TheFreshPrince

Although I like the current mods, with the up-to-date full fidelity Mig as a base, the future mods will be much more interesting. Same will apply for S and G models. FC3 has its place, but I think the new Mig with mods will be the way to go to experience M, S and G variants.

"A long day in front of the computer" is bad for everyone and hurts my healthy eyes as well, I doubt that blue light blocking will fix this. Modern monitors with a high refresh rate and blue light filters are better than old monitors, but still not healthy to sit in front of PC for too long. Especially when you have only one eye that needs to do all the work. Also DCS is very demanding for concentration, so limiting the time and taking breaks is probably the better option.

I started with the i5 6600k and a 980ti, but since then DCS has gotten much more forgiving performance wise. So you don't need an ultra graphics card anymore for decent graphics and good FPS. I upgraded only slightly to a Ryzen 5 5500 and a 2080, but the difference was already immense (nearly full settings and 70-100 FPS at 2K). Especially with MT and DLSS afterwards. So I recommed getting at least a used RTX 2xxxx (2070 super has a good price/performance ratio, but also 2080) to experience the difference with DLSS/DLAA. You can upgrade your CPU/MB if you want, but it's not necessary, if you don't want to fly 4k/VR or heavy missions. If new, 3060 (ti) is a good option. I like this ranking list, which you can use for comparisons: https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html This list shows that older graphic cards like 1080ti, 2080, etc. are still monsters compared to low-budget new graphic cards. So I`d never buy a cheap, new graphic card, but rather a used one in good condition. PS: I've meanwhile downgraded to a 1080, because the 2080 wasn't really necessary and the 1080 with a bit of overclocking still has decent graphics and good FPS at 2K. But I miss the DLAA now, so I wouldn't recommend it.

Facetracking hatte ich vor 1,5 Jahren probiert, aber bin dann auf IR-Tracking umgestiegen, weil es viel verlässlicher funktioniert. Facetracking hatte damals bei mir dauernd das Tracking verloren, immer schön beim Umdrehen im Dogfight... Aber ich habe gelesen, dass es mittlerweile viel besser funktionieren soll mit weiterentwickelter Software. Man braucht aber schon ne gute Cam, damit das funktioniert.

Pretty sure it was Glowing AMRAAM who produced the video?

Just search for the name on Google, YouTube, etc. They've been doing this for many years apparently.

Should be called HUD color filter

Da hilft nur warten bis der Bug gefixed wurde

Ich rechne auch mit DCS 3.0 und wahrscheinlich dem Switch auf Vulkan, vielleicht plant ED das als "Überraschung". Ansonsten kommt bald die F4 Phantom und dieses Jahr sind theoretisch einige Karten und Module geplant. Mal schauen, wann das alles rauskommt, aber im Gegensatz zu letztem Jahr, wo der Fokus mehr auf der Technik/Optik lag und bis auf Sinai und F-15 nicht wirklich was rauskam, ist in dem Video schon einiges in Aussicht. WW2 ist nicht meins, aber im Video liegt da ein großer Fokus drauf, ebenso cold war. Nur wenn dann nicht geliefert wird, wird das natürlich sehr enttäuschend. Man muss auch eigentlich mal den Fokus darauf legen, alles zu perfektionieren, was in den letzten Jahren so rauskam. Da gibt es immer noch (für meinen Geschmack) zu viele Bugs und Ungereimtheiten. Dass das Video "and beyond..." heißt, finde ich generell nicht so toll. Das macht das ganze schon vorab zu einer Generalausrede (wir haben es ja nur angekündigt...).

Es wird sicher genug Mods geben, die alle anderen Versionen dann auch ermöglichen. Gibt es ja für das FC3 Modul aktuell auch schon. Leider kein einziges Bild mehr vom Eurofighter, somit ist der wahrscheinlich für absehbare Zeit Geschichte. Ein Tornado igendwann erscheint da realistischer...

MIG

There already is a game in development, that has real life like graphics, called "Unrecord". When the footage was first released, nobody believed it was from a game. The developers had to prove that it's actually just a game. It's not gonna be available in VR, but my guess is that within 5-10 years maximum we'll have a lot of VR stuff with real life graphics, which is gonna be quite scary.

It feels a bit like DCS aircraft don't have enough friction and inertia on the ground. That makes them susceptible to winds, but also they can roll and steer too fast, unlike in real life footage where you can see how heavy and hard to maneuver the jet is and how it bounces while taxiing. In DCS it feels too light and without any ground feedback, a bit like skating on ice. When taking off with a crosswind, it pushes you to the side very easily and the jet steers too much. But there was a topic on this recently, that lead to nothing:

Try against F16, F14 with some altitude over flat terrain. BFM at low altitude in the hills makes them fly evasively so they can't gain the altitude. I can provide tracks if necessary, but so far I don't see any interest from ED in this topic (work in progress I guess). See also

Since one of the last updates, the AI seems to start infinite loops again where it's climbing higher and higher and you have no chance to follow (because it's flight model is much more superior), but it's also not attacking. It is a shame because after 2.7 or 2.8 the AI was really fun to play against and behaved more like a real pilot, as was also demonstrated in a GS video. But somehow these changes were disregarded completely.

Basically the whole map needs to be overdone to look more realistic, so I wouldn't complain about the trees having white branches. But this phenomenon depends much on the weather conditions and tree type. On a sunny day, without deep freezing temperatures, the snow will easily sublimate from the dark branches with its low albedo, especially after it hasn't snowed for a few days and especially on deciduous trees. So you would need different textures for different conditions and those need to be loaded accordingly to the mission settings. And as mentioned also different temperature settings for different heights. That would be cool, but complex. And then the question is, where do you start and where do you end with the implementation of more realistic weather physics and textures. I think it's okay as it is, but a start would be to have more 3 dimensional snow textures instead of flat snow.

With very little FPS on simple single player missions if the rest of the hardware meets the minimum criteria.

I agree, the accessibility is good, even better with the improvements. Just to be clear, I'm not negating the fun you can have with DCS at any settings, even the absolute minimum. It's the main reason why I'm flying here. I started with an onboard graphics card, which barely gave me 20fps in the air, just so I could learn the basics. The overall fun DCS provides is very good. I'm just being honest about the ambiguous visual experience I have, because it's part of this topic.

Yes and no. Right now, if compared to other flight sims, DCS probably is the best looking one. Although this might change next year. Compared to modern games, DCS lacks lots of stuff, let's be honest. DCS in the looks of an Unreal 5 engine would be truly mind blowing. The reason that's not possible, is likely that a sim is so much more demanding, so you have to compromise on graphics. And DCS actually does look good in many cases. Most of the time when you are flying around with some altitude, often even at low altitude (love Mariannas or Persian Gulf). But then there are a lot of details that don't look good yet. Caucasus map is one example. I know it's old, but the ground textures and objects really don't look good. There's no way you tell me the mountain texture is realistic, even with Bartheks mod. In general, I'm also not a fan of the lighting, shadows and reflections in DCS. Then again, the clouds, rain, snow, water and the newest maps and modules look great. So sometimes it looks awesome, but sometimes it looks like a 10 year old game (Hornet outside, cough). And there are many visual bugs right now, which add to that. That's why on average for me, personally and very subjectively, the visual experience is moderate. You can fly circles in a bubble of certain settings and in certain areas to always have a good experience, but I like to fly around everywhere and do all kind of stuff. And I think it would only slightly be better with a 4K monitor or VR, which I'm not willing to spend money on. PS: I acknowledge and am grateful for the constant improvement of DCS with every update though. In 5 years this sim will likely look way more realistic, where games are right now. DLAA did solve issues for me with anti aliasing on clouds, water and objects, so it does look better than 2x MSAA for me plus better performance. Might be an indirect effect, but still better than in 2.8. Similar effect with DLSS, although I prefer no upscaling and DLAA. I mentioned the performance part already. About VR that might be true. When I look at videos from VR people, it does look better than my picture though and since I have no options left to improve on, it must be the VR or at least the better resolution, right? But I didn't think about the difference in what you see in front of your eye and what image the recorder gets, I agree with that. It's my personal opinion, so I'm not gonna argue about that. What one sees as asthetic or not, is simply subjective. The Caucasus map actually might be the worst example, see my answer above to Hiob. But if you fly in the Mirage over Syria at altitude or do a low pass through Dubai or along the coast of Mariannas, of course it looks much better.

I feel it the other way around. I'm playing at mostly max settings now in 2K with a 2080 and a Ryzen 5 5500, which give me good performance. Before MT and 2.9 it was a struggle, but with 2.9 it's very easy to max out the settings and still get 40-80 FPS. I feel like this is the maximum I can get for reasonable money. The caveat is that DCS in 2K doesn't look that good, despite DLSS/DLAA. If you want good graphics in DCS, you need to go VR and also only play the newest modules and maps. And to go VR with good performance means to invest a lot of $$$$ in hardware. And even then you have to live with bugs and unrealistic looking things. The better resolution will give you some better looks at least. But the money is not only a DCS problem to be fair. High-end Hardware still is so ridiculously expensive, that you need to be somewhat wealthy to play any new game with full settings. And while it was cheaper a decade ago, the problem was pretty much the same when you couldn't afford the high-end stuff. Because of the overall moderate graphic quality in DCS (even with VR and high-end stuff), I don't see the value in spending $1000 on new hardware. But other people see this as a hobby and happily spend the money. My main hobby is flyfishing, which costs a sh*t ton of money already. It just depends on your priorities. And if you really can't afford any better hardware, be appreciative of what you can get for your $. It's not about to have the best of the best.

The pilot (we) don't know anything about these missiles, so we can not make any decisions on when to fire or not. That's why the missiles should be programmed in a way to ensure that you can get a decent kill ratio when you fire the missile even with flares. First missile 100% miss and second missile 90% hit is not good programming, but that's just my opinion.

What the pilot does is another thing, but a missile shouldn't miss 100%. That's just unrealistic.

You didn't mention the R73, but I recently did some tests with it. If the R73 is shot at a non-cold target outside of the no escape zone, which is flaring slightly before the shot, the first R73 is gonna miss nearly 100% of the time. The second missile has an overly good hit ratio, even if the target is flaring. But there's also a decent chance you're gonna miss 2 or 3 shots in a row when firing against a flaring target. I didn't experience this before one of the last 2.9 updates. This gives the R73 a way less than 50% hit chance against a flaring target, seems like a poor performance. The programming of the flare resistance seems either broken or rudimentary. I had prepared some track files, but that was before the recent update. So I think they are not usable anymore. Maybe you want to take a look into this missile as well.

Worked normal for me yesterday

Where do you see an AMRAAM? I only see one IRIS-T on both of the Typhoons.