lanmancz

Heh, no probs ;) Btw I'd recommend running the CPU benchmark from that site (https://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm). Then you can compare your single thread score to the score in the chart I posted to see how much % you may get by upgrading the CPU. The i7-2600 in default does not seem that bad scoring 1921 points according to that site. Perhaps try to get some nice cooler (Scythe or Noctua are good) and try overclocking it closer or above 4 GHz (what you temperatures will allow and what will be stable). That should give you a nice boost for the price of the cooler. It would also be interesting to see how much score would BitMaster, who posted before you, get as he has the same CPU as you but clocked to 5 GHz. The 3570k is 3.6 GHz by default and I got some Scythe cooler (don't remember the exact type) with which I can keep nice temperatures on all cores under full continuous load on 4.2 GHz. Maybe I could go even a bit higher but I didn't push it, I've done this right when I bought the PC few years back and it's been working fine for years now. Anyway it seems to me that the general consensus is that the single thread performance of the last gen processors is not that great so it's probably not worth upgrading it but rather squeezing some more by overclocking. BTW: Does anyone have any experience with AMD processors ? Last AMD I had was Athlon like 15 years ago :-) Why I ask is that I noticed that the 8-core AMD FX-9590 which is clocked at 5 GHz has pretty bad single thread performance (1721 points) compared to Intel chips. It's way worse than my 3570k according to the benchmark. Are AMDs really that bad for our purpose or are the benchmarks on this site somehow favoring Intel chips ? Also I just noticed that the FX-9590 is already 3 years old chip and AMD is due to release next gen chips by Xmas. So I guess we will see then how they stack up, they promise much improved single thread performance. This could be interesting.

Hi, so my current CPU is a few years old i5 3570k overclocked at 4.2 GHz. For DCS the most important factor is a single thread performance but looking at this chart it seems to me that my 3 generations old i5 still holds up pretty well : https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html When I run the benchmark software from this site my CPU scored 2321 points in the single thread performance which is actually pretty close to the top. The number one CPU there, the i7-4790k at 4.4 GHz, only scored 8% higher than my result at 2527. The second best Xeon there is only 0.7% faster than my CPU. It seems to me that investing in a newer CPU would pretty much be a waste of money that would probably be better spent on a 1070 card. What do you think please ? The only thing that might justify buying the i7-4790k might be to try to overclock it some more closer to 5 GHz if possible which might grant some benefits in DCS and Xplane. But still even with such great overclocking it seems to me that I'd be getting only at best 15% or so more performance in the sims.

Well I remember back then during the horrible backlash against this project when the kickstarter was announced that even Wags was saying that "we'd be surprised how much data is actually available". I trust he knows what he's talking about. I think at least some FC level F35 might be possible and even fun. It's a shame it didn't get done.

I don't really. I guess I don't play such intense missions but I usually interact with the plane only via HOTAS+Mouse. I setup my radios in advance while on the ground and when I get coordinates from JTAC I write them directly into the CDU, using the UFC. I prepare for this when I expect new coordinates, create new blank waypoint and so on, before I reply that I'm ready to copy. I never really needed a pen and paper when I do it this way. PS: I don't play multiplayer (only very occasionally with friends) so that might be the difference since you mention that you read back the info which I don't do in single player.

Hehe, trying to move youtube videos with my head is something everyone here probably experienced :-) I haven't get a chance to try any VR yet but I am itching to get one (+ a new PC suitable for running it) in the future. But I don't really see the problems with controls (not being able to use keyboard). Even in A10C, the aircraft that probably demands most controls so far, I have things setup in a way that I do not need to take my hands of stick and throttle at all, except for radio comms (which can be solved by voice attack or similar). The mouse on the other hand might be a bit tricky but didn't Wags say some time ago that they are working on implementing some sort of laser pointer solution ? Is the headset precise enough that you can use your head to point at controls and use some button that you map on your stick as a mouse click ? If that's the case then it seems that the controls might be fine in VR. We could just use 1s hold to activate/deactivate the laser and short click to ... click :-) How does this currently work in DCS ? This is something that should be possible to do even with TrackIR, right?

This is probably never going to happen in DCS. This is something that has been requested for many many years without any hint from devs that such a thing is planned. A whole new engine was developed meanwhile that also does not allow this - this is in my opinion a very clear indication that DCS is not going to take this route. My guess would be that they primarily develop technologies that they can use for both of their entertainment as well as commercial/military platforms and since the c/m market is probably not interested in a low quality globe terrain but rather in a specialized training scenarios it seems to me that this is reflected in the technologies that are being developed. This is just my guess of course, I don't see in ED's kitchen but it would make sense to me and not surprise me if this was the case. PS: I'm not complaining at all, this approach works fine for DCS. Also I think bigger maps are planned (this was hinted) but not the whole world. The problem with P3D is that they do not allow 'entertainment' use. Technically if you're not a pilot or a student pilot you are not allowed to use P3D, and that's a deal breaker for me. Being an enthusiast, not a pilot or a student, I will not pay $200 for a platform that in the end of the day I am not legally allowed to use. I will spend my money elsewhere (dcs and xplane in my case).

I don't think these would matter too much to a 'casual' player. In my opinion the same barriers still remain in DCS and probably will remain even in these new products (apart from the very steep learning curve of any DCS module). Like for example for a casual player is a major PITA just to set up controls in DCS, and you have to do it for each plane and often when update comes you have to do it all over again, fantastic! If DCS wants to attract more casual players it should provide a much slicker experience, with presets for the most common hotas setups (not the current useless default mapping that you just spend more time deleting before you map your own). Plus a new player has no clue what to map in the first place so a proper preset is essential (perhaps even a control mapping tutorial mission for each aircraft that would allow you to map the essential controls during the mission with some explanatory commentary, you know to make it more fun, not tedious). Also you have to ease in the casual player, not flood him with tons of manuals before he can even get off the ground, much better tutorials would be needed. Also more lower fidelity modules. Casual players also expect more cinematic (and fun!) experience which is often in sharp contrast against a dry simulation scenario. Also despite everyone's best efforts the campaigns and missions in DCS are often a bit wonky and there are not many single missions available (in fact none built-in). I don't see this changing anytime soon. Perhaps some Steam Workshop or ED User files in-game integration would help in this department, Arma3 does this very well - hundreds of well made missions are just a click away. I'm not complaining, I don't care what the casual players think and I like the sandbox (although I admit it often can get tedious that even I am not in a mood for DCS), but these are just my observations when I try to teach DCS to other people - even if they show mild interest in the beginning they often give up and drift away after hitting a few of these bumps. I think this is also in general why flight sims are not as popular as they used to be - none of the current flight sims (that I'm aware of) does the user experience part right in my opinion.

Also Dovetail recently announced their upcoming 64bit, DX11 capable flight sim platform which can take some wind out of DCS sails. Unless it's complete rubbish I would think that after FSX sunset the 3rd party devs would continue to develop for this platform as it should be based on FSX, so perhaps it may be easier to update their existing products to this new platform. Although I fly with DCS and Xplane I will certainly keep an eye on this one because the age and lack of future platform development were my reasons not to invest into FSX at all and they are promising to keep the new platform alive for years to come.

I think this is very true. In my opinion there is a place for some lower fidelity models, especially in single player, if DCS wants to grow as a platform. I've been around for some years and I witnessed it several times. Remember the F35 and the uproar it caused on the forums ? Even Wags back then said that we'd be surprised how much info can be found on the plane but the community said no. I still think it might have been a fun, though not 100% realistic, plane for single player. For example apart from my high fidelity xplane stuff like FlightFactor I also have a couple of Carenado planes which are nice fun planes for times when I just want to fly around, do some sightseeing, perhaps practice navigation a bit and so on and I don't necessarily care at that point that the engine modeling does not take the limits into account (so nothing bad will happen if you mistreat your engines). Just my 2c.

Still a nice tune though, thanks for sharing.

+1

Yeah I've seen it too, it was Wags post but it got removed for some reason, when I opened the thread it's not there anymore :) /stalker mode off, time to go check my grilled cheese :lol: btw: nice pics, nevada really looks great

Hi, you should actually have the relevant charts in your DCS by default in <DCS>\Doc\Charts

Personally I'm still waiting for my DCS: X-Wing :lol:

Nope, I preordered and got it. There is a thread about it here in the campaign section of the forum. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=158751

Hello, it would be nice if in the ESC menu there was a button to restart current mission. It could be handy if you want to train something specific like defensive BFM for example. So you setup your situation in ME and give it a go. But chances are that you will want to fly this exercise many times. If you want to do so though you have to quit into debrief and then hit "Fly again" and reload. It got much better with edge and the unified exe of course but it would be sweet if there was a fast "Restart mission" function instead of having to quit and reload. What do you think ?

Yeah, like others say. You just have to finish your flight and land at Nellis. When I turned out to the taxiway at the end of the runway it gave me mission success.

The F15C campaign is already available : http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2016-01-15_F-15C_Red_Flag_Campaign/ http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/campaigns/f-15c_16-2_red_flag_campaign/

+1

I think this is normal as DCS essentially creates another camera for each screen which creates these weird angles. I think that if you want to get rid of it you will have to use Surround or Eyefinity to joinup all your 3 screens into one continuous screen on the driver level and then let DCS run as if it was one wide screen.

Nah, it's alright. You just have to be faster with your startup. The moment you get in the plane start your engines which takes just a minute or two in the FC3 and follow them as you see them taxi by. But don't worry, later in the mission I cocked it up too as I lost them and then I had to follow the flight plan on my own until I caught up to them at the cap orbit :lol:

Hello, first let me say that I'm enjoying the campaign so far, nice to see that Nevada is being put into good use, gave me some inspiration for custom missions too :-) I also like the extended maps and documents available, very nice, detailed and interesting read! I flew 3 missions so far and all went well. First two missions were pretty much simple sightseeing, I like the way the campaign starts by arriving into the area after a long haul across the ocean. 3rd mission that I just finished was the first offensive mission. During this mission things got a bit silly though. Out of my 4 ship flight only 2 of us managed to return home as the other 2 guys ran out of fuel and ejected just minutes after crossing the FEBA line :-) Me and the other guy managed to score 4 kills, complete the mission and I landed back at Nellis with well over 5000 lbs of fuel still left onboard (I flew the whole in and out procedures too), don't know why those other two guys were burning so hard :-) They probably must have used up their externals when we were still staging in caliente bravo. We arrived like 3 or 4 minutes early so we did a lazy loop waiting for the push start at 16:07. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add some "dont use burner" command to the radio, like there is for radar and ecm. Anyway good stuff so far, I'm looking forward to the rest of the missions as well as the A10C campaign. :thumbup:

Really ? I wouldn't think it has to be more complicated than averaging last X (selected by the slider) incoming values. Or a simple acceleration filter where the slider would indicate how many samples it takes to respond to value change. At least in my case, using DIView, I can see that the noise is about ±0.5% of the selected position. Not a huge problem in general but not good for certain functions like the mentioned zoom, or target wingspan for instance. Well, that's probably true but sadly I have yet to see a stick driver with such function built-in.

No, it's a different thing. What I'm talking about is essentially a noise filter on the axis input. You can see what I mean by mapping an axis as a zoom function for instance. Unless you have a new stick or you're lucky you will notice, like me, that the view keeps jumping in and out slightly. That's the little noise coming from the axis. It's not usually a problem on throttle for example but mapped as zoom it does cause an issue, at least in my case. What I'm suggesting is if it would be possible to add some smoothing function that would get rid of this noise, smooth out the peaks by taking an average value for instance. The slider could then adjust the sampling time, 0 would be instant (no filtering, no averages), 100 would be 100ms or 100 refresh cycles average, you get the idea. Hopefully that would do the trick.

The stick is fine for the most part but these additional axes on the throttle, as well as the throttle itself actually, do start to jitter after some time.