SharpeXB

I actually see that I’m currently GPU limited in DCS, so… That’s with the max settings on a 4K screen at 100-120 FPS. Surprising really, I would figure the CPU is usually the bottleneck in sims like this. In MSFS it is for me. I need the Frame Generation there to get decent FPS but I gotta admit it’s very nice in that game.

It’s funny that this seems to bother some people. Because using it for years this feels completely natural. In fact it did from the beginning. I feel no urge to actually look behind me when gaming The trouble I see many people using VR complain about is that they are competing with players who can look around easily with small movements compared to having to constantly turn their entire body. Not only that but VR requires you to move even more than a real pilot would since you have this restricted FOV and small sweet spot depending on the headset. And you can’t physically grab on a cockpit to help yourself unless you actually built one or something, so you’re working harder. So virtual reality is either cool immersion or a handicap depending on what matters to you. As an older guy I find it embarrassing to admit I hurt myself playing video games so I learned to play with just my thumbs and not my whole body That too. Higher frame rates equal more smooth and clear images. You get better visibility with better performance.

Not quite…

Repair yes, but to refuel and rearm?

I am able to rearm without shutting down the engines. Does that perhaps vary by aircraft? I usually fly the Hornet and M-2000

My install says Caucuses is disabled and it's grayed out in MP. What's up? Log attached. I just ran a repair, that fixed it dcs.log

If you ask me Repair is really an SP feature. In MP you don’t need it, you can just re-slot. You can use Repair to complete an SP mission if you’re damaged and don’t want to restart the mission. Assuming that’s an option.

DCS can do any level of realism you like. It’s the players preferences that tend towards “more realistic”. For example there used to be a Game Mode and it would have totally been possible to create a Game Mode arcade action server. But clearly not enough people in this genre find that appealing. Indeed I can’t imagine someone paying $79 for a module that comes with a 700 page manual being interested in Game Mode. But it was there. It’s more like ED listening to what their customers want than vice versa. There’s really isn’t any “friction” that I notice. Heck the simple system FC3 aircraft play alongside the Full Fidelity modules online and I don’t think that bothers anyone. I don’t see how realism and large open multiplayer exclude one another.

I’m not quite sure what this means. I see many large complex scenarios being run online. And I’ll speculate that when the Dynamic Campaign comes along and that is usable online, it will be easier for more servers to run scenarios like that. Right now those are very difficult to create and manage. There’s nothing wrong with small missions either but I don’t see DCS as being more or less suited for that. It seems anything is possible. Back to the topic, the focus on bringing your aircraft back in one piece is clearly something that’s more relevant to an ongoing scenario that keeps track of such things.

Hmmm from what I see the most popular PVP server in this game is basically Air-Quake (Growling Sidewinder) Second in popularity are dynamic war types like Contention and Heatblur. Below that level are a bunch of thinly attended ones that likely aren’t worth playing on due to just the low numbers.

It’s certainly possible to create an air-start instant action mission in DCS. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a server run scenarios like this though. I don’t get the impression that this style of gameplay appeals to very many players here. Withholding the score until the player lands pretty well solves that problem. That and some servers will ban you for de-slotting during combat.

I do notice that all of the popular servers in this game tend to have more rules than not. Perhaps people do want some sort of structure in the game or a filter to keep noobish gameplay at a minimum. The repair feature seems to make sense only in the context of a dynamic war type game that tracks resources, airframes fuel etc. otherwise it doesn’t serve much purpose. If the wait time actually has a function in the scenario then maybe players won’t mind it.

Yeah that’s a pretty obvious weakness to using dots. Without them you can easily see bright aircraft against dark backgrounds like the water. The whole system is a very poor solution IMO.

If you ask me, appreciating DCS means living in the moment. Yeah it’s great to know that new things are always on the horizon but there’s so much to do already in the sim that it’s not worth spending time worrying about the future.

Yeah DCS doesn’t have that kinda budget… Again this game doesn’t have the player base to support an add-on like that. And I think that comes with a subscription fee.

That’s a nice video, it must be nuts making that with the buggy and limited DCS replay tool What might be difficult is going back and forth between the two. Using TrackIR exclusively doesn’t feel disorienting to me and DCS actually models the shoulder turn around the headrest quite naturally.

I think the troubles with VR would be lower resolution and the ability to ID the enemy. And also the physical need to turn your body around constantly. That’s either cool and immersive or a handicap depending on how you look at it. I get the impression that many VR players feel this puts them at a disadvantage or is too straining. The use of mods like Necksafer that increase the head rotation speed to mimic TrackIR seems pretty common. I would think that’s potentially disorientation or sickness inducing though. DCS recently added those spotting dots which are a mixed bag of benefits or exploits. Truth is they probably cease functioning WVR where dogfighting happens. The need for those dots seems to indicate that VR players are unable to see distant aircraft without graphic helpers which then vanish at a certain range.

Questioning the flight models is generally a farcical topic. If you any actual data to support your theory then feel free to provide it. I very much doubt ED gets these things wrong. Suggesting they don’t know something as simple as the airspeed is laughable.

True, those were like 50-70% faster than their predecessors.

Well the price for anything is what the market will bear, not the materials and such. There’s probably $1 of actual materials in the card Lucky for us we probably all own Nvidia stock somewhere…

30-40% is just a slight increase? Seems pretty normal for a new model.

If you consider inflation the price increase from the 4090 to the 5090 is only about $100. Although that’s another $100 towards what’s already a very expensive card. Such is life…

In the US you can get paid up to $800 selling your blood plasma. So that would work

I hate to say this about fake frames because I’m always skeptical and very nitpicky… but they look fantastic in FS2024 and Cyberpunk 2077. In FS2020 the effect was awful and earlier versions of DLSS were kinda terrible. It’s either an improvement of DLSS or the games themselves. Those two are the only ones I’ve tried it on and it seems they intend you to use it as they’re hardly playable without it. FS is CPU-bound for me in any case.

Honestly I see used 4090s for sale at pretty good prices. Selling one to finance your upgrade doesn’t seem like much of a stretch. I don’t feel the need to have more GPU in DCS right now though. A 4090 will max this game in 2D.