens from the 'landing' flight mission.

 

A couple of circuits to get her correctly set up and then I'll attempt a landing.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok... this time I'm going in

 

 

 

On approach

 

 

 

Safely down

 

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by Trooper117

[Danziger]

I wonder what they do differently with their textures. The amount of shine looks a lot more realistic. It is a matt looking paint but you still get the light reflections. I have tried so many times to get this kind of effect using the alpha channel on my skins and it is always too matt or too glossy and wet looking. 

[Gambit21]

[Gambit21]

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very nice.

That looks like the same ol airfield from the IL2 1946 Normandy map.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Gambit21

[Gambit21]

Only much nicer of course  

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Those cliffs do not look that great  though, rather flat. 

 

But regardless, biggest pain in the ass for me is memory leak of DCS. Game basically loads huge amounts of memory (especially at 1440p+ resolutions) and my RAM usage jumps from 3 GB to 11-12 GB when I enter quick mission, I cant launch more than one mission subsequently though as then I get Windows warning that system run out of memory and certain programs will be closed. It's like leaving first mission and getting to menu does not drop the RAM usage and it stays above 11 GB, so when next mission is being loaded it mounts memory usage on top of that.

In multiplayer respawns count that way and after 2-3 respawns I'm running out of memory. 

 

I seriously cant believe it was released in such a bad shape, for all those years of work and development, the amount of major and apparent bugs is just enormous. 

[Bearfoot]

Those cliffs do not look that great  though, rather flat. 

 

But regardless, biggest pain in the ass for me is memory leak of DCS. Game basically loads huge amounts of memory (especially at 1440p+ resolutions) and my RAM usage jumps from 3 GB to 11-12 GB when I enter quick mission, I cant launch more than one mission subsequently though as then I get Windows warning that system run out of memory and certain programs will be closed. It's like leaving first mission and getting to menu does not drop the RAM usage and it stays above 11 GB, so when next mission is being loaded it mounts memory usage on top of that.

In multiplayer respawns count that way and after 2-3 respawns I'm running out of memory. 

 

I seriously cant believe it was released in such a bad shape, for all those years of work and development, the amount of major and apparent bugs is just enormous. 

 

Whoah!

 

This is weird ... and definitely not universal.

 

I know, because recently I was experimenting with adding memory to my system, to see if going from 16 GB to 32 GB would improve VR performance. So in both 1.5 and 2.0 (2.1 was not out yet), I ran multiple single missions, back-to-back, as well as a couple of campaign missions, while closely monitoring memory usage (RAM as well as GPU), while tweaking different graphics settings. And there was no indication of any memory leak along the lines you describe. And I am talking about, at times, like a dozen and a half missions in a row. Admittedly, each one was very short, no more than 10-15 minutes of flying max, so maybe that had something to do with it. But while some were simple, others were decidedly and deliberate more complex, to stress the system. 

 

Now flying 2.1, and routinely run through several to a couple of dozen missions in a row, and no memory exhaustion. BTW, I am back to 16GB --- sent back the extra 16 GB because my tests not only found no significant improvement in performance, but also that I never really exceeded 15GB or so max.

 

I'm not saying that you are mistaken about your experience. But mine demonstrates that the situation is not necessarily DCS per se, or, if it is, it is fixable.

 

Apart from some third-party program that you are running that might have some weird interaction with DCS, the only other possibilities I can think of are:

 

(1) specific modules? I spend most of my time in the following: Spitfire, Gazelle, Huey, Bf-109, F-86

(2) OS -- I am running Windows 10 CE

(3) NVIDIA shadowplay or some sort of similar screen recording software (none for me)

(4) antivirus (none for me)

(5) tacview (though I run this by default myself)

 

In addition, it should be worth noting that I disabled all my windows indexing services. Apparently, DCS creates/deletes a lot of small files when launching a mission, and this can drive your indexing software crazy. Disabling these are a good idea for performance even if they are not responsible for the memory leaks.

 

EDIT: OK, just registered that you mentioned multiplayer specifically. All my rigorous tests were, of course, SP. But while I definitely do more SP than MP, I've also definitely and routinely run through maybe up to half a dozen MP missions on a row without issue on my 16GB system. Typically on OpenConflict and more recently the various WW2 Normandy servers (Burning Skies, RAF, etc. etc.). Again, no issue.

 

EDIT2: And when you say "Quick Mission", do you mean the insta-mission-autothingamajig-generator? TBH, I've never used this (find it makes pretty crazy missions, and far prefer hand-rolling my own or use ones other people make). So maybe this is the culprit?

 

EDIT3: Ah, I see you mention 1440p. While all my tests were with VR, and, at the time I did have a 4K monitor, I also have not faced this issue in the good old days of 2D on said 4K monitor.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Bearfoot

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

For those who are interested in F/A-18C Hornet

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj6Co10SxH8

 

And according to author, we should see some carrier ops today!

[nirvi]

New Hornet Stick for the Warthog Base:

 

[Feathered_IV]

The Normandy map looks very confusing.  What time period does it represent? Is it before D-Day, with the beach obstacles and defences in depth arranged correctly and only the German occupied airfields represented?

 

Or is it set just after the successful landings, with the landscape showing the effects of massive aerial and naval bombardment, battle, flooded fields, and the presence some of the extra allied airfields and installations etc?  Or maybe a sort of hybrid peacetime recreation.  with good lawns, and unblemished towns & airfields, with no evidence of war?  From what I've seen it looks more like a golf course than a compact, hard fought battleground.

[Bearfoot]

The Normandy map looks very confusing.  What time period does it represent? Is it before D-Day, with the beach obstacles and defences in depth arranged correctly and only the German occupied airfields represented?

 

Or is it set just after the successful landings, with the landscape showing the effects of massive aerial and naval bombardment, battle, flooded fields, and the presence some of the extra allied airfields and installations etc?  Or maybe a sort of hybrid peacetime recreation.  with good lawns, and unblemished towns & airfields, with no evidence of war?  From what I've seen it looks more like a golf course than a compact, hard fought battleground.

Whatever time period you want, from c. 1939-ish to 1945-ish. With some creativity to overlook, e.g., 1940's era civilian cars hard-coded in parking lots, old-fashioned power/telephone lines, lack of high-tension power lines, etc., you could conceivably stretch it to maybe even the 60's or later.

 

BUT you (or the mission designer) will have to work at it.

 

Landscape damage/destruction has to be set through trigger zone effects. 

 

D-Day defenses set through various assets/objects (still in development).

 

Airfield ownership entirely configurable.

[Trooper117]

The latest update planned for today has been put back till next week... 

[Urra]

The latest update planned for today has been put back till next week...

Always last minute. Was waiting...

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Bearfoot: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=188106

It's not only me but larger numbers. I wasnt running out of memory when I was playing at 1080p and medium settings. With 1440p and high quality textures its just a different story. 

[Bearfoot]

Bearfoot: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=188106

It's not only me but larger numbers. I wasnt running out of memory when I was playing at 1080p and medium settings. With 1440p and high quality textures its just a different story. 

 

Interesting. It appears to be a 2.1 issue at high-res, and maybe related to switching terrains? If one or the other or both, then yes, even if it exists and is universal, I would not have experienced it: since I got my VR (before 2.1 came out) I have been flying low-res as I have been flying VR exclusively, and since Normandy came out, I have not switched terrains as I have been flying Normandy exclusively!  

Edited June 14, 2017 by Bearfoot

[Gambit21]

I wonder if the F-14 will be easier to learn than the F-18.

 

I just have no time, and I have BoS to fly and BoS campaigns to build...but I'm intrigued despite myself. I can see a Nevada Top Gun campaign.

 

I think the AI might disappoint there.

Is the AI on their "to do" list?

[BeastyBaiter]

Everything is on their to do list, the F/A-18C was planned back in 2010 or something, but they didn't start actually working on it until late 2015 from the looks of things. In any case, the AI is sufficient for jet on jet combat with missiles. The highly simplified flight and damage modeling is problematic for WW2 and Korea but much less so for more modern stuff.

 

In terms of complexity, I think it will depend on your perspective. If all you want to do is start it up, takeoff and fire some air to air missiles, I expect both to be pretty simple. The difference is that is all the F-14 can do while the F-18 also has bombs and rockets as well as anti-tank, anti-ship and anti-radar missiles. Each one of those should be simple to learn, but taken together it's a lot more stuff than the F-14 has. Obviously, you don't need to learn it all if you don't want to. Nothing wrong with doing air to air only if you so desire.

[Bearfoot]

Everything is on their to do list, the F/A-18C was planned back in 2010 or something, but they didn't start actually working on it until late 2015 from the looks of things. In any case, the AI is sufficient for jet on jet combat with missiles. The highly simplified flight and damage modeling is problematic for WW2 and Korea but much less so for more modern stuff.

 

In terms of complexity, I think it will depend on your perspective. If all you want to do is start it up, takeoff and fire some air to air missiles, I expect both to be pretty simple. The difference is that is all the F-14 can do while the F-18 also has bombs and rockets as well as anti-tank, anti-ship and anti-radar missiles. Each one of those should be simple to learn, but taken together it's a lot more stuff than the F-14 has. Obviously, you don't need to learn it all if you don't want to. Nothing wrong with doing air to air only if you so desire.

 

By all accounts, the F-14 radar management is going to be very, very, very, very complex. Think Falcon BMS complex, except without about a half-decade to a decade's worth of software engineering to streamline the task-load. There was a reason you needed a dedicated G.I.B. on the F-14! They are supposed to have an AI-in-the-back that you can "command" that will let you just focus on flying the bird, so I guess you are willing to relinquish control of the radar operation and missile guidance (which is arguably at least on half of the heart-and-soul of the F-14), maybe you can get away with "simple"?

 

I think there is this idea that more modern = more complex, which is necessarily true. It seems that as technology improves, things actually get a lot simpler in some aspects until things start to creep in other ways and take over the system into another direction and things become a lot more complex again. For e.g., flying the 109E is a lot more complex than the G2. And, carrying things over, the F-86 is a whole lot more simpler to fly AND fight in than the 109. But then we cross the valley when we spring forward another 10-20 years to the F-4 generation. 

 

Having said all that, I confess: I have no idea which will be more complex! But I rather suspect that neither will be simple enough so that if you have no time for one, you will have time for the other.

 

At the same time, however, I also think there are many levels to learning the complexity, and you do not need to swallow the whole coconut in one sitting. You just need to crack it open and then slowly chip away at it little by little over time. I think that over a weekend or two you could learn enough about something as complex as the A-10C or BMS to get things rolling satisfactorily enough to enjoy it, and then simply ride the remainder learning curve "on the job" so to speak (i.e., learning things on a as-need basis). While, at the same time, take years to master it and still learn/discover something new after half a decade or more. The same approach will work for the F-14 or the F-18 ... and I really doubt that the complexity of either of these will be less than the A-10C or BMS Falcon ...

 

EDIT: the Harrier is also coming along nicely, and seems even more further along than the F-14, so that's something else to consider! I am no expert, and I am sure others will chime in if I'm wrong, but I think the avionics/systems complexity of the Harrier is probably simpler than either the F-14 and F-18. Flying it, on the other hand, is another kettle of fish. (Also, it depends if you prefer the ground-pounding emphasis over the A2A of the F-14 or as possible with the F-18)

Edited June 14, 2017 by Bearfoot

[MiloMorai]

 

 

For e.g., flying the 109E is a lot more complex than the G2.

 

Why is that?

[BeastyBaiter]

Depends on the 109E, I think he meant a very early model that didn't have automatic prop pitch. Regardless, I think a good measure of complexity is simply the number of buttons/switches needed to do various tasks. As soon as you cut out all the fuses, circuit breakers and other fluff that is completely meaningless for us, it really doesn't have that much going on. Radar complexity looks similar to that of the MiG-21 to me, which isn't bad at all even if a bit finicky.

[ACG_Invictus]

New Hornet Stick for the Warthog Base:

I'll be buying one! Add it on the the VKB MCG grip (based on the new Sukhoi T50), VKB KG12 metal stick (if they ever release it), and my Warthog and Cougar sticks and I think I'll have everything covered.

[Gambit21]

Bearfoot and Beasty, thank you for your input.

 

I'm probably after something that just doesn't exist right now, and likely will not.

MiG 15/F-86 is perfect for me, but there's just no content aside from one implausible (even if fun) Museum Relic campaign.

Or as someone else mentioned, I can fly unattended air shows...which will get old fast.

 

There's an outside chance I might go for the F-15/Red Flag thing...that's appealing to me.

Most likely I'll just see what develops over the next few years (as I have been over the last few years) but realistically BoX, (especially with PTO on the way) plus campaign building will not leave me any time for DCS.

If PTO does indeed arrive as planned, I'll be very busy campaign building, flying and skinning.

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

Everything is on their to do list, the F/A-18C was planned back in 2010 or something, but they didn't start actually working on it until late 2015 from the looks of things. In any case, the AI is sufficient for jet on jet combat with missiles. The highly simplified flight and damage modeling is problematic for WW2 and Korea but much less so for more modern stuff.

 

In terms of complexity, I think it will depend on your perspective. If all you want to do is start it up, takeoff and fire some air to air missiles, I expect both to be pretty simple. The difference is that is all the F-14 can do while the F-18 also has bombs and rockets as well as anti-tank, anti-ship and anti-radar missiles. Each one of those should be simple to learn, but taken together it's a lot more stuff than the F-14 has. Obviously, you don't need to learn it all if you don't want to. Nothing wrong with doing air to air only if you so desire.

 

They are going to make both F-14A and B models, and at least B model has A2G capability and can carry LANTIRN pod.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

Seems like DCS finally got some attention from the outside world. Also, I always have that feeling that best stuff is shown on E3 and for the Gamescom they only bring leftovers. 

[Lusekofte]

 

 

I'll be buying one! Add it on the the VKB MCG grip (based on the new Sukhoi T50), VKB KG12 metal stick (if they ever release it), and my Warthog and Cougar sticks and I think I'll have everything covered.

 

To me the most important thing is the base, but I get your grip fetish. I like things to be as realistic as possible, the feel and look on hardware matters to me a great deal

[Bearfoot]

Folks, just as an aside, I would like to say that anyone who has any interested in complex engine management in combat, should jump in the DCS Spitfire. I've been flying this for quite a while, and it really is a challenge! The need to cut your throttle whenever you drop below 180 mph makes for an incredibly frustrating flying experience at first but also an incredibly rewarding one later. It fundamentally changes how you fly --- chopping power in a climb and relying on inertia to get you there, and then powering up in a dive to gain as much energy as you can while you can. You have to think two steps ahead in your tactics and maneuvers to plan for this.

[Guest deleted@83466]

So, is it confirmed that Thrustmaster will be selling the grip standalone without the base?

[BeastyBaiter]

They are going to make both F-14A and B models, and at least B model has A2G capability and can carry LANTIRN pod.

 

Wrong. The F-14B being made will not have any air to ground capability beyond unguided bombs nor will it have the LANTIRN pod last I heard. They are making a 1990's F-14B, I'm not 100% sure it even has CCIP bombing.

Edited June 16, 2017 by BeastyBaiter

[Sokol1]

So, is it confirmed that Thrustmaster will be selling the grip standalone without the base?

 

For now Thrustmaster say nothing about this grip to be released, if is add-on for Warthog or standalone joystick... all is Internet speculation including the "F-18 HOTAS" talking, that they did not say anything about it.

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

Wrong. The F-14B being made will not have any air to ground capability beyond unguided bombs nor will it have the LANTIRN pod last I heard. They are making a 1990's F-14B, I'm not 100% sure it even has CCIP bombing

 

I seriously hope you are wrong then :| Because i would be hugely disappointed if there wont be any multicrew guided weapons [edited]

Edited June 17, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[Jade_Monkey]

Can someone explain to be the Steam vs Non Steam thing with DCS?

 

Any BOS analogies are welcome.

 

I know that to access the betas for Normandy and some planes, you need a non-Steam account.

 

Does that mean that you have to buy the modules from their store? What about when they come out of beta? will you be able to play them on your steam account without double purchasing?

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

I don't have anything from DCS on steam, buuuuuut.... I've heard many many many many many complaints about 'when will xyz be released on steam' etc etc. As I undertand things only go to steam when they are release, which usually means months, if not years after it actually comes out. K4 was 'released' late last year. I always got the impression steam was just for if you want to for some reason prolong the already ridiculously long wait it takes for DCS content to be released.

Edited June 17, 2017 by 9./JG27DefaultFace