hollywoodvillain

Again, why the need to do this in dcs when this is available in other sims? And IMO developing a FULLY functional cockpit for trainers takes away time to actually develop cockpits for useful COMBAT aircraft, that already established pilots are willing to kill someone by now just to fly. But instead there's an influx of "can we have this, and can we have that?" Without realizing the limitations and consequences of what that those developments will entail

I'll just leave it at this: good luck to all who think dcs is the new fighter ops. I've been simming for far too long to be fooled by talk and promises. In reality, only a handful of truly AFM airframes can be developed within the game engines useful life, even by 3rd parties, leading to ever more game engine developments and hence obsolete AFM, and the cycle repeats. All I can say is have fun with your trainers before the very aircraft you're hoping to transition to become obsolete and/or never come to fruition because of time constraints.

Well a counter point to that is FC3, which has more than "half" the functionality missing but still sells very well according to ED.

Yep, and I completely understand your point about that. But the fact is this is a SIMULATION. As such, there are no reprimands, court marshals or death if you screw up, giving you the ability to fly the aircraft as many times as it takes to learn it. I don't speak for all, but I personally don't have all day every day to go fly and learn a trainer just to prepare me for a another (SIMULATED) aircraft, like I would if I was an air force pilot and got paid to do so. If you want more realism, there's far more important avenues in the sim that need much more attention

I know I'm gonna catch a lot of flak for this, but seriously? Trainers are fun, but go fly FSX/prepar3d or X-plane for that stuff. The fact that this thread is 3 pages long already is going to prolong development for far more worthy COMBAT aircraft because developers will get the false impression that that's what the community wants. Look, I would love to have every freaking aircraft in the world on dcs, but the fact is it takes a long effing time just to develop the most basic of airframes. I understand working on trainers helps the devs to practice developing AFM models in DCS, but why the need for full reproductions? I find it silly and counterproductive. Even though the Mustang and Dora are obsolete by today's standards and have no place in a modern dcs world, they at least represent another era of COMBAT operations that might one day culminate into a ww2 COMBAT environment. Are you happy waiting another 6 years for a decent modern COMBAT aircraft just so these pointless trainers can be developed? Just my 2 cents...

Ill just add my 2 cents to this topic. Again... (in order of personal preference) X65=good not perfect Warthog=good not perfect Ch=Almost as good t16000=best entry level stick Cougar with no mods=crap X52=junk Everything else retail=not worth mentioning Don't be a scaredy cat of force sensing just because its typical to hate it on first/limited contact.

I have tested today and can 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt verify I don't have this issue. However you are correct, I neglected to mention I have disassembled and reassembled the joystick several times for research and review purposes. Taking it apart today (in an effort to research your problem) I noticed the 4 screws holding the base down I had left loose. Stupid me (have a bad habit of taking things apart when I've had wayyy too much Jim Beam), however, incredibly, by tightening these 4 screws, I was able to duplicate your exact same problem! ( I experimented and verified the issue several times) The deal is that they designed the sensor, which is on the opposite side of the base, to be too close to the magnet on the bottom of the stick, and by loosening the screws on the base the spring pushes the base and therefore the sensor further away. So, the poor mans solution is to simply remove the bottom cover, and loosen the four screws on the base plate until it reads correctly in the test panel. This might be a problem though as it might cause more wear on the plastic studs, but a trip today to the hardware store getting 1/4in longer screws I was able to eliminate this issue( although now were talking about borderline modding and that's not the OP's intent, however it's an extremely easy fix.) Anyway here's a pic of what I'm talking about, replace those screws with same type but 1/4 in longer (one at a time so you dont release the spring tension), and voila! Make sure to recalibrate. As for CH, I should've been more clear, I only use the CH throttle, never tried the pedals, so thanks for the advice to stay away from them.

I dont seem to have the problem with the stick reading 100% before the end of travel, but i do agree with the throttle and rudder being cheap. I use rudder pedals and a separate throttle (CH is nice) so this isn't a factor for me, however the OP is probably looking for a single solution, in which case it might be a problem. Also separate throttle makes up somewhat for the lack of buttons. In the end though if you're prepared to shell out the money for an x52 I would still recommend T.16000m and get a separate throttle. And I have the PRO x52 and it doesnt fair much better...

Having owned most all joysticks that have ever been developed, I just have to throw in my 2 cents. I really hate to see people waste their hard earned money on the x52. Its absolute junk IMO for the $ you spend. Research what the difference between stiction and friction is, and you can better understand its problems. Anyone who recommends x52 has not tried anything else. Go with Thrustmaster T.16000m. Hands down the best in its class. Way more accurate than x52, and its stiction and friction are the same. Its throw is like a dream come true. Zero deadzone. It uses the same sensors as WH so you know you're getting something special. But like most people, you probley wont believe me cause you can't understand why they can make a joystick so good for so cheap, and you'll end up getting the saitek and suffering through it until you get a hog. But don't say I didn't warn you

AI in FC2 was FUBAR, it was capable of maintaing formation under impossible circumstances. I remember it being able to keep up despite not going into full burner at same time as lead, and executing turns that wouldnt keep formation if it wasnt AI. It was like the hand of god was upon them

Woofer15, its been my experience like others, forcing crossfire using any settings actually degrades the performance. Its just not made to utilize it, and now you're forcing it to split the same amount of data between 2 cards, which hinders efficiency. IMO I would not jump through the hoops needed to downgrade ccc only to be disappointed. If anyone has BENCHMARKED crossfire and actually got a performance BOOST I would be interested to know about it.

Obviously you don't know about it. $199 is only for the pro pack Hehe ok dude, tell that to Milviz, VRS, ORBX and IRIS among others

He means SSD, some people have experienced better performance using solid state drives. A properly installed avast should not interfere with DCS. I would also enable vsync

If you say so. With the SDK release I just can't see any advantages DCS has to offer anymore I however will buy any model from IRIS assuming it has working avionics and weapons, DCS or FSX.

You fellers have obviously never used the Tacpack. That is the future of military sims. And you don't have to wait another 4 years to fly nevada...

oh really? Tell that to the eurofighter pilots

do a search, this subject is beating a dead horse. the engine is old and dosent take advantage of new technology, so top of the line pc's will have very little performance gain. there's not much u can do to get more than 20fps with the settings maxed. we'll all just have to wait for the new engine

HA. I wish I was living in your fantasy world. Why not ask for Airwolf insted?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...... sry I couldn't help myself

Dangit! It has to be because they're planning to release it as a multipack with fighter ops

Oh sorry didn't mean to sound like a rant. In fact this isn't even my thread and I'm not really looking for help. Just wanted to post what my results have been for the rest that are curious. However, as for your advice of UAC/Access control on program files, I have tried c:\DCS, also my RAM drive (f) would negate that anyway, and I would like to be enlightened as to how this would effect fps once the game is loaded and running. And I've spent a lot of time testing aa, af, vsync, filtering, tessellation, cpu BIOS tweaking ect, some of it my own ideas, some of it advice peppered around this forum. Have you tried the mission and did as I suggested? What were your results? I would really love to find someone here that has a smooth flying experiance 90% of the time, even if its a $5000 rig I would like to know what it takes

WTH is this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This looks AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HA... CPU's.................................................................................. INTEL: i5 750@2.6 i5 2500k@3.3 i7 2600k@3.4 P4 (HT)@3.2 (for sh*ts and giggles) AMD: FX-8150@3.6 FX-8350@4.0 ATHLON 64 X2 4200+@2.2 ATHLON 64 X2 4800+@2.5 PHENOM 2 X4 990@3.7 VIDEO................................................................................ NVIDIA: GTX 660ti x2 SLI (tested in SLI and single card configuration) GTX 560ti x2 SLI " " GTX 280 GTX 260 ATI: HD 4870X2 HD 4870 HD 6870 HD 7870 x2 in crossfire (tested in crossfire and single card config) MOBO................................................................................. ASUS M5A99FX Gigabyte UD3990FX ASUS P7P55D ASUS P8P67 Deluxe These are just a few components I've tested recently (in various combinations). I run a PC repair business and build gaming PC's for all my friends so I have the opportunity to test many different systems and configurations, and do so with DCS whenever I have the chance. These have been tested only with FAST HDD's (usually in RAID 0's) or SSD's. Tested with 8-32GB of RAM. All machines tested on Windows 7 Ultimate 64 with DCS installed to default location (c:\program flies\Eagle Dynamics,... except for my current system running it on RAM drive). Without backtracking too far to remember, I have tried most of the various tweaks (limiting FPS, removing smoke, reducing particle effects, ECT...) in addition to the standard and recommended graphics tweaking in windows, Nvidia control panel, ATI control panel and in game. (Pretty much tried every possible setting so far in both control panels ATI, Nvidia...) Its absolutely pitiful. Loading mission "Hideout" for A-10, Straight ahead was a legit 50-60fps, but looking to the LEFT yielded min 18-20FPS on high settings and a pathetic min 28-30FPS with EVERYTHING graphics as LOW as possible. And that's starting INSIDE a hanger! Try it! I promise I'm not making this up, I wish I was. And to make it clear I do still play DCS all the time. LOVE IT. Live, breathe, eat, sleep, smoke and poop this sim, even if I have to deal with poor framerate sometimes. EDIT- Speeds listed are stock, most have been OC'd wherever applicable and I generally only use water for cooling

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Dangit You beat me to the punch!

DaVidos, don't bother, I have FX8350, ATI 7870x2 crossfire, and running DCS off a RAMdrive. I have spent countless hours testing every possible setting I can find. I have scoured the forums and tried almost every tip available. I have over clocked the living crap outta my system. I have tried this on multiple setups involving i5's, i7's and Fx's ATI, Nvidia, and different MOBO's that blow every other game outta the water. Nothing. nadda. every system i've tested so far has consistantly poor fps with DCS (and to be clear, avg 30FPS i consider poor for a flight sim). Sometimes it runs smooth for a few min, but looking in certain directions, flying over certain terrain, seeing certain effects, ect at some point always brings these power systems to their knees.