DCS

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

Yeah it pretty much always happens to me when i exit the F10 map. Takes few seconds to load the correct textures.

 

 

On 9/13/2018 at 7:22 AM, kestrel79 said:

Fired up DCS for the first time in a long time yesterday now that I got my flight config back up on my Obutto. Took the F-86 for a spin...coming from IL2 wow holy touchy controls and jaggy graphics/chugging fps. I know I have an old system but was expecting a little bit smoother on the stock map.

 

Any tips to get some decent fps and joystick curves? DCS always looks so pretty in videos and screenshots but not on my system. 

 

Try deleting your fxo and metashaders 2 folders from Saved Games\DCS.openbeta. When i'm having fps issues deleting those folders usually fixes the problem. I delete them after each update. And if the game looks crappy, adjust gamma. It really makes a big difference.

[Monostripezebra]

just some more helicopter gliding around..

 

 

and the wonderful hip

 

[Lusekofte]

That is incredible flying, how many attempts did you need ? 

 

[Wulfen]

For VR users in DCS this mod gives a big boost in FPS, making the game very playable at a noticeably higher pixel density https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=215373.  The masksize is adjustable and the author has MSAA restricted to center view. Big jump in performance. A similar mod for BOX could give a massive plus for VR users. BOX is still superior to DCS in VR in my view atm. 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Wulfen

[Monostripezebra]

2 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

That is incredible flying, how many attempts did you need ? 

 

 

Quite a few for the tower, but the Mi-8 going down on a ship is actually good and relative simple fun, if you keep the weight of the helo down. Half a tank of fuel and none of that military stuff and it´s a nice glider, max weight and it gets bricky quick.

[Lusekofte]

 

23 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said:

but the Mi-8 going down on a ship is actually good and relative simple fun

I flown it the most and fu*** up most , always when getting cocky. I watch all your videos , you really know how to have fun, and you do it with style and competence 

[dburne]

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 3:06 PM, Wolf8312 said:

 

Yeah I get good performance on DCS, about the same as BOX on the whole but with more occasional FPS drops.

 

But I noticed lately that the defered shading and graphics in general have improved so much. Caucasus cities look great, and in fact the whole game is beautiful in VR. DCS really nails the scale of the terrain. Even at miday it looks good in VR now, and the resolution in VR with no pixel density whatsoever and 4X MSSA is really pretty good. But yes DCS especially in VR defo makes good use of a 1080TI.

 

Yeah I get surprisingly somewhat decent performance even over Normandy now.  Yes the deferred shading and lighting are awesome now in DCS.

[Wolf8312]

4 hours ago, dburne said:

 

Yeah I get surprisingly somewhat decent performance even over Normandy now.  Yes the deferred shading and lighting are awesome now in DCS.

 

 

On an unrelated note got my new trigger from Virpil. Or should I say triggers. They gave me two types, one of which seems much more robust than the old one (that broke) I was using. Its kinda small and thicker in comparison, but it doesnt feel like it will break like the other one does. Anyway just wondering if you got the same thing and tried it out? Back on topic now!

 

TryDCS with that shader mod Dburne, it feels almost flawless to me now, with that on, though I dont fly missions with a huge number of assets. Very smooth things seem to actually move faster like the game is sped up... I use OVGME so I dont have to worry about it messing up any files as it can just be disabled.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Wolf8312

[dburne]

37 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

 

On an unrelated note got my new trigger from Virpil. Or should I say triggers. They gave me two types, one of which seems much more robust than the old one (that broke) I was using. Its kinda small and thicker in comparison, but it doesnt feel like it will break like the other one does. Anyway just wondering if you got the same thing and tried it out? Back on topic now!

 

TryDCS with that shader mod Dburne, it feels almost flawless to me now, with that on, though I dont fly missions with a huge number of assets. Very smooth things seem to actually move faster like the game is sped up... I use OVGME so I dont have to worry about it messing up any files as it can just be disabled.

 

Trigger - that is interesting, no the one I got was the same trigger as what I had. Nice to know - sounds like they beefed it up a little which it needed imho.

 

Shader Mod - no, have read about it but I really prefer not to run any mods myself so have not tried it. Will see what performance is like for me when I start the Spit campaign again. 

 

You talking about JSGME?

Edited September 16, 2018 by dburne

[-332FG-Gordon200]

Regarding a stronger trigger for VKB Gladiator or Virpil - I found metal replacement triggers for $10 + 8.56 shipping USD.

https://www.aliexpress.com/snapshot/0.html?spm=a2g0s.9042647.6.2.44054c4d83QvM8&orderId=94538254815168&productId=32826029058

 

Now back to your scheduled topic. 

[Wolf8312]

9 hours ago, dburne said:

 

Trigger - that is interesting, no the one I got was the same trigger as what I had. Nice to know - sounds like they beefed it up a little which it needed imho.

 

Shader Mod - no, have read about it but I really prefer not to run any mods myself so have not tried it. Will see what performance is like for me when I start the Spit campaign again. 

 

You talking about JSGME?

 

Kinda. It does the same thing as JSGME but I find it easier/better to use personally.

[Sokol1]

19 hours ago, Gordon200 said:

Regarding a stronger trigger for VKB Gladiator or Virpil - I found metal replacement triggers for $10 + 8.56 shipping USD.

https://www.aliexpress.com/snapshot/0.html?spm=a2g0s.9042647.6.2.44054c4d83QvM8&orderId=94538254815168&productId=32826029058

 

 

OT

 

 

This metal trigger in in Aliexpress VKBSim is VKB replacement for VKB Gladiator KG-12B grip only, is not compatible with VKB MCG grip - neither need because MCG triggers is already in metal, and being an VKB product obviously is not compatible with VirPil grips as you suggest.
 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Sokol1

[dburne]

25 minutes ago, Sokol1 said:

 

OT

  Hide contents

 

This metal trigger in in Aliexpress VKBSim is VKB replacement for VKB Gladiator KG-12B grip only, is not compatible with VKB MCG grip - neither need because MCG triggers is already in metal, and being an VKB product obviously is not compatible with VirPil grips as you suggest.
 

 

 

 

Edit: never mind.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by dburne

[Wolf8312]

1 hour ago, Sokol1 said:

 

OT

  Hide contents

 

This metal trigger in in Aliexpress VKBSim is VKB replacement for VKB Gladiator KG-12B grip only, is not compatible with VKB MCG grip - neither need because MCG triggers is already in metal, and being an VKB product obviously is not compatible with VirPil grips as you suggest.
 

 

 

 

Ya virpi under the trigger in question has a little plastic button. I would check with virpil before using anything metal, as they might not reccommend it.

[kestrel79]

Any good recommended graphics setting guides since the merged DCS version came out? I must have something set too high.

[Wolf8312]

On 9/17/2018 at 5:34 AM, dburne said:

 

Trigger - that is interesting, no the one I got was the same trigger as what I had. Nice to know - sounds like they beefed it up a little which it needed imho.

 

 

I would have been interested to see what you think. It’s not quite as cool as the old one, either in how it looks or feels, and it has a slight delay but that doesn’t make a difference, or at least doesn’t bother myself. What makes it a winner for me though is how much stronger it feels.

 

I think they sent me two types as I linked them to our discussion on this site in which 3 people all suffered the same problem one after the other, with all of us having been careful.

 

I honestly didn’t mind using the other buttons and the flip trigger was no great loss to me but I wanted to make them aware of the problem for their future products as it was the only flaw I found but I do strong believe we were not at fault. The old one seemed to degrade over time, rather than just suddenly snap, almost as if looking back, I could feel it going at times.

 

They also sent me a long strip of circuit boards of which I am unsure of the function, though perhaps they are related to the trigger. 

 

They are a very good company and I will definitely buy from them in the future, and just to stay on topic -but speaking truthfully- the Virpil stick with its hyper sensitivity, compliments DCS with its high sensitivity WW2 modules very nicely (especially spit and mustang)!

Edited September 21, 2018 by Wolf8312

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3631096&postcount=417

 

 

[scram77]

15 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3631096&postcount=417

 

 

Urgh!

 

Why?! Without a map for it, aircraft to fly on it or even any sort of opposition, what is the point of making that?

 

I wish they would stick to jets and helicopters - they are good at that, and have the market for it.  They should just leave WW2 alone whilst there are other companies doing much better in that area.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

As far as I'm aware there is intended map for it - Iwo Jima. And Rudel was talking somewhere about a Zero. 

 

I don't think anyone should leave anything. There is a competition and that's good for customers. Relying on a single product - flight sim in this case, means that if you don't like it or won't like it, you've got nothing to play. Dcs having ww2 creates alternative, and I like that one day I can fly in P51 i dcs and other day yak1 or spitfire v in il2.

[InProgress]

I feel like DCS is so random lol, like they put bunch of ideas about what to do to a glass bowl and just randomly take a paper with some idea what to do next. Then you get normandy map, planes that don't even fit into that operation and now going into pacific. Randomness of this game amazes me. It really pushes customers away if they do bunch of random stuff and never finish what they started. I feel like the only thing DSC has to offer are detailed cockpit procedures, so it's nice to learn the entire thing like in real life. But as a game, it fails horriblly.

[9./JG27golani79]

55 minutes ago, InProgress said:

I feel like DCS is so random lol, like they put bunch of ideas about what to do to a glass bowl and just randomly take a paper with some idea what to do next. Then you get normandy map, planes that don't even fit into that operation and now going into pacific. Randomness of this game amazes me. It really pushes customers away if they do bunch of random stuff and never finish what they started. I feel like the only thing DSC has to offer are detailed cockpit procedures, so it's nice to learn the entire thing like in real life. But as a game, it fails horriblly.

 

"They" - who is "They"?

 

There are different development teams involved in creating content for DCS - not only ED themselves.

So it shouldn´t be surprising that there is some variation regarding timeframes / locations ...

It is a sandbox and the developers provide different "toys" to play in this sandbox.

 

And how many times was it already said that ED took over finishing the kickstarter campaign? Normandy and the planes were part of the concept and ED is finishing it.

Was it a good decision to choose normandy and this planeset? Maybe not - but still you can have a lot of fun over Normandy as well.

 

The Corsair and hopefully Iwo Jima and a Zero have nothing to do with ED.

Edited September 21, 2018 by 9./JG27golani79

[InProgress]

But they are the one publishing it, if they can't keep some kind of quality control then it's their fault. Does not matter who make these, they are publishing it and if all they do is make ww2 map,  get 4 planes and let another company do diffrent ww2 thing, then it sucks (at least for me). Instead of saying "no guys, we should really polish normandy when we already started it, instead of making pacific you could take over normandy and expand it, after this you can do pacific". I don't care as customer who makes them and i don't think this company policy is "do whatever you like we will add it to DCS for profit" and if it is, then it's crap.

 

It's not a sandbox, sandbox lets you do lots of stuff and there is stuff to do. DCS has nothing unless you make it yourself in editor. That's not a sandbox.

 

Edit: I am talking about publishers, guys in charge, not dev teams.

Edited September 21, 2018 by InProgress

[9./JG27golani79]

If a 3rd party dev brings a plane to the table which reaches certain quality standards, then yes - ED pretty much is going to add it to the sim.

Different planes attract different customers who also might get other modules as well if they aren´t only interested in one certain module or scenario and the more customers the better for the sim.

 

I can´t imagine that ED is stopping developing WWII stuff after the P47 and the Me262.

There was talk already about a Mosquito and speculations about WWII aircraft in a "Flaming Cliffs" variant which, if they are received well may also be upgraded to "Full Simulated" modules.

 

3rd party devs do have different resources, possibilities and passion for certain aircraft - why should ED dictate them what to do if they are 3rd party and don´t have a contract with ED to create specific content?

 

Sure - everything takes ages in DCS but then patience is a virtue.

 

[Wolf8312]

11 hours ago, InProgress said:

I feel like DCS is so random lol, like they put bunch of ideas about what to do to a glass bowl and just randomly take a paper with some idea what to do next. Then you get normandy map, planes that don't even fit into that operation and now going into pacific. Randomness of this game amazes me. It really pushes customers away if they do bunch of random stuff and never finish what they started. I feel like the only thing DSC has to offer are detailed cockpit procedures, so it's nice to learn the entire thing like in real life. But as a game, it fails horriblly.

 

Sure if I looked on the internet I might find that the plane I am flying in, or against is slightly out of sync with the time period, but to be quite honest that is way too OCD for me to be worrying about, and its something I don't understand really...

 

Theres any number of little niggles one could say is unrealistic or immersion breaking about either DCS or BOX, the biggest of which have nothing to do with the games themselves. Your flight gear, (peddals and stick etc) is far more inaccurate and unrealistic in comparison to the equipment the real pilots actually used to use back then, than some historical technicality, as is the fact that they didnt used to push the  buttons of their planes with a mouse and keyboard.

 

Dont want to be one of those boring kill joys who says 'its only a game' but I think you'll have more fun with a greater willingness to suspend disbelief, as we all do this anyway already whether in DCS or BOX. I'm not saying I dont like historical accuracy, but just coming here from a mission called 'battle of britain' in my spitfire, I can honestly say, that despite flaws and imperfections, DCS is still incredibly immersive. I'm more put off by the horrible green trees close to the ground (garish in VR) than worrying about which variant of plane I am flying!

 

Take a spit out over dubai and have a dogfight, you'll have an absolute blast!

 

Tell yourself that you found a time machine in 1944, that some time traveller from the future had left there by mistake if it helps hehe!  

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Wolf8312

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Grass landing after engine fire.

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Dat poker face. "But sir, I did nothing wrong!"

[Lusekofte]

I do not say I know what going on over at ED, but I think they do what they like, they have a continuous flow of coders that can be used to projects like this. I stopped free flying in BOX and do that in DCS . Something is just right with that YAK 52. 

I feel I am managing a real plane . A owner of a similar plane had a review on it, and I think all though he pointed out several things that was wrong , still it is realistic for us never flown such a plane. Something with this sim make you want to do it properly, follow the procedures and navigations technique / routines . Same with the systems, you really want to learn them. For me there is not that important all the rest , when it comes to sim flying. 

[DD_Arthur]

17 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3631096&postcount=417

 

17 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

As far as I'm aware there is intended map for it - Iwo Jima.

 

But....but....hadn't the Yorktown been sitting on the sea bed for the better part of three years by the time the battle of Iwo Jima took place?

[Brano]

Thats CV-10 USS Yorktown of Essex class.

[AndyJWest]

5 minutes ago, Brano said:

Thats CV-10 USS Yorktown of Essex class.

 

Looks more like CV-5 to me.

[DD_Arthur]

38 minutes ago, Brano said:

Thats CV-10 USS Yorktown of Essex class.

 

Nope, that is not an Essex class carrier.  That is the Yorktown.

[dburne]

1 hour ago, LuseKofte said:

I do not say I know what going on over at ED, but I think they do what they like, they have a continuous flow of coders that can be used to projects like this. I stopped free flying in BOX and do that in DCS . Something is just right with that YAK 52. 

I feel I am managing a real plane . A owner of a similar plane had a review on it, and I think all though he pointed out several things that was wrong , still it is realistic for us never flown such a plane. Something with this sim make you want to do it properly, follow the procedures and navigations technique / routines . Same with the systems, you really want to learn them. For me there is not that important all the rest , when it comes to sim flying. 

 

Yes agree, learning the systems can be a quite daunting yet very rewarding task.

[InProgress]

6 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

A owner of a similar plane had a review on it, and I think all though he pointed out several things that was wrong

I remember watching video made by ED about fw190 D9 where they had actually ww2 D9 pilot and let him play the game. He talked stories etc but also said that some of this stuff is not right. I don't know if they bothered to fix it. 

 

6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

But....but....hadn't the Yorktown been sitting on the sea bed for the better part of three years by the time the battle of Iwo Jima took place?

Like dcs cares about historical accuracy :P

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For me their business model is a big no. Lack of any single player experience apart from few scripted campaigns (but how long can you play them over and over again). Lack of actual realism and not only historical one but also that feeling of being at war. 4 fighters over normandy and ai b17. Pacific will be similar I bet, few fighters and completely ignoring bombers, torpedo planes etc. 

 

I will buy a zero I guess just for the fun of clickable cockpits and real take off procedures. But I don't see myself really supporting this product if all they can provide is map and plane and make community deal with making missions for it. If I was into multi then it could be fun, but I just want SP.

18 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

Sure if I looked on the internet I might find that the plane I am flying in, or against is slightly out of sync with the time period, but to be quite honest that is way too OCD for me to be worrying about, and its something I don't understand really...

Wont bother you, will bother me. Everyone has different expectations and likes different things. I don't play these games for sake of flying and shooting only, big part of it is immersion and recreating what happened. Hard to do it if you get plane that never was there...

[Brano]

8 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Looks more like CV-5 to me.

Ah yes, you are right. I didnt zoom the pic on my mobile phone. Really weird decision. Essex class Yorktown was my immediate thought to fit late war scenario for Corsair....is it still in development?

[9./JG27golani79]

3 hours ago, InProgress said:

I will buy a zero I guess just for the fun of clickable cockpits and real take off procedures. But I don't see myself really supporting this product if all they can provide is map and plane and make community deal with making missions for it. If I was into multi then it could be fun, but I just want SP.

 

 

Understandable if you are more into SP than MP - so far I´ve flown DCS in MP for the most part and there it can be quite fun.

Depending on which server / what mission it can also make you forget the historical inaccuracies.

 

Not sure if you have taken a look at Wings over the Reich - FM isn´t on par with other actual sims but it offers a really nice SP experience.

Edited September 22, 2018 by 9./JG27golani79

[Feathered_IV]

10 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

 

But....but....hadn't the Yorktown been sitting on the sea bed for the better part of three years by the time the battle of Iwo Jima took place?

 

Oh boy, you can't make this stuff up!  

[Royal_Flight]

I just wish DCS has a focus. I really want it to get its shit together.

 

The closest to a coherent theatre I’ve seen so far is the proposed South Atlantic setting by Razbam, with a Falklands Islands map and assets in the works, and Sea Harrier, Mirage, Pucara and Super Etendard supposedly in research for development.

 

That would work perfectly for DCS as it does 70s/80s jets the best, as they have the best balance of pilot workload vs automation. 

Add a few helicopters and the ships to fly them off and the scene is set for a self-contained setting where everything is complimentary and works together.

 

The snag is that the only model for the set that’s been released so far is a different model of Harrier and it’s not even finished yet. 

So it’ll be years before any of this is even close to being done enough to be called coherent. Could easily be a decade at this rate. 

[DD_Arthur]

On 9/21/2018 at 6:03 AM, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3631096&postcount=417

 

Just realised this is a link to a discussion on the ED boards about the F4U Corsair which started over three years ago.  Still no sign of the F4U but they do appear to be working on a model of the Yorktown to compliment it.

I can't quite get my head round these decisions.  Why make the Yorktown?  Since they're starting with a blank sheet surely an Essex class carrier would be the obvious choice?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I believe it is merely a tease, not a plan declaration. I'd wait for any official news which should appear post CE2 release. But ifI'm not mistaken Yorktown class comprised three aircraft carriers, CV 5 Yorktown, CV 8 Hornet but also CV 6 Enterprise which was operated until the end of the war. So it shouldn't be a problem to adjust model to a 1944 or 1945 Enterprise. 

As for F4U, few pictures were shown nine months ago in a New Years update. 

[Sokol1]

Quote

Take a spit out over dubai and have a dogfight, you'll have an absolute blast!

 

I must be a strange person, but if it is to put my (DCS)  Spit.IX into dogfights over modern Dubai, ? it will continue where it is now, in a (virtual) shelf, accumulating dust of "bits".... forever.  ?

Edited September 22, 2018 by Sokol1