rfxcasey

So are you saying I shouldn't be downloading the Open Beta version from the DCS website right now cause it's trying to download 60GB and it's taking forever?

I'm sure there will be some optimizations and tweaks. It may get better if they ever get Vulcan implemented but something tells me it's more of a CPU issue. Thing is, you say 'locked' at 30? That sounds more like a v-sync issue. Try turning off v-sync in the game menu and on your video card control panel software to see if it makes any difference. Some v-sync settings will lock you in at 30 if they get too far below 60 or whatever if memory serves. If you've got a newer Nvidia card go into the control panel and try fast or adaptive v-sync if the sync turns out the be the problem and you just have to have some manner on. OR, just ignore me if you've already tried all this.:pilotfly:

Great, how do you do that?

Ugh, what a pain, not seeing the module I guess I have to update. How do you update past 2.5.5.4? Updaters is telling me my game is up to date, think I need to beta update, what do I do?

I'm flying on a 2560x1080 ultra wide monitor with an aspect ratio of 21:9. DCS has the ratio set to 2.33333 which I believe is correct. When panning around in external view everything appears to be normal, the problem in when I'm in the cockpit view, the edges of the screen are stretched. If I'm flying next to a B-17 and looking straight ahead with the B-17 just visible on the side of my screen the plane looks very stretched. Is this just a matter of zoom level, is there a FOV setting for the cockpit view I can adjust?

Has anyone put together a skin pack for the non flyable planes in DCS? Planes like th c17 and the like would really benefit from some better skins if not new higher polygon models. Understandable that higher poly models might be a bit too much to ask for but skins should be relatively easy. To be honest, I'm surprised no one from DCS has updated them yet, even if in their spare time or over a weekend, should be a since for a pro that does skins all the time.

So you have to win the tournament to win a prize, or winners picked at random?

I'm going to buy a new SSD for DCS but need help deciding how large. What I currently own (not all installed presently) DCS World 2.5 Flaming Cliffs 3 A10 C Blackshark 2 F/A-18 Hornet Caucusus map Persian Gulf map Super Carrier I'm also considering possibly getting either the F-16 Falcon or F-14 Tomcat in the future, one or the other, probably not both. Wondering if a 480-500 would be enough or should I get a 1TB? I know obviously the bigger the better asking even if just for a reference. So if I do buy another 1TB in addition to the one I've already got all my other stuff on, how much space would all that DCS take up?

I have a tendency to believe that the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and Koreans already know pretty much everything about the Hornet and Falcon with regard to capabilities, certainly much more the DCS probably does, and does anyone really believe these 'rival' nations would use a commercially available flight sim to gather their intelligence? They've either gotten that info long ago through agents for hacking. I'm sure once one has it, they sell it to the others. Although, the 911 terrorist supposedly used Microsoft Flight Simulator to learn enough about commercial airliners to turn them into weapons.

Yeah, Tornado and Apache Longbow.

It'd be nice to someday see the Tornado and Apache Longbow make it to DCS but I'm not holding my breath.

The AH 64 Apache is a must in my opinion to offset the Blackshark. Else, at least the AH-1 Cobra. Since you already have the Huey the Cobra would be a no brainer.

I would like to see clickable cockpits for FC3 aircraft and more advanced radar/weapon models in the cockpit. If not possible it would be nice to at least, when DCS series variations of FC3 aircraft are available, if ever, get a really generous discount on fighter modules for those who bought FC3 for the long waiting we've had to endure. If we had an f18/harrier/f15 with DCS fidelity that would be simply fantastic. Other than that, improved flight models please.

They do after the A-Team gets their hands on them.;)

If you're blind to the facts then I can't fault you. But if you just can't handle the facts, then I guess I can't fault you for burying your head in the sand like an ostrich though that is the kind of thinking that causes the problems in the first place, no offence.

I love, flying, driving, riding, looking and working on machines, but when you start calling it a "She" well, that just starts getting weird and creepy. I'm sure your wife or girlfriend would love being compared to or competing with a machine for your attention and if she says otherwise she is lying (which women NEVER do) to make you happy.

You know nothing about my outlook, and you don't want me here because I challenge your thinking.

For sure dude. The world is moving in such a good direction right now, pardon me if I don't follow it off a cliff.

Yes, you did fizzle out, so actually, you were right for once. Sorry but the reasons given in the announcement seem like an ill attempt to justify this course of action. There are already WW2 flight sims that do what they do very well. I don't see how they think this will be a "new and unique warbird experience". We decided to take our simulation of reality and turn it into a new alternate universe where you will be challenged to wrap your mind around A-10Cs dogfighting with P-51 Mustangs. Look, we're trying to justify this engine to the military and needed to show its versatility, so we decided to use you all as our guinea pigs and make a few bucks at the same time cause you lot will buy anything. Basically, we are going to do whatever the heck we please so just put up with some self-serving projects even it they don't really fit right. KA, BOOOOOOM!!!

Who is this "SHE" so many people refer too? Having been a mechanic at one time, it's actually embarrassing when people refer to a machine as having a gender or even go as far as giving it a goofy name. It's a machine, plain and simple, there is nothing mystic going on here. Anyways, I don't really understand what ED was thinking with the P-51. Its completely out of place. DCS does MODERN air combat and should stick to that as that's what it was designed for. The time spent on this would have been much better spent on an F-18, F-35, F-22, F-16, F-14 or AV-8B Harrier II. I see this as a complete waste of time. It seems more like someone was experimenting and the company decided to make a quick buck off it rather then have some integrity and quality control. We have sims that do WW2 air combat and while more are welcome, DSC shouldn't go this route. What your going to end up with is another half-baked project. DCS need to stick to MODERN air combat and not try to be something it's not. Update your graphics engine, make some more modern content, and just keep nickel and diming us with having to pay for updates to Black Shark like your good at but for Pete sake man, leave the WW2 alone, if not forever, at least until you get some essential jets that are still missing from this sim. The whole concept of a SIM is realism. P-51 vs. P-51 really isn't too realistic, let alone in a modern air combat environment. (rfxcasey) Lights the fuse and despondently walks away.