Zimmerdylan
-
Posts
1145 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Zimmerdylan
-
-
I am a bit on the fence whether or not to get the Hornet, so I thought to ask you guys whether or not to get it.
So far, I have the following reasons to buy it:
- Carrier ops
- Very probably the most capable / modern fighter/bomber in DCS
- Multi-role / swing-role aircraft
- Made by ED & Belsimtek
- Now a bit cheaper
However, I also have a few reasons not to but it:
- I generally prefer older, analogue aircraft instead of FBW
- I mostly just fly around or fly very simple combat missions (e.g. 1v1 dogfight or very simple strike mission) and probably won't need it's advanced capabilities
- I have still quite a few modules left to learn which I already have (e.g. MiG-21, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Gazelle, Ka-50)
- The Hornet is a complicated aircraft and I fear I won't have the time to learn it properly
- In general, I don't have that much time to fly in DCS, that favours simple aircraft over complicated one
So, I would appreciate some thoughts...
Thanks!
Honestly.....You have already convinced yourself. You'll buy it. Your just looking for validation at this point.
-
Zimmerdylan you might be in the wrong genre. Sims have and will always be expensive.
I remember when F-19 stealth fighter by Microprose came out in 1988 I bought a Tandy 1000 RSX computer from Radio Shack running at a amazing 25 mhz for about $2000 which in today's money is just over $4200 :shocking:
Ran ok but if you wanted a few more lines, triangles, dots etc for the "high" graphic quality you needed the fastest of the fast systems. A year later A-10 tank killer came out and I was back at the store. The salesmen were all in amazement and ask "Why the hell do you need all that power?"
Dropped another $2 grand+. I remember them joking that gamers made the bulk of their high end sales. People forget MS Flight sim has been around 35 years and even with Lockheed freaking Martin's programmers tweaking and gutting it, the sim still requires the fastest of fast to get the most out of it. My version is almost 200 gigs.
Hell just my TM Warthog controller cost more than my 1st car.
Wait till you try VR and see the minimum requirements to run that.:cry:
You see....That's the difference between a casual player and someone who has to have all of the bells and whistles. There are those who see DCS as a game. That would be me. And then there re those who would get downright indignant if you called it anything less than a realistic simulator.
I started with FSX, and went into XPlane 9, up to 10 and 11. And in 2010, into DCS. I found DCS to be far less taxing on my system at that time than any other sim. Yet it was by far the most superior in my opinion. But other than already having a $1000 computer that I needed to run my business on, I never invested more than $400 into a graphics card. I never had any issues running DCS. I still do not have too many issues. Surprisingly, Im running an I5 @ 3.10 G, with an Nvidia 660 Ti, and 16 gigs of RAM. It runs DCS very respectably @ 30 FPS in downtown Las Vegas at medium low settings. This is all that I need because I do not take any of this all that seriously. I will never upgrade to VR. I have no interest in it.
So no.....I'm not in the wrong era, genre, or whatever. I just have different expectations than a person who makes this their main hobby. DCS is just a couple of hour a week game for me. It's not my whole leisure life. However.....guys like me make up a fair number of DCS players. And although we do not play all of the time, a majority of us do purchase almost all of the modules that get released. So our business is no less important to DCS than the hard core enthusiast.
-
In reading this thread, I think there's a lot of people jumping to incorrect conclusions. There are possible solutions to the OP's issue that have nothing to do with downgrading the game for those with high end systems. This is, rather, about the scalability of the hardware requirements. Most video games have a wide enough range of hardware that can acceptably run the game that users with high end machines enjoy awesome graphics, while users with older systems lose eye candy but still can enjoy the game play. Perhaps a solution where the number of trees per sq. mile gets reduced by the slider, but the render distance can still be set far away, would allow people with lower systems to avoid watching trees popping constantly and still get decent frame rates.
Everyone should remember that the success of the game will be greater if it can cater to a broader customer base, not just those with relatively new systems.
Having that slider option is nothing new. Other sims have this and it works fine for them. There are also sliders for many other details that DCS does not have. Until now, it really wasn't all that big of a deal. But it would seem that it is a viable option for them these days.
I do kind of believe that it would be a bit short sighted of ED not to keep trying to cater to the people who can't or won't spring for high end systems. There is a huge niche for the casual gamer market. I fall into that category. But once a game or sim starts to consume more money or time than I am willing to invest, I'll just move on to something else. I know a lot of guys who share my philosophy on this.
Although I do not believe ED are intentionally omitting lower end users, it seems inevitable that systems become obsolete. The problem there is that the computer gaming industry sees the demand rising and pricing accordingly. I'm not apt to play that game with them. Upgrading is OK. Upgrading to obscene amounts of $$$$ is just not something I am willing to do. $1000 for a video card, it's just out of the question. I pay that for tools that I use to make money, not toys.:D
-
Then its just your choice.
And again, quatro is not gaming card. Thats just fact.
So no cpu update help.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly.......Nothing personal, just a choice.
-
Bottom line for me is that DCS is little more than a toy. I use my PC for other things that are far more important than playing pilot.
My system is 5 years old and admittedly outdated for DCS. However, it works great for the work that it needs to perform for me.
Right now DCS works OK for me. I do not have a lot of expectations of it and am flying it much less these days as it seems to be developing more problems than benefits. This issue has little to do with my hardware.
When the time comes that DCS no longer runs to my personal satisfaction due to more demanding technology, I will simply take it off of my system and not complain.
PC hardware is just getting unreasonable price wise. When I started flight sims it was completely different. I am not about to fork over the money that they are asking for hardware these days. Again....it's a toy for me.
The main reason that I haven't purchased any new modules is that I see this scenario playing out in the near future. If DCS would rather go in the direction of specialized, high end only flight simulation, more power to em. I got an Xbox that's just as amusing and doesn't require $1000 to upgrade.
It's really just that simple to me.
-
After reading the Weekend news today, I am left somewhat....OK, really confused. It says that load times, memory leaks, and performance issues.
OK....That all sounds good but since it's release, it has been noted that loading time is actually longer for many, myself included than before the update. Not only is it longer, but after the hotfix all 3D objects are gone in Nevada. I'm not complaining about either issue but am confused as to why it's news that these things have been addressed when it has been established that there are more problems with them. It's kind of like saying that it was successful after the flaw.
Nothing personal here ED. Just strikes me as funny.
-
LOL....Yes, very post apocalyptic.
-
I mounted mine to a 4.5" wide plank and place it under a pad in my chair. It rests between my legs very comfortably and feels more like I'm flying an aircraft.
-
Hmm....That's really odd because I have loaded up to 6 soldiers into the Huey in one pickup. I don't really fly the Mi8 all that much and have not tried to pick up troops in it since it has been re-implemented. It would stand to reason that you could pick up at lest 6 at a time in the Mi8 since I've done it in the Huey.
The whole embark feature has been plagued with oddities from early on so I guess I'm not really surprised.
-
All I can say....Good riddance!
-
I don't really pay much attention to it.
-
WHY?
in DCS: Yak-52
I know I personally came over here for the A-10C and dropping bombs on stuff... so the thought of civilian aircraft really never came to me, but lately, when you look at the quality of the FMs and everything else in the sim, I can understand why it is attracting contracts outside the military.Exactly!
-
No windows defender should be ok, I use it as well.
just make sure DCS.exe is allowed inbound and out bound in your windows firewall
I always completely turn off all virus protection when I fly DCS. Thus far it has done nothing to make the server issue any better.
It's all good.......they'll figure it out.
-
Ive had to put DCS down its beyond a joke Stable is not even stable, There many more issues, More issues than good points right now.
LOL..... I'm kind of on the fence with DCS right now. I still come back to see what the updates are bringing. I take flights off line just for fun every week or so.
I know it'll all get sorted out and fixed down the road, but sometimes it's best just to put it down for a while. Especially when the frustration sets in. THAT'S when people start getting their rights taken.
-
Yeah, ED really made a mistake building those variants of the FW190 and BF109. And as this guy says, just AI atm. Once AI get smart, it should probably be as good as fighting an actual person. Then we can combat variants of the 109 and 190 that are more accurate and suitable.
I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch. AI isn't going to get much smarter than it is now for any flight sim in the foreseeable future. DCS isn't the only simulation software with this issue. It's not solvable at this point. Giving AI any real ability above what's already been given them will take enormous resources from your computer. That's not likely to change any time soon. People get so frustrated with AI in DCS but I have to say that DCS does a better job than most with their AI development.
-
I know it’s not ideal but you you could make a trigger zone and have smoke appear on that unit or at the trigger zone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah....That occurred to me also. I was just wondering if they somehow incorporated and option for the ground troops to do it without having to anything through the ME.
-
Hey guys! Glad to have the troop embark feature back. I surely missed it.
As I'm messing around with it, I am finding that there is no way for them to mark their location for me. The menu no longer gives the option for signal smoke. does anyone know if it's changed and if it can still be done?
Thanks:thumbup:
-
Agreed, long overdue. I won't buy it until they make a solid AFM.
This seems to be a trend with many DCS fans these days. Many people are getting kind of fed up with long standing issues that never seem to get fixed while new products get released with whole new sets of issues that my never get addressed.
This is part of the reason that I don't rush to purchase new modules any more. I always have to weigh the bugs / cons against how much I really want to play around with the module. Eventually I purchase probably 50% of them. Planes like the F18 don't even register with me because I'm not really into high tech aircraft and the aggravation of this, that, or the other not working properly doesn't outweigh my desire to play around with it.
The C101 didn't cost much, it's not complicated by any means, and it's bugs are minor IMO. So I don't really mind the flight model. Although, I tend to agree that it has been a while and there seems to be no solution in sight. So I see the point there.
-
I kind of think it's a bit overstated right now, and in need of some more tweaking. I hope so anyway. I'm all for limiting things to add to the realism or whatever. But as it is now, it's a bit too
easy to bring on the catastrophic engine failure.
-
This issue has always plagued the Gazelle for me. And like the OP, it was very difficult to correct movement while flying without overcompensation. So yes! I get it.
I have used the X52, X55, and CH pro setup with the Gazelle and this issue still pops up. So if it's hardware......I don't have a clue as to which setup would work. My dendancy is to believe that it's the FM. I have played endlessly with the settings and found no solution. I mentioned it on the forums when it first came out and a whole bunch of "real world Gazelle pilots" came out of the woodwork telling me that it's a sensitive bird and that it was correct.
In the end, I just got use to it. I fly it OK but not great, and learned how to compensate gently. Much as I like the chopper itself, I don't think that this issue is natural for any aircraft. And in my opinion, it is the FM.
As is with all DCS FM's, there are quirks and issues. I do not believe that any of them no matter how well done are true to their real life counterparts. I don't concern myself with what I believe should be real any more. You cannot expect that from anyone. So, I just learn how to adjust to what I'm presented with. I can't complain, DCS is the best sim out there. No other sim has come close to what ED has done.
-
Tried out, worked smooth for me ;)
Wow!!! Really? I just set up a mission and wasn't able to pull up the coms menu for troops. I'll give it another try this evening. Maybe I missed something in the advanced menu or something like that.
Thanks for that feedback.:smilewink:
-
C'mon guys......Seriously, it's time to address this issue.
-
Hi,
I believe this problem has been around for a long time and not sure it has been mentioned at all. Since the introduction of the new lighting system, and so now also with DCS 2.5, looking through the cockpit windows of the Mi8 is much different that all the planes and Gazelle (not sure about the Uh1-h) in that the colors look much different, depending on the angle of light, they look very washed out, more white, less contrast. You can test this by opening the blisters left and right, looks much different. Or could this be intentionally simulating some effect of strong sunlight through windows? Sorry if I missed anything on this.thanks.
cheers,
Geert
Yes......I agree. I don't fly the Mi8 often and probably not since the last 3 updates, but it's pretty ugly in the Gazelle.
-
What??? No update today? I'm so disappointed! LOL.....just kidding!
are we witnessing the downfall of FB ?
in Chit-Chat
Posted
Yeah FB = evil in my book. Hope so.......