mmaruda

+1 On that. Hollywood needs to go. I would like that ED would stop listening to people who say "boooohooo, the sim looks bad". Someone even had the nerve to call the graphics in DCS on the level of Amiga. But this is a simulator, it should look good only to the point where it is realistic (and does not cause performance hits). If anyone cannot live without great balls of fire, BMS has plenty of those. ;)

I just upgraded to the latest NV drivers. Performance is terrible. As mentioned before, I use the BS2 Battle mission as benchmark. The problem is not the stutters, but effects. At mission start with all the units around I get descent FPS above 30, but the more stuff blows up, the worse it gets. At some point an artillery barrage or something went down and so did my FPS... to around 7!!! Perhaps people who say overal performance was increased are right, no matter the FPS, just flying around results in a very smooth gameplay, but once explosions come into the mix the framerate simply dies. Just for comparison, can anyone claiming smooth gameplay run the Battle mission for Black Shark and post results? If it's a question of configuration/drivers/settings, I'd really like to know.

Ok a little bit of speculation now: The problem clearly lies with new effects. Guess Michael Bay fans are to thank for that. My guess is that explosions are animated bitmaps with smoothing and transparency put on them. As far as I know, GPUs had problems with smooth scaling of large sprites for ages. Not really sure if this is the case, but if it is than it can probably easily get fixed. Anyway, going back to the effects pre-World would be something I would not mind at all - I like them better, more subtle (maybe except the GAU-8). Now a small missle like a Vikhr makes and explosion of a large bomb. It's HEAT missile, it has a shaped charge... Oh, I guess I just figured how to fix the problem - get rid of the new FX - UNREALISTIC. :D

So could anyone from the people who are happy about the way DCS runs provide their settings/driver version? Apparently I have reported a bug or problem, since the thread has been moved. There was 4 pages of discussion about the engine (which by now everyone should already know to be futile - no, ED will not write a new one from scratch and no, do no expect an update that will make it use 8 cores to the max and give you a solid 60 FPS). Since not everyone is experiencing the problem I'd like to appeal to the generosity of the lucky ones and humbly request they share their knowledge.

I use the Battle mission for BS2 as a benchmark. Before I always had above 30FPS with max settings (single display 1920x1080). Right now when things start blowing up FPS take a dive to around 13-15. It's not the scenes, AI, textures etc, it's the explosion bitmaps or whatever they are. I did compare it with Black Shark 2 (1.1.1.1) and everything is fine there.

Ok, my specs are as follows: i5 2500K@ 4,4Gh 8 gigs of RAM @ 1600Mhz GeForce 680 2Gb RAM All this is running on an Asusm Maximus Formula mobo with a Corsair 850W PSU, nice and tidy Win7x64 etc... I built this rig based on opinions of people who reported good performance in DCS on similar machines. I get that fixing performance is a hard thing, but why add features that can decrease performance, like the new explosions? Who needs such Hollywood eye-candy in a simulator at all? They basically should be just an option for people able to run them. My main point is, what are the "better, more beautiful effects" good for, if they kill the gameplay? Considering that the sim uses 1,5 core out of 4 that most people have, and that it's mostly CPU bound, I'd say both the engine and the effects need optimising, or whatever you call it... Look, the game just needs to run better. It's a simulation, it's about flipping switches in the cockpit, reading the manual and living the dream that one day we'll be able to steal an A-10 and get away with it. Then you tell normal people about your hobby and everyone looks at you in a strange manner. We don't need eye-candy, especially if it ruins performance. Most of the people would probably wet their pants if they got a new region to fly around even if it did look like crap, not to mention having a dynamic campaign along with it.

Before I write anything, I would just like to say, that it is not my intention to rant and complain for the sake of it. I will try to keep this calm and balanced, though I am in a torch-and-pitchfork crusade kind of mood. DCS World seems to constantly evolving, new stuff, new modules on the way, cool things in general. On the performance side however it is appalling. I am fully aware of the engine's history and problems to make it run smooth. I have upgraded my PC a few months ago, specifically with DCS in mind and was happy for a long time with high detail and good framerates. It cost me about a year of saving, but I felt it paid off, when I was finally able to enjoy the wonders of DCS. It seemed that it was only going to get better. ED is constantly optimising the engine right? Ummm, doesn't seem that way to me. For the past year or so, all that was done in terms of performance was to make it worse. Around 1.0.0.8 the recommended system specs on the DCS page were enough to play comfortably. Around the release of BS2 FPS went significantly down, especially if someone was running on a Phenom II. People mentioned this and... nothing happened. Right now DCS is the most demanding piece of software I can imagine, it beats Crysis, Battlefield 3, Arma 2... anything runs better. I recall some statements have been made that the engine will be optimised. Ok fine, I am aware it's hard work and not easy, let's be patient yada yada yada. So after several months of waiting we get a new DCS: World patch and there is the complete opposite of improvement. We got new explosion effects and new water (yes, the same water that is rendered everywhere and that eats system resources all the time), that successfully kill FPS. What I fail to understand is how come ED chose to engage people into doing new effect instead of focusing on what was a lot more important - optimisation. Another thing that puzzles me is how 1.2.1 was even released in the first place. Surely it had to be tested and surely the testers experienced the FPS drops that make the sim unplayable whenever some combat occurs (launch a few missiles, add a few smoking wrecks and you have a slide show). Seriously people, if you want to do it this way, go with beta patches for the customer base. Or at least stop adding stuff that degrades performance of the engine. The logical way to do it is optimizing first, adding features later, not the other way around. Currently I'm scared to think what will happen when the new missile AFM is in and EDGE finally arrives. We are not going to get 8Gh CPUs anytime soon, especially that the market is focused on mobile devices, multi-core and power saving. And as for GPU's... this is more demanding than this.

Last time I checked, this was already in - there is a key that you can bind to switch between mouse look and cursor and I think it was alos possible to have both (the cursor acts as crosshair, not sure if that was in World or BS1 though).

You are right, I have posted opinions. I won't be surprised if somebody call me out on any factual posting, and highlights the facts to the contrary. I will be very surprised however, if any contrary facts will change my personal feelings. And right now I feel that at the current price tag, FC3 is not for me. Which leads me to the conclusion that you have some ill agenda to prove anyone without a favorable opinion regarding an ED product wrong. Please understand that this is not about right and wrong, but people speaking their minds, which differ from person to person. Some people are enthusiastic, some people are disappointed, that's how it is. Providing facts as to why FC3 is the way it is, does not change a thing. It's for the people to decide on their own how much bang they get for their hard earned money and if someone decides it's not enough bang for the buck or they just cannot afford it, than trolling each post they make is not going to change their mind. Unless of course the point is just to discourage the non-praisers from posting?

Viper that is on of the most far fetched explanations I have read here. Would you really assume that someone who just came to these forums would base their opinion on a product solely on my single post in a now 64-page thread? You either think very poorly of newcomers, or very highly of me.

Everything is clear, but last time I checked I had the right to have a personal opinion. What I don't seem to understand is why you feel the need to counter-comment everyone who expresses their disappointment with what was announced about FC3. The announcement was made, people provide feedback. Some think FC3 is going to be great, so people feel it's not enough for the price tag - it's their right to think that and ED has the benefit of free feedback. :)

No it's not, it's something most game developers figured out in 2006. Not to mention that not everyone plays online, and the online component of DCS is still far from being solid. BTW when do track replays get fixed? The way it is now reminds me of the state of thing when Starcraft introduced replays back in 1999. But ok, so let's get this straight on the list of improvements. Missiles corrected. F-15 with a new pit and some upgrades. No specific info as for the Russian jets (can we please have the cobra back now?!). Su-25 and A-10A being useless for the most part with better missiles, MANPADS, AAA firing on the like turkeys. And also, the Russian jets are still the 1990's version. Improved handling on take off. And... expanded theater into Georgia. Now why would ED mislead their customers? The map does not get expanded, it's just the map we have in DCS World, and it's free with the Su-25T. So to sum up: 6DOF F-15 - couldn't care less, I don't use TIR, and there is no point in mouse 6DOF without click-able pits, and I also don't like the Eagle. Any improvements to the A-10A are of no interest to me, I fly the Charlie Hog. Su-25... pretty much a useless sitting duck, good for target practice, plus the T version is free already, and also outdated. That leaves me with the Mig-29 and the Flankers, which get... updated missiles, which is just as thrilling for as the fact that I can turn on the windshield wipers in the Ka-50. And all this for $40. Nope, sorry, but just no.

Taxing is about as easy as IL-2 in the Mustang... Once you stop listening to all the handbook this, handbook that jabber. Just bind separate wheel brakes and use rudder in combination with the appropriate wheel brake. Go slow, keep your stick neutral or pulled back and for the love of everything holy DO NOT UNLOCK THE TAIL WHEEL.

Well from the developers standpoint, sure a lot of work means appropriate price tag. However, from the customer standpoint... we don't really know, and we don't really care. I think some understanding should apply both ways here. I get this is a niche product, I get this is a small company and I get that rewriting the code took effort, but... people bought LOMAC, FC1, FC2, and now FC3... well not really anything new here - no new planes, no AFM for planes (just missiles... and you really have to be deep into this game to consider this a big improvement). Just one 6DOF pit. Why just one? This make the sim very uneven, and many Lock On fans came to it from Flanker, and that was all about Russian jets, not the F-15. I don't know if I'm going to buy this yet. Mostly because I have been getting my kicks from study-sim level lately, but I know that there is a significant number of people who feel they are getting the same game for the fourth time with just a fece-lift and $40 is a lot.

How about people who already own FC1 and FC2? FC3 is more of an upgrade for them, yet the price is still $40? Black Shark 2 was sold in an upgrade version for those, who already had BS1, why not the same policy? I think for that price, we could at least get a new plane.

And since this is a realistic FPS we're talking about it makes no real difference, since Arma does not simulate vests and wounding is also not fully realistic with vanilla. Does not really matter if you get hit by and AK or M4 - you're still down. Anyway, I did a brief comparison of tank gameplay in Arma 2/SABOW/Balkans on Fire/Combined Arms. So far Balkans on Fire still win for my taste and Arma 2 is second (yeah I know, not a tank sim at all, but the feel is right when playing as commander). Combined Arms falls short. Graphics are OK, except in the cities, but it does not have the proper feel. The most irritating immersion killer is the hud/sight/yellow glowy thing - this is really something from an arcade game and has to go at some point. I'm not talking about a real cockpit, but something like Arma has would be better for giving the impression of being in a tin can. Also, there is no option to open the hatch and look around (wider view). Engine is not simulated, yet we have the handbrake and gear, while driving with WSAD - kinda weird, not to mention that we are both driver and gunner. Since we can tell the AI to move to a specific point or attack a specific target, I think it would be possible to have roles in the tank. The potential is there for sure, hope ED can capitalize on that. At this point however, Arma-killer... just no. :music_whistling:

From my experience, you need to go online with someone who can do all the tricks and have them teach you. That's how I learned the hammerhead. As for standard aerobatics like barrel roll, loop, split-s and such, these are easy, just practice and keep that magic ball in the middle (rudder is key for anything done in old planes). If you need to know what the manoeuvres are and their theory, Wikipedia has a nice article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobatic_maneuver

Has anyone taken the server quality into account? DayZ is very popular recently, maybe the servers just cant handle it? Also, I would assume that there is a lot of high ping players joining these servers, since it's not BF3 where you have like 100 in your own country. HPBs can cause sync issues. And how is it we are focusing on Arma 2 sever issues when it has nothing to do with the topic? Nor does it define Arma as broken. I play Arma almost exclusively singleplayer, and while some people might say stuff about AI and realism issues...Arma 2 has one of the biggest modding communities EVER! Stuff that BIS did not implement, it's out there on Armaholic - AI, animation, vehicles, maps you name it. It's not all perfect, but most of the things that annoyed me in the game, I fixed by applying mods. That is another thing DCS can't compete with at the moment. I'm far from being an Arma fanboy, but it's a giant, customizable sandbox and currently, there is not a single game out there that can be compared to it. As for multiplayer... I prefer Quake. :)

Depends what you play. In a fast paced, highly competitive shooter game it's very annoying if you see the game running normal, but don't score any hits. Realistic shooters don't suffer from it that much since character movement is a lot slower, so there is less out of sync issues.

I just can't see DCS as an infantry sim. It would take years to develop and I don't just mean the graphics (collide-able trees anyone?, ability to enter buildings, CQB, animations, object interaction... maybe in 10 years with a new engine). However, I think it would be possible to make a DCS armor module, but that would also require a serious engine overhaul (trees, various ground surface simulation like mud, gravel and many more). IMHO ED should keep focused on what was already announced - finish the Mustang, finish Nevada, DCS Jet and FC3. After that... maybe. Also, for all those who still think DCS could go up against Arma... have you tried comparing the performance of both lately?

Yeah, but how many of these people are about helos and two seaters/carrier ops? I think we need a new poll, to get the numbers straight.

Nevada will be awesome for something like air racing (Reno, baby!). But still, in a combat-sim (and DCS does have combat in it), I think we need an Axis counterpart. I vote 190 D-9 since it would be comparable. Me-109 was the workhorse but not really a match for the P-51. The late versions (G and K) are considered desperate efforts to go on the cheap side of things. Anyone 'official' on board to at least confirm or deny if the "Flying Legends" thing was not a one-off? :edit: Also, one argument for more WWII planes - while ED's sims are modern age focused, the main reason that is keeping some new people from DCS is the complication level. Even with the study approach, it's less for WWII birds, than modern jets. I was never able to get around Falcon, I am quite good with the Ka-50 and a noob in the A-10, but the Mustang took me about two hours to learn to fly... Something to keep in mind.

IL-2 Sturmovik did, and contrary to what most people write here, I'd say the feel of the Mustang in DCS and IL-2 is comparable (if you take the age of the latter into account as well as the fact that it's not a study sim). However, IL-2 is dying and Cliffs of Dover is DOA. The King is dead, long live the King is the lore. So again, I hope DCS has a serious go at that throne.

TurboHog is right. I was also sceptical, but I finally bought the Mustang and I love it. A WWII setting with a study-sim approach is most simmer's wet dream. I really hope ED does not drop the ball on this one. I said many times here and there and I'll say it again - make a WWII setting, an Axis fighter (Fw-190 D9 is my favourite here) and you'll be rolling in dough.

Was trying to show some friends who dropped by how this thing flies and... resulted in a dumb fail. epic.trk