mmaruda

DCS World seems to have tremendous potential to become a platform for various aircraft and theatres. If it's easy to put stuff into the game now (I have read that you can make any aircraft flyable using the Su-25T cockpit), then if we don't get a WWII setting and (I hope) 1950's this will be a huge shame. As to the P-51 itself, people need to start thinking creative. A properly designed campaign could make this fit in quite well. So what if it ain't realistic? Just make up some mercenary air force flying Mustangs, add some heavier guns as payloads (there was a mod with uber-gunpods for the Ka-50), some after-market RWR device and a flare pod and we're good to go tank busting. I'm still sceptical about the Mustang, maybe because I don't think it was such a good plane after all. I prefer info from books rather than the Discovery Channel propaganda, but it's definitely a pretty machine and looking at the screens, ED has done a great job modelling it. If we get some more stuff to do in the P-51, I'd be happy to buy it.

Something to check the control assignment is needed. The reason I prefer DCS over FC2 is I have all the switches in the cockpit and don't have to assign everything since I always forget anyway.

From what I'm seeing here, it seems like DCS World has a bright future ahead of itself. ED really hit the jackpot with this 3rd party addons thing and possibility of implementation. I'm really hoping this sim turns into something like a military FSX. Just seeing that Eagle fly makes way overenthusiastic about DCS. There is a ton a talented modders out there (just check out the SAS community for IL-2) that could really bring a ton of planes to this, even if they're only on FC level rather than DCS.

Still one must acknowledge that the engine we now have has serious performance issues. It may be hard, buy some news from ED that they are trying to work it out would at least come people down, since now we don't even know if they intend to work on multicore support or are just waiting for hardware that would handle the current state of affairs. On the other hand, I think it's the GPU that has a lot to do with performance. I had a Pehenom II 1090T no OC and a Radeon HD 6870. Framerates were terrible. So I went for the i5 2500K and OC'd it to 4,4Gh. There was an improvement, but still mostly around 20 FPS flying low, sometimes below that. For a game that is said to be so CPU bound something did not seem right. This week I upgraded to a GTX 680 (which was a fortune and I can hardly live with myself now) and framerates do not go below 30 even in extreme cases. Hell, I mostly get over 40 FPS in the cockpit and from 60 to 100 outside. It seems to me, that the issue lies with VRAM and the fact that the eye-candy such as shadows, water and other stuff is not done using the usual tricks game developers do. It's like the game does not make use of shaders at all. Seems like everything is run equally by the CPU and GPU and if any of these two is not high-end, FPS will drop. The reasonable thing to do IMHO would be to get the AI on another core and get these DirectX features to handle the eye candy. I'm not a coder, so these just assumptions, but I feel the pain of those with lesser hardware. The least ED could do is update the system requirements on the DCS page, as the ones stated as recommended are more or less minimum to play this.

I think you understood me correct. As I mentioned it's not a big issue, all I'm saying is that this could be done... more comfortable. My biggest concern is that whenever I upgrade my PC (it's usually a full rebuild) I keep forgetting to deactivate. So with BS1, I'm bound to run out of activations and it seems I will need to log a support ticket for this. Oh well. :) As for the DRM, I don't really get it - the software is available for anyone on the DCS site, only you need a valid key to be able to play and I don't think that anyone who actually bought it, would share the key. After all, we all want ED to get paid, or else no more sims. :(

One thing seems odd to me. As far as I understand, the activations get renewed (1 per month or something like that). This is true for BS2 and A10, but not for BS1 (I have a DVD version of BS1, rest are digital). This is a bit of a pain really, since in order to install BS2 upgrade, you need to have BS1 installed and activated. I'm curious how this will work with the integration thing. Now Starforce is mentioned again, when I remember someone posted some time ago, that this will not be needed. Can't we just lock the product keys to our account, and be done with all that activation business? Flaming Cliffs also worries me a bit. With FC2, having to install LOMAC is another obstacle. I know this is because of Evilsoft, but maybe there is some workaround? Like for example making the planes available as single packages (it's already that way with the free Su-25T). All these are minor issues really and obviously can be overcome easily, but it would really be awesome if ED simplified the installation process, by say making the given aircraft available once you lock the key to you account and log in (sort of like RoF). To save disk space, the player could choose to install only the packages they want to use and all the files could be installed through the game itself. This would probably require some good hosting, but maybe integrate some torrent code? Just some random thoughts. Also, any change we could get the BS2 pilot model updated? It looks crap compare to the Mi-8 driver.

I'm more comfortable with digital purchases lately, but seeing those pics of other people's sim collections, it would be a shame if boxed versions for sims were to go.

Personally I'd rather ED stayed as far from Ubi as possible, these guys seem to be ruining every simulation/tactical shooter series they touch.

Since the Su-25T is free in DCS World, is there any chance that FC3 will bring a clickable 3d cockpit for the Toad? It's something many fans of the plane have been waiting for a king time.

I liked the previous ones better, now it's more Hollywood.

Since there is a Mig-21 in the works, how a Phantom F-4?

A few comments from someone who grew up on WWII sims: AI - this seems to behave pretty much like the one in IL-2 1946 before the 4.11 patch - not really aggressive, quite predictable, using low-g turns. The most problematic thing is visual target tracking. This is just an observation (I don't have the Mustang). Ballistics - if one were to shoot like that in Sturmovik, all ammo would go to waste. It seems to me, that the need for deflection is not that big in high-g turns. The second thing is that you shoot from something that looks like 300 meters or more here, that should not be successful, 100-50 meters is the way to go. Another thing is the flames and smoke - each kill looks like in Lock On - fire and black smoke. That is not realistic, gun-cams usually show some white smoke, maybe bright intermittent flames. Dark smoke is quite rare. Plus the Mustang had self-sealing fuel tanks, it wasn't easy to set it on fire.

So true, the fact that DCS runs on a single core in 2012 is... just sad. Anyway, DCS World does not seem to be an improvement performance-wise over the previous sims. Nevada is supposed to have this EDGE thing, but if it's only in Nevada (which is pay to play) that will suck.

Comparing prices with other PC entertainment software $40 is a steep price for just one plane. Let's face it, it's not a full game, just an addon. If you guys think it's worth it, go ahead. I'll wait till it's cheaper and the bugs get fixed. Just remember, that A-10 was $60 because some overenthusiastic people here said they are willing to pay that much for it. FC2 and BS1 were left without support (with confirmed bugs etc) and the updates for them ended up as paid sequels. Don't be surprised if the next DCS will be $100 because a few rich boys here will say it's a steal (FYI: stealing = free). Oh, and I just love the FSX addons argument, but I have a better one: collectable card game players! They pay a fortune for their decks, and that is not even half as much value for money as the FSX addons.

Now that is what I'm talking about! With such things, the Mustang might work. Please try to understand me, I'm not hating - if I don't like it, I just won't buy it. All I'm trying to prove is that the P-51 will be awesome with a WWII setting, without it... Let me put it this way - we'll get a high fidelity study sim of a warbird - cool noone has done this before. But just flying around is not a big deal. Many Spitfire pilots in the Battle of Britain had less than 30 hours of flight in the Spit - sure they could fly it, but combat flying was a different matter. All that engine management, prop pitch, radiator stuff etc. is great, but only in a dogfight situation it get really important. It's easy to keep you engine cool and running if you're just sightseeing, but it only get challenging when you have a 190 on your tail. And a Mustang vs. Mustang scenario is not really realistic. Anyway, I really hope this gets expanded, either by those 3rd party mods or official stuff. It's really a wasted opportunity, if it doesn't. There are no WWII study sims out there, but there is a large market for it. I hope ED does not waste the opportunity. Anyway, thumps up for the Toad, hope we get a click-able cockpit. Never really got to play with the Su-25 in Lock On as I came there from Flanker and that was my main plane to fly and remembering all those keyboard commands was always a pain.

You can all say what you want, but from a customer perspective I don't care how for the coding issues and how hard it is to make a plane sim. The market world is simple, you make a product, set a price, if people consider it worth it, they will buy it. Now with A-10 and Black Shark we get the full package - a theater, campaigns, training missions and all. Now comes the Mustang - 40 bucks and we just get the plane, completely out of its historical context. No promise of further development, and a "challenge campaign" (probably flying through pylons and shooting at balloons). Compared to the previous sims by ED, this does not feel like a complete product worth the full price. PS SC2 does not have any fees to play.

I think it has been said several times. There is a huge problem with having the P-51 in DCS. Many people here want the next fast mover, and it still hasn't been announced. Also there are a lot of problem with DCS engine, and the devs are silent (IL-2 1946 gets updates more often than DCS! seriously!). So now we are to get the Mustang... No fast mover, no Neveda still. Personally I am all in when it comes to WWII planes with high fidelity modeling since there is no study-sim for that branch (unles you count FSX addons). But the main problem with these warbirds is that they are... you guessed it! Warbirds! They are meant for fighting, not sightseeing and in the current setting there are no comparable opponents. While it seems obvious that when Nevada gets released we'll probably see some Reno Air Racing, a combat plane needs combat. If after the realease ED will state that they intend to make other WWII planes and another map for them and the releases will come say on a yearly basis, then I'll buy the Pony. But if it's just a quick cash grab, I'll learn to play Starcraft 2 pro-level sooner, than I'll buy something DCS again.

Maybe some mercenary campaign in the Mustang including recon and ground strafing, photo taking etc? In a modern war that's the best one could come up with for the P-51. While I still think it's pointless for a Mustang to be part of the "Crimean Air War", I would very much like to have a campaign. Let's say the player is some shady gun for hire with a Mustang, who get's a contract from some local mod to take care of some shady business for them while the war is on, or maybe some humanitarian third party to document possible war crimes. It would probably be hard to pull off and unrealistic, but it's still better than sight seeing. And optimize the damn engine for Pete's sake! :)

Thumbs up for a CPU-bound game engine running on a single core in 2012 :) I wonder if they intend to do something about in the next DCS release, since hardware producers make their money of mobile platforms these days, not gaming rigs built to handle a not so popular simulation. No one seems to expect Ivy Bridge to outperform SB significantly, if at all, AMD dropped out of desktop CPU's and Intel's next release will be server CPU. So maybe ED could finally do something about smoke and clouds being CPU bound and the water being rendered all the time below the landscape? I'll just hint, that releasing a product where the recommended system specs do not give you a solid 30FPS at medium detail is not very encouraging for the customer, when purchasing further products is at hand. And as for LOMAC, try running it now with a Su-25 mission close above ground (spoiler: don't even dream about a solid 60 FPS).

Ok, look. Plain and simple - ED is one of the few developers of combat sims today. 777 has their WWI thing, 1C/Maddox/Ubi/Whatever do WWII (and fail to deliver), Thirdwire occupies light jet sims part. Currently there is no competition and no alternative, and this is unlikely to change within the next five years. So, like it or not, those of us, who enjoy modern aircraft in a combat environment with high realism are left with ED. The forums exist, so we put our feedback here. Dismissing negative feedback with BS arguments like "the only way to ever get a fully optimized product is to never add any features" is the same as saying "we don't care". And that stick has two ends - especially that ED does not make 9 mil sales on release like Activision. Me and other people expressed their concerns. It's not a big effort to post in the forums, but still it takes some time and some effort. The engine is poorly optimised by today's standards and it's a fact, no argument is going to change that, and I'm not the only one complaining. P-51 not fitting a modern jet conflict scenario is also a fact just as Flaming Cliffs 3 seems an attempt to sell people the same product for the third time. We can either get along and reach a consensus where the developer and the fans communicate and the products get better and and the community grows, or we can argue and see where it leads us. All I'm trying to say is, flying the Mustang with a low framerate, with nothing to shoot at cannot be compared to fighting FW-190s, covering B-17s in a 10-year old game, and a clickable cockpit is not going to change much in that matter. If ED want's to make some quick and easy cash, DCS Su-25T is the way to go. With the current state of the engine and the current game concept, the P-51 seem only a waste of time and effort. Sorry if I did not sound nice, that is just my opinion on the matter - I've been with ED products since Flanker and LOMAC and had great fun with them, but currently it's what it is.

Unfortunately, thanks to the exchange rate and hardware prices being generally higher in my country, you rig would cost me a fortune and shipping it from abroad would probably make it even more expensive. Anyway, I don't think I'm exaggerating. If you are running Intel, it's a lot better, unfortunately I'm on AMD and simply cannot afford to buy a new PC every few month. I used to be ok with the performance, but then 1.1.1.0 happened. If they fix the engine in terms of smoothness, that is fine, but I somehow doubt it - it still runs on a single core and never even gets to 100% of utilisation. Same goes for graphic card - it's demanding, but it during play the temperatures on the cards are lower than while playing Unreal of something like that.

I'm not sure about the F-18, my guess would still be the F-15, since that is what National Guard flies and as far as I understand the A-10 was made initially with them in mind (before they released it as a commercial product). Nevertheless, modern jest somewhat fit in the Crimea conflict. The Mustang does not. My point is - it's WWII warbird, and warbids are meant for fighting not sightseeing and with the current setting, there is not much fighting to be done in the P-51. As for taking over the WWII segment, I know that ED never made such claims, but some people mentioned it and my post was meant to address that. Still, one has to accept that the WWII setting has no new flight sim to compete with the 10-year old Sturmovik and this is great opportunity to anyone who makes combat flight sims, and with the DCS level of fidelity many people (me including) have their wishful thinking on. But with what is currently announced, this has no chance of happening. With the current state of the engine, the P-51 module is just not worth it. Personally I believe they should be doing all they can to optimise the engine, since the recommended specs now, are just a fairy tale - you can fly, right, but forget the campaign unless you have a 2000$ rig and even then it can fall below 30 fps, and the game does not even use half of the PC's power. If the P-51 brings an engine upgrade that will make the game playable, I'll probably extend my trust to ED (and I really wish that would happen), but if it's just an addon that runs 15 fps on my 3,6Gh 6-core and high-end gfx card that can punch a hole through all the BF3s and Skyrims, than I'd rather buy myself a bottle of good scotch than go stutter-sight-seeing in the P-51.

Nothing personal, but... I'm losing confidence in what ED is doing lately. First BS2 - they left BS1 still with bugs, beacuse it was necessary to update the engine and all to make it compatible with A-10. What for? No idea. Flying the Shark and the Hog in coop makes no sense and neither does dog-fighting with the two. The engine is badly optimized and some missions are unplayable even for top hardware that significantly exceeds recommended specs. A-10 on the runway is as stutter-fest even after the patches, same goes for too many contrails or overcast weather. BS2 has the new Medved campaign which is also unplayable unless you edit the weather (stutters + too strong wind at which the heli should even fly?). Noe there comes a 20$ Nevada map, which is only good for... dunno Red Flag maybe? Alien invasion? Now they have the Mustang. Cool, it would be nice to have a proper WWII flight sim after CloD has failed and IL-2 is getting old. Only it's not a WII flight sim. And it's supposed to be online compatible with A-10 and BS2. For what? Apart from for-fun what-if scenarios it's useless. A DCS: Su-25 would make sense in this and it's almost done in FC2 anyway, all it needs is a click-able pit. So why do we get the P-51? Because ED made it to check if it's possible to make a prop plane with this engine. And since they have succeeded, someone thought: "Hey, let's sell it, our fans will buy anything with DCS touch applied to it". No matter if it's pointless or unpolished. And I most definitely assure anyone thinking otherwise, that the IL-2 community will not switch to DCS because of it. No proper WII theater, no campaign, only one plane... and it's the Mustang... Whoever wanted the Mustand in study sim form just to fly around already has it from A2A. Without a proper theater and more WII planes to come, to make dog-fighting have a point, this is just a quick money grab from the fanboys' pockets. Sorry ED, but you really have to try harder than that to "fill the gap".

Viper, I understand your arguments, but I just feel lost in all this. Yes, I have read most (if not all) of the stuff on trimming in BS, yes I have considered the possibility of doing stuff wrong in BS1, but then again I have been doing it according to what I saw on the forums and in the developers release notes movies and various other YT videos. I have seen tracks and read your posts, but whatever I do, I still have the bump unless I fly using the pres-hold-release method and as far as I know, this is not the proper way to fly the Shark. I did put time in BS1 and I also put time in BS2. I do not intend to switch to "game mode", since I do not see the point of playing a study-sim this way, not to mention all the time and effort I put into learning this sim would go to waste. I may not be an active member of the community, but I am fairly proficient in operating all the systems in the sim and the only thing that I find difficult is controlling the helicopter itself (in BS2 not BS1). From what I have read here and there, it was only confirmed that FF joysticks are broken and issues with normal ones are just are result of "you're doing it wrong". Yet there was no developers release notes, new tutorials or even a mention that flying the KA-50 in BS2 is now different. I'd gladly spend more time learning to fly if I had any clue as to what I am doing wrong. As for being ripped off, I do not understand what do you mean about blaming the sim for shortcomings. I you are addressing the issue of paying 20$ for a patch that has shortcomings and the customer dissatisfaction that goes with it, I would say it's quite fair. It is not my intention to argue with anyone, however, it's a fact form me that whatever I do in BS2 I cannot get rid of the bump, where in BS1 the issue does not exist. I have tried to do everything I saw in the tracks and videos you have posted, but it just does not work for me - bumps still happen and unless I fly with the press-hold-release method, I am all over the place. Changing axis settings also does not help.

Just wanted to add my 5 cents to the mix. Many people have mentioned on this forum that in BS2 the trimmer is different. There are known issues with FF joysticks, however testers do not acknowledge issues with normal ones. Perhaps not all sticks experience the 'bump' thing, however from what I can see the Saitek X52s have this problem. I have it, a few other people have it. Frankly speaking BS2 is unplayable on my X52. At first I figured I'm doing something wrong, not trimming properly or not often enough, but in BS1 I have zero issues - I can fly fast, aggressive and the helicopter does not act as a drunken hippo on speed. And I'm not even what most people would call a descent pilot. If we add wind to the mix (Medved 2 campaign is a bad weather fest all the way, ground control refuses engine start-up most of the time, not to mention flying) the sim is unplayable. If we add many minor bugs (clipping gear, NVGs and other) and combine in with the fact that 1.1.1.0 has some serious performance issues for no apparent reason - 20$ for a patch that actually breaks more stuff than fixes (at least more crucial stuff like the trim) it's a bad deal altogether. I'm sorry to say this, I have always been an enthusiastic ED customer, but I simply feel ripped-off.