DCS

[-332FG-Gordon200]

 

[MiloMorai]

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:17 PM, Jaws2002 said:

The map is gorgeous. A lot of stuff is not done yet, but the geography and local climate, definitely are going to make fighting challenging.

 

I think DCS has now the best graphics engine in the flight sim world.

 

 

Now if only the rest would be up to the standard of their eye candy.

[Rolling_Thunder]

On 5/24/2018 at 6:17 PM, Jaws2002 said:

 

I think DCS has now the best graphics engine in the flight sim world.

 

 

Really? They need a decent texture artist. Normandy looks terrible, the colours are shite. Normandy also performs pretty atrociously with msaa on. VR is a no go for me in DCS while BoX performs brilliantly. their graphics engine needs to go a loooong way before it can be called the best.

[Sokol1]

 RWIN + Home for startup script (like in BoS).

 

 

[CanadaOne]

Any idea when the Persian Gulf map will be on Steam?

[Field-Ops]

I think its a bad move for them to release "FC4" using currently modeled full release aircraft. If they arent going to do all new aircrafts then there is no audience to cater to except new simmers, which are few and far between these days.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

11 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

Really? They need a decent texture artist. Normandy looks terrible, the colours are shite. Normandy also performs pretty atrociously with msaa on. VR is a no go for me in DCS while BoX performs brilliantly. their graphics engine needs to go a loooong way before it can be called the best.

Well, if you dumb down whole DCS to Normandy only, then you perhaps could put up such argument. And even then its invalid, since their textures are actually very good and high res. Though I admit colors are a bit unnatural, at least on my monitor, it looks like someone used pastel or something (mainly the green of background, grass and trees). And there is an issue with lightning (on all maps and with all modules). But in general if DCS has flaws, graphics is not one of them.

As for the performance, yes, Normandy lacks optimization. I wish it was the other way and that UGRA-Media company which made it, would work on improving map, rather than pursue a new one. But at least now DCS is making an effort to improve framerate, I actually have about 80-90+ FPS on Normandy with settings on high (except for MSAA which is x2, and object and cockpit shadows which are flat). That is pretty similar to what I have in Il-2 which is about 10-15 FPS better ... and now they work on introducing Vulkan API along with fixing RAM issues, so it will get better.

 

But Persian Gulf is really something else. It looks fantastic and most importantly performs well. After some time flying there I just cant complain. It's a well done map.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I think it looks pretty good. Some aspects of it are better than Il-2, in others Il-2 works much better. I'm glad we have both.

 

Some skin testing:

 

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, 216th_Lucas_From_Hell said:

I think it looks pretty good. Some aspects of it are better than Il-2, in others Il-2 works much better. I'm glad we have both.

 

 

It does look good in the absence of weather and down low (as in the commonly posted screenshots). Then the high res photo terrain looks good. Up high, the flat earther is not really to my taste. Ground lightning and optics don't really fit then anymore. But it is subtle and you have to know what to look for. In BoX, we are low enough for this not really becoming an issue. It is just cosmetics about things like not being able to climb into sunlight and descend again into darkness and no visible line of shadow separating night from dark.

[Blutaar]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Up high, the flat earther is not really to my taste.

 

Nasa is lying to us. The Earth is flat! Just like our brains. 

 

But seriously, there are many people out there who believe such nonsense. It is frightening.

[BeastyBaiter]

I wouldn't say BoX looks any better high up. In fact, until the fairly recent change to the view distance, I considered BoX unplayable above 4km.

[dburne]

29 minutes ago, raaaid said:

please ignore this coment and go on but i couldnt resist

 

No worries there...

 

?

[Rolling_Thunder]

11 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Well, if you dumb down whole DCS to Normandy only, then you perhaps could put up such argument. And even then its invalid, since their textures are actually very good and high res. Though I admit colors are a bit unnatural, at least on my monitor, it looks like someone used pastel or something (mainly the green of background, grass and trees). And there is an issue with lightning (on all maps and with all modules). But in general if DCS has flaws, graphics is not one of them.

As for the performance, yes, Normandy lacks optimization. I wish it was the other way and that UGRA-Media company which made it, would work on improving map, rather than pursue a new one. But at least now DCS is making an effort to improve framerate, I actually have about 80-90+ FPS on Normandy with settings on high (except for MSAA which is x2, and object and cockpit shadows which are flat). That is pretty similar to what I have in Il-2 which is about 10-15 FPS better ... and now they work on introducing Vulkan API along with fixing RAM issues, so it will get better.

 

But Persian Gulf is really something else. It looks fantastic and most importantly performs well. After some time flying there I just cant complain. It's a well done map.

like I said still a looong way to go

[Lusekofte]

Personally I find the modules like F5 and Other clickable pits planes easier to learn than FC3 planes. On the latter you need to memorize a lot of functions, on clickable pits all you got to do is hover the mouse over the button and it tells you what it does. I never really understood why full modules got higher status than FC3 planes

[Blutaar]

3 hours ago, raaaid said:

anyone whose absolutly sure the earth is flat of rounded without a personal proof is insane

 

the sane thing to do is being unsure about it

 

please ignore this coment and go on but i couldnt resist

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. All the evidence is available for everyone to learn. There is also plenty of proof for everyone to see without any tools like the sun illumanting clouds from below at sunrise or sunset. Or when flying with a plane directly after sunset or before sunrise. You takeoff at darkness and climb to daylight. Thats impossible on a flat earth. There are a lot more observations you can make like the different night sky in northern and southern hemisphere, ships dissapearing bottom first below the horizon, shadows, gravity, planets, the sun, the freakin southpole and many more. 

 

Sorry for offtopic but i couldnt resist. I promise, no more flat earth from me. ?

[Tuesday]

On 5/27/2018 at 3:02 PM, CanadaOne said:

Any idea when the Persian Gulf map will be on Steam?

 

June 1st

 

 

[dburne]

Wags confirmed today over on the DCS forums he is currently flying with a TM F/A-18C prototype stick.

[Trooper117]

Bully for him... Now, can they sort out the WWII mess they have got us into, then I just might buy something from them again...

[-332FG-Gordon200]

 

[CanadaOne]

11 hours ago, Tuesday said:

 

June 1st

 

 

 

Beauty! Thanks.

 

Get my new SSD from Amazon today or tomorrow. And DCS is pretty much the reason why. With the new Persian Gulf map I think the install will run 150GB+.

 

The money we spend because of flightsims...

[Wolf8312]

On 5/28/2018 at 2:14 PM, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Well, if you dumb down whole DCS to Normandy only, then you perhaps could put up such argument. And even then its invalid, since their textures are actually very good and high res. Though I admit colors are a bit unnatural, at least on my monitor, it looks like someone used pastel or something (mainly the green of background, grass and trees). And there is an issue with lightning (on all maps and with all modules). But in general if DCS has flaws, graphics is not one of them.

As for the performance, yes, Normandy lacks optimization. I wish it was the other way and that UGRA-Media company which made it, would work on improving map, rather than pursue a new one. But at least now DCS is making an effort to improve framerate, I actually have about 80-90+ FPS on Normandy with settings on high (except for MSAA which is x2, and object and cockpit shadows which are flat). That is pretty similar to what I have in Il-2 which is about 10-15 FPS better ... and now they work on introducing Vulkan API along with fixing RAM issues, so it will get better.

 

But Persian Gulf is really something else. It looks fantastic and most importantly performs well. After some time flying there I just cant complain. It's a well done map.

 

Gonna have to buy that one now as well sigh!

 

But I agree with others WW2 map is a bit of a letdown, doesent seem to have been much effort put into it.

 

That said I really think the DCS developers are good, they respond promptly and politely on the forums and really do seem to listen and work hard to fix and improve problems.

 

People need to give them a break and be a little more understanding as to the scale of the mammoth undertaking they have taken on. And its not perfect but performance has improved lately (damage models no longer lag game I dont think) and even the colors seem to have been toned down a bit. What they are doing now will take the game into the future, when our PC's performance (VR) catches up, DCS will be epic...

 

The VR performance and therefore the campaigns mean BOS is probably leading at the moment and getting most of my time, but DCS still has the potential to be the best, and as it has helicopters still puts it neck and neck with IL for me.

 

[BOO]

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:14 AM, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Well, if you dumb down whole DCS to Normandy only.

 

But at least now DCS is making an effort to improve framerate, I actually have about 80-90+ FPS on Normandy with settings on high (except for MSAA which is x2, and object and cockpit shadows which are flat). 

1 hour ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

People need to give them a break and be a little more understanding 

I totally get the overall picture - there is a lot of good things. SOH looks incredible. As a jet and helo sim its great and it is ambitious so will fall off its bicycle now and then. 

 

But that dumbed down bit...Normandy....cost a good deal of money in comparative simming terms and hasn't been touched in over a year. On top of the map and assets, I, like many others naively purchased the WW2 modules to fly in it when it arrived. A not inconsiderable sum of just around £300 all told. It was bad to start with and only slightly better now. At 300ft and above its playable on a reasonable rig. I dunno what height you fly by under that its a stutter fest for me, even with restrained settings. And it can be as Hi-res as it wants - For a map who's marketing claimed it to be the most accurate representation ever it falls way short for anyone actually bothered by that stuff. I couldn't care less about highly refined pixels if miles of mapping are generically detailed or incorrect (I'm fine with generic but not where something obvious should be).  Missing iconic landmarks, misplaced towns and many generic tiles (only made reference to by the devs AFTER the release and I'm not talking about the English side of the water). Somehow, this seems to have been sidestepped with the "its not just Normandy 1944" and the rolling out of the notion of the Sandbox mantra but Dubai has the buildings you'd expect, even Vegas looks ok (closed but ok). Normandy doesn't even have Pegasus Bridge (which was there for a long time before and after 1944). I wont make reference to the colours in detail - its been said enough. 

 

as for the modules - sticky, non delay fused bombs, missing loadouts, poor Damage models (its "in the works" - its always "In the works")

 

There are lots of good things to be said about DCS and EDs development but WW2 is the child locked away in the attic. And I feel it will be until there is at least some cash to be made from the P47 or F4U . Even then, I doubt their commitment to it or a viable and realistic environment in the same way they show to the jets. And I fine with that too - I just wish they'd be honest and upfront about it. 

 

As an outsider it seemed to take 1c/777 announcing Boddenplatte to even get ED to make a grudging reference to it. I'm sure it was a coincidence though. Even so its was a half hearted 4 liner at best and seemed more about using the genre as a training ground for up and coming developers,  a cash cow for the bigger effort and an assurance to Jonny Jet Head that those pesky old farts and their spitfires weren't affecting progress with the F18.  No issue with that either (mostly) given DCS's core customer base and prowess with all things modern but those 4 lines were devoid of notion of working to better WW2 which stood in stark contract to much of the rest of the content of the letter.

 

I remember reading the line about the return for cost of the P51 being greater than the A10 and thinking "so finish it and at least some of its world". But the line that really stuck in my craw was the one about being surprised at the interest and financial return WW2 generated. Damn right it did - cos we believed the hype and trusted in ED's ability to produce something good and we pre purchased maps and asset packs and bought modules in the boat load as a result. The lack of contrition or admittance that it was, and still is, a bit of a clusterf was breath taking. 

 

I hate Dev bashing. ED do a great job.  And I love DCS for everything it does so well. The Normandy mess wont stop me buying the F18 or Hormuz out of protest or mistrust. Why should it? It clearly works and its obviously fabulous. But DCS WW2 isn't and given the incredible progress made with 2.5 and Hormuz ED

perhaps does run the risk of alienating some of its customer base if it doesn't do something positive soon with Normandy and WW2. And I hope it does but I fear it wont.  

[Wolf8312]

22 minutes ago, BOO said:

I totally get the overall picture - there is a lot of good things. SOH looks incredible. As a jet and helo sim its great and it is ambitious so will fall off its bicycle now and then. 

 

But that dumbed down bit...Normandy....cost a good deal of money in comparative simming terms and hasn't been touched in over a year. On top of the map and assets, I, like many others naively purchased the WW2 modules to fly in it when it arrived. A not inconsiderable sum of just around £300 all told. It was bad to start with and only slightly better now. At 300ft and above its playable on a reasonable rig. I dunno what height you fly by under that its a stutter fest for me, even with restrained settings. And it can be as Hi-res as it wants - For a map who's marketing claimed it to be the most accurate representation ever it falls way short for anyone actually bothered by that stuff. I couldn't care less about highly refined pixels if miles of mapping are generically detailed or incorrect (I'm fine with generic but not where something obvious should be).  Missing iconic landmarks, misplaced towns and many generic tiles (only made reference to by the devs AFTER the release and I'm not talking about the English side of the water). Somehow, this seems to have been sidestepped with the "its not just Normandy 1944" and the rolling out of the notion of the Sandbox mantra but Dubai has the buildings you'd expect, even Vegas looks ok (closed but ok). Normandy doesn't even have Pegasus Bridge (which was there for a long time before and after 1944). I wont make reference to the colours in detail - its been said enough. 

 

as for the modules - sticky, non delay fused bombs, missing loadouts, poor Damage models (its "in the works" - its always "In the works")

 

There are lots of good things to be said about DCS and EDs development but WW2 is the child locked away in the attic. And I feel it will be until there is at least some cash to be made from the P47 or F4U . Even then, I doubt their commitment to it or a viable and realistic environment in the same way they show to the jets. And I fine with that too - I just wish they'd be honest and upfront about it. 

 

As an outsider it seemed to take 1c/777 announcing Boddenplatte to even get ED to make a grudging reference to it. I'm sure it was a coincidence though. Even so its was a half hearted 4 liner at best and seemed more about using the genre as a training ground for up and coming developers,  a cash cow for the bigger effort and an assurance to Jonny Jet Head that those pesky old farts and their spitfires weren't affecting progress with the F18.  No issue with that either (mostly) given DCS's core customer base and prowess with all things modern but those 4 lines were devoid of notion of working to better WW2 which stood in stark contract to much of the rest of the content of the letter.

 

I remember reading the line about the return for cost of the P51 being greater than the A10 and thinking "so finish it and at least some of its world". But the line that really stuck in my craw was the one about being surprised at the interest and financial return WW2 generated. Damn right it did - cos we believed the hype and trusted in ED's ability to produce something good and we pre purchased maps and asset packs and bought modules in the boat load as a result. The lack of contrition or admittance that it was, and still is, a bit of a clusterf was breath taking. 

 

I hate Dev bashing. ED do a great job.  And I love DCS for everything it does so well. The Normandy mess wont stop me buying the F18 or Hormuz out of protest or mistrust. Why should it? It clearly works and its obviously fabulous. But DCS WW2 isn't and given the incredible progress made with 2.5 and Hormuz ED

perhaps does run the risk of alienating some of its customer base if it doesn't do something positive soon with Normandy and WW2. And I hope it does but I fear it wont.  

 

Yep I agree with you the WW2 side of things needs urgent love, as I too recently purchased normandy map and asset packs and a plane to go with it, so I feel your pain and frustration.

 

[dburne]

My biggest gripe with the WWII part of DCS, is the utter lack of any single player action, other than a payware campaign which appears to be quite good although complex in nature.

 

Want to load up a quick mission for some dogfighting? Good luck with that unless you are into dogfighting modern jets in WWII aircraft. So to get some good SP action one has to either get the payware campaign, or start learning the Mission Editor. There is an instant action dogfight mission over Normandy, but gets pretty repetitive fairly quickly.

 

This is one area 1CGS definitely spanks DCS in.

 

Having said that though, I am looking forward to getting the F/A - 18C tomorrow and starting to learn to fly it over the Persian Gulf.

Really looking forward to learning carrier take offs and landings.

I do hope at some point though they throw some more resources at their single player part of the game.

[Wolf8312]

Well persian gulf map is worth every penny from my first impresssions. Colors are still not quite right IMO but it still looks and runs fantastic in VR. Gonna be a fun map for helicopters!

1 hour ago, dburne said:

My biggest gripe with the WWII part of DCS, is the utter lack of any single player action, other than a payware campaign which appears to be quite good although complex in nature.

 

Want to load up a quick mission for some dogfighting? Good luck with that unless you are into dogfighting modern jets in WWII aircraft. So to get some good SP action one has to either get the payware campaign, or start learning the Mission Editor. There is an instant action dogfight mission over Normandy, but gets pretty repetitive fairly quickly.

 

This is one area 1CGS definitely spanks DCS in.

 

Having said that though, I am looking forward to getting the F/A - 18C tomorrow and starting to learn to fly it over the Persian Gulf.

Really looking forward to learning carrier take offs and landings.

I do hope at some point though they throw some more resources at their single player part of the game.

 

Thats the problem I have with it. Helicopters (which are always fun) and even jets I dont mind just throwing a few assets on the map and flying around and blowing stuff up. But with WW2 I have become spoiled and accustomed to alot  more, thanks to BOS!

Edited May 29, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Tuesday]

2 hours ago, dburne said:

My biggest gripe with the WWII part of DCS, is the utter lack of any single player action, other than a payware campaign which appears to be quite good although complex in nature.

 

Want to load up a quick mission for some dogfighting? Good luck with that unless you are into dogfighting modern jets in WWII aircraft. So to get some good SP action one has to either get the payware campaign, or start learning the Mission Editor. There is an instant action dogfight mission over Normandy, but gets pretty repetitive fairly quickly.

 

The community that runs the Through the Inferno servers shares their mission files as single player missions for those that are for whatever reason not involved in multiplayer.

 

You are able to spawn in different sorts of missions (Air to Air or Air to Ground, etc.) using F10 in the radio commands.

 

Here's the mission:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3071826/

 

They also have one for the Caucuses and NTTR, but those do not include WW2 A/C.

 

There are lots of missions available for free, made by the community.  You just have to browse the User Files to find them...

Edited May 29, 2018 by Tuesday

[dburne]

1 minute ago, Tuesday said:

 

The community that runs the Through the Inferno servers shares their mission files as single player missions for those that are for whatever reason not involved in multiplayer.

 

You are able to spawn in different sorts of missions (Air to Air or Air to Ground, etc.) using F10 in the radio commands.

 

Here's the mission:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3071826/

 

They also have one for the Caucuses and NTTR, but those do not include WW2 A/C.

 

There are lots of missions available for free, made by the community.  You just have to browse the User Files to find them...

 

 

Thanks for the info, I will have to check some of those out.

[Tuesday]

No problem - they can be confusing to find at times. 

 

Through the Inferno stuff is great for offline.  I haven't tried the WW2 one that much but the Caucuses one is enjoyable for learning the systems on other aircraft - works great for figuring out the A-10C.

[Thad]

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 10:59 AM, Ishtaru said:

 

Nasa is lying to us. The Earth is flat! Just like our brains. 

 

But seriously, there are many people out there who believe such nonsense. It is frightening.

Seriously? The next myth you are going to tell is that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth.

[CisTer-dB-]

3 hours ago, dburne said:

My biggest gripe with the WWII part of DCS, is the utter lack of any single player action, other than a payware campaign which appears to be quite good although complex in nature.

 

Want to load up a quick mission for some dogfighting? Good luck with that unless you are into dogfighting modern jets in WWII aircraft. So to get some good SP action one has to either get the payware campaign, or start learning the Mission Editor. There is an instant action dogfight mission over Normandy, but gets pretty repetitive fairly quickly.

 

This is one area 1CGS definitely spanks DCS in.

 

Having said that though, I am looking forward to getting the F/A - 18C tomorrow and starting to learn to fly it over the Persian Gulf.

Really looking forward to learning carrier take offs and landings.

I do hope at some point though they throw some more resources at their single player part of the game.

 

1 hour ago, Tuesday said:

 

The community that runs the Through the Inferno servers shares their mission files as single player missions for those that are for whatever reason not involved in multiplayer.

 

You are able to spawn in different sorts of missions (Air to Air or Air to Ground, etc.) using F10 in the radio commands.

 

Here's the mission:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3071826/

 

They also have one for the Caucuses and NTTR, but those do not include WW2 A/C.

 

There are lots of missions available for free, made by the community.  You just have to browse the User Files to find them...

I guess that will be my next step since the multiplayer is now broken since 2.5.

 

Thanks Mardi

Edited May 29, 2018 by ATAG_dB

[Wolf8312]

Well damage models (taking damage) still lagging the game on the VIVE making it basically a no go!

 

Persian gulf at night is also pretty unbearable due to the lighting problem which isnt so bad on Vegas (but still exists) but when you have such a big city illuminated by so many street lights,  creates a mass ocean of shimmer!

 

Yeah these two problems, erratic fps drops, and lighting makes it hard to play DCS at the moment, especially when you load up BOS/K/M and it looks and performs so fantastically.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Wolf8312

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, I'm on the other hand back to flying!

 

[dburne]

Have been learning carrier takeoffs and landings with my fresh new F/A-18C over the Persian Gulf waters this afternoon.

It is truly breathtaking in VR, what a bird.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by dburne

[Lusekofte]

It is actually one of the few planes I haven't bought. I never fly jets . But consider doing it when time allows. Is every system working in it or is it in alpha stage?

[9./JG27golani79]

It is Early Access and not all systems / weapons are implented yet.

[CanadaOne]

2 hours ago, dburne said:

Have been learning carrier takeoffs and landings with my fresh new F/A-18C over the Persian Gulf waters this afternoon.

It is truly breathtaking in VR, what a bird.

 

 

 

 

What are your impressions of the new map? Might pick it up when it's out on Steam.

[Wolf8312]

16 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

 

What are your impressions of the new map? Might pick it up when it's out on Steam.

 

Performance is V good for the scale and detail of the map. A little less than Vegas but you will understand why when you see it. Looks really nice and with a staggering amount of buildings to fly in and out of with helicopters. Great fun and new and exciting, although perhaps a little reminiscent of vegas in texture and color/flavour.

 

As with the others gamma and time of day needs to be tweaked for a nice look.

 

Night time is completely and totally f*cked though in VR which is a huge shame for me as I love night flying more than anything. The street lights as with other maps congeal into one big mass of shimmering graphical corruption, and as there are so many buildings/lights on that particular map its rather unbearable to fly. Wouldnt even like to see it in a jet as at least a helicopter can remain close to the ground.  

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Wolf8312

[dburne]

19 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

 

What are your impressions of the new map? Might pick it up when it's out on Steam.

 

It is gorgeous along with the F/A-18.

 

[CanadaOne]

4 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

It is gorgeous along with the F/A-18.

 

 

I'll get the map but not the F-18. The Harrier is $90Cdn and I'm sure the F-18 will be the same on Steam. That's a whack of dollars. The map should about the same as the Nevada map, around $66Cdn. And I really like the Nevada map.

 

If there was a simplified version of the F-18, as there is with the F-15, I'd definitely grab it, but I'm not one of you hardcore techno flyers. Honestly, I spend more time just flying around as a tourist for fun in DCS than fighting. So a new map is a better investment for me.

[Tuesday]

29 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

I'll get the map but not the F-18. The Harrier is $90Cdn and I'm sure the F-18 will be the same on Steam. That's a whack of dollars. The map should about the same as the Nevada map, around $66Cdn. And I really like the Nevada map.

 

If there was a simplified version of the F-18, as there is with the F-15, I'd definitely grab it, but I'm not one of you hardcore techno flyers. Honestly, I spend more time just flying around as a tourist for fun in DCS than fighting. So a new map is a better investment for me.

 

I'm not sure which aircraft are selected yet, but they are making an FC4 which will consist of 4 pre-existing full-fidelity modules available at an FC3-level of operation.   Non-clickable, and simplified systems and weapons employment.

 

If for some reason they include the F/A-18, you will have exactly that - an FC3 F/A-18.  They haven't announced which 4 yet (doubting they will be new modules, however).