mmaruda

Why not? I used the X-52 for 3 years and was happy with it, now someone else is very happy with it.

Steelseries Syberia V2 - by far the best headset I ever had. Great sound, very comfortable and light, not wireless though.

Did you open the refueling hatch? I think it's R or CTRL+R.

It seems realistic to me. Don't play much FC3, but in BMS when you go 'maddog' over the comms people get nervous. In theory, once an AMRAAM goes 'pitbull' there is little chance for the bandit to break the lock, but you should not launch at a furball since accidents happen. :)

A normal pilot would probably pass out of puke after several minutes of such a thing. DCS is a game though and the AI and player can do loops all day long. Pilot fatigue is not simulated in DCS.

There is several good point here. As for the War Thunder phenomenon let me shed some light on the subject. Personally I hate it, just as any game that has you grind for hours to get to plane you like etc. However, once you get past that, and the idiotic MMO setting with Zeros flying against Hurricanes over Germany, the FM and DM on highest settings are pretty descent. I would say it's very close to what IL-2 1946 had. Many old IL-2 players play this now, since it's just some fun and stable multiplayer they do with their friends. And there are also those full real battles (Gaijin aims for a broad market, but they have some hardcore simmers in the community and try to listen to them). However the biggest advantage of the game is that everyone can pick it up and play. Sure there are a lot of irritiating and plain stupid people there, but if you want to start flying, you can with a medium rig and just mouse and keyboard and HOTAS and TrackIR works as well. Not to mention the game looks awesome. DCS graphics are a joke compared to that. I think the last thing is the most important one. Simulation games will die a slow and painful death if the state of the graphic engines does not improve. DCS looks ok, but there are pyramid-shaped mountains here that remind me of Gunship 2000, not to mention the levitating roads (IL-2 had better roads seriously). There are no rain effects, cities look terrible, trees are sprites and... well you all know that. Now you need a beast PC to run that crappy looking game and no matter how much money you spend, it still won't run 60 FPS maxed out in all conditions. I know people are pissing their pants about EDGE, but so far I have not seen any significant improvement on any released screenshots, not to mention those videos Luthier put out (ok, it was the editor, so maybe in-game it's better). I also doubt there will be a significant improvement in optimization. DX11 has some features, but AI and high LOD aircraft models will still kill your CPU. Each time something like that is pointed out, people raise their voices and yell that the map i so big and the simulation so complex. Somehow I don't buy it. Do we really need such large maps? Oh sorry, I mean MAP, cause it maybe large, but there is just one and we got bored to death with it. I could probably do guided tours around the Caucasus now.

To be honest, the whole discussion is beginning to get futile. DCS WWII will probably get the "most stiff KS campaign ever award" no matter what we say here. No thought has clearly been put into how successful KS projects work and that is the main reason DCS WWII is not the hottest thing around. People pointed those things out early when there was still time to improve, but those post were mostly flagged as not cool, since "flight sims are dying and we need to help out, and you are just hating" bla bla bla. The thing is, there was some really CONTRUCTIVE criticism on this board that could have helped, if the devs listened and if the critics didn't face instant opposition from over-optimistic fanboys. In short: too much secrecy, not enough promo material, lack of clear financial strategy, too much talk about how someone want's to make a flight sim game, and not enough about what the game is going to be like. This could have been a success, if someone planned this and marketed it properly. The fact that Luthier or whoever they might have on the team is not good at this sort of thing is a poor excuse. It's a business and you are trying to sell something - act like a salesman. The problem with flight sims is not the fact they are so inaccessible to new people, nor that you need to read those long and complicated manuals - with proper tutorial missions we could ditch the manuals as a necessity to fly altogether, but I guess noone want's to get out of their nieche thinking comfort zone set in a weird space and time somewhere around 1999. It's the fact that the graphic engines are ancient, the hardware to run them costs a fortune and the controllers cost just as much (why not figure a way to play DCS without TrackIR and just a Logitech Wingman?). Instead of starting to brainstorm and get their heads wrapped around possible solutions to those issues, simulation devs prefer to conceive that this is a niche market and nothing can be done. Well here is some news for everyone: This is the biggest single piece of plain wrong information I have read regarding sims in general for the past few years. There is a whole large community who does not care about this project, because they prefer WWI planes. There is also a similarly large community of people who, through their experience with the WWI plane sim, decided to put their money and faith in the competition. There is also a whole bunch of people who could not care less about any new flight sim, because IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 with mods is all they will ever need and it doesn't require a computer made by Satan in the depths of hell to run. There are also those who play War Thunder and also don't care, because nothing around looks prettier and runs better. There is also the BMS community, whole likes dynamic campaigns. And there is the FSX community who don't like shooting things and are probably the largest group of them all. Some of these groups overlap, some of their members even play DCS and some people have never heard about it. You want to promote your products, you try to get everyone you can on board. So far nothing has been said around these forums or through KS that would convince me to back this project. Off this forum, on the other hand, I have heard and read a ton of rather discouraging stuff from cautious options that, considering past DCS modules experience, there is no way to develop this within a year, to straightforward claims that DCS WWII KS looks like a textbook scam. Now that said, I'm done wasting my time on following discussions on DCS WWII. I hope RRG succeeds and you can be sure that when this comes out and gets positive reviews I'll gladly pay for it, even if it means $60 per plane, but currently if the development goes the same way promotion does, this project looks like vaporware or eternal beta at best.

One of the biggest pains of the old IL-2 series was the cheating AI using a simplified FM and having a 360 field of vision. The one currently in DCS: Mustang is better, but still not bound by the same rules as the player. It's a big concern really for a WWII sim, where most of the fun comes from close range dogfighting. I would hate it if DCS 1944 became one of those "you want proper fun, play online only" sims. Especially with the recent MP stability issues I keep hearing about.

Here is a suggestion - maybe ED could outsource an integrated comms project to 3rd party? What I would personally wish for is something of a synthesis between IVC from BMS and ACRE from Arma. IVC is great and all, but it works flawlessly in all situations and you can still talk simultaneously on a single channel (there is beeping noise, but you can still listen and talk). If we had something that would only allow one person to use a channel at a time (I think that is how it should work, correct me if I am wrong) and proper radio simulation (noises, distortion or signal blocked by hills etc.), that would be something I would be willing to pay a couple of bucks for, even though I almost never play DCS online.

Why isn't there more promotion on this project? RRG are the ones who made the Dora pit as far as I am aware, yet they seem awfully quiet about it. There are users in this forum who make poster and trailer vids to support this, but from the devs side there is nothing, apart from the vids that don't even really give any insight as to what the sim will feature (not everyone who might be interested in this is aware of DCS). It's as if the people who should be most concerned with the success of the Kickstarter campaign cared less than the users in this forum. It's just weird.

I completely realise this and fully support it. But successful kickstarter campaign needs proper marketing. That is the reality of it and I think RRG guys should know that.

Sorry man, but agrasyuk is right. There are a lot of people who are disappointed with Oleg an Ilya and really hate their guts. The fact that the KS vids so far have shown nothing substantial only adds to the pool of doubts, should there be any. You will not convince someone who once trusted the devs and was fooled to do it again. As for what you have said about this being a small community and not many sims being made... Well, let me be blunt. Noone is making sims out of charity. It's a business and it goes two ways. I pay for something, I expect it to work at least. That 40 bucks for me is a week of working a job I hate, I am going to think twice before I spend it on a bunch of promises. Successful Kickstarter projects launch with the devs showing they are a capable team, presenting their work so far so that the target audience can see what they are spending their money on. Here we have seen nothing and Ilya says they can deliver a final product within a year. Cliffs took about 6 years to develop and it was a mess. The DCS Mustang alone took around a year to be polished. And here we have not even seen a single screenshot showing say the P-47 cockpit. I suggest you look here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89720 see what has already been made, look at the post dates. Are we even close to a beta release? There are those people who can afford it and are overly enthusiastic about anything announced and I will risk a statement that these are the people who kicked in so generously at the beginning. Those who have doubts would rather wait for something substantial but the majority will wait for the final product. Becasue lets face it, there is a growing trend where game developers promise stuff, ask for money and deliver an eternal beta afterwards. Sure we can say 'okay', the market is what it is and not expect too much, but it that really a healthy business relationship? How can we be sure this won't invite scammers in? Personally I don't mind giving some cash to companies that need some support to finish what they have started, but currently DCS: WWII is just a lot of promises. Don't expect people to hand in their hard earned cash just because the market is tough. I would really like this project to succeed, but there is absolutely nothing that would fill me with any confidence about it's success. And I am not the guy who bought Cliff of Dover and was disappointed and angry.

Personally I prefer standalone rather than Steam if I have a choice, but recently almost every game I play is Steam based. If there was some sort of benefit from using Steam (dunno, add achievements maybe?) and all titles (betas) would be included, I'd probably switch just for the update convenience.

Not really an online player here, but I strongly support this idea. Joining servers via friendlist is just so convenient.

1GBDDR5 - this the problem. I had the same card and updated to a 680 with 2GB, which made a significant difference.

Not really an EVE player too. Early game is just wasting hours on boring stuff to get some cash and level up before you can have fun - that's why I didn't bother beyond the 2 weeks free trial. Apparently however, if you do crime stuff, you get blasted in high security sectors in seconds and if you piss people off they will probably hunt you down and blast you as well. Long story short, if you are small time offender with no powerful friends you get blasted. If you are part of a powerful organisation the size of large country with billions to burn, you can get away with murder - just like in real life.

I don't think EVE promotes bad behaviour, it just mimics real world mechanics and in the real world bad behaviour apparently pays.

There is also Danger from the Deep and it's free: http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/

September 1st? WWII stuff coming to DCS... :music_whistling:

Wow, physics discussion... This feels like an IL-2 forum already. :)

Not sure if anyone still follows this, but it seems FF is not that dead after all. http://freefalcon.org/topic/8503222/1/ If they manage to pull it off, it really can be the best thing that happened to Falcon.

Steam updates don't seem an issue to me, at least with Arma 3 Beta - there is a new update every 2 days or so. Not that slow at all.

Just tried the test after taking down my OC (room is too hot now). Specs are as follows: I5 2500K@3,7 (OC was 4,5) 8GB RAM GTX 680 with 2GB Went with everything maxed out (displays 512, HDR cold, tree shadows on). I get around 31 FPS average and the framerate dipped to 24 when the planes were taxing. To be honest I cannot see any benefits from over-clocking at this point.

Nope - too boooring for me.

Make sure you have "prefer maximum performance" in NV control panel enabled.