xracer

Hehe..."full" or full. Any official about this? I can just find that part saying "Pre-purchase also provides access to pre-release Beta versions of the title" which i guess is old info?

I have a question before i (may) buy the Huey module. Long time ago i bought ARMA 3 alpha and the deal there was that i get both the beta and the full game for free when it is released, Think i payd $39 or $49 for it. I've been searching the forums for info on the Huey and how they will sell the full version of the module. Is it so that those who already bought the beta will get the full version for free or is there any added fees? If there are how much will it be?

That was really great news! Thanks very much Wags! Will continue to buy modules and support your team cause of gestures like this!

Yeah that was amazing, thanks for the link!

I feel real smart now as i've bought FC3 not long ago without knowing about these new AFM's modules comming. Obviously someone supporting the DCS series for long as i've done, dont want to sit around with the SFM's when there is comming out AFM's in modules. Also DCS World is the future. Another thing, the AFM A-10A is probably a copy paste FM from A-10C thats why its comming first. The way of the future is the AFM modules and the way i see it FC3 was a waste even if you get all the planes. Great buisness model though ED....

Well done, GKOver. Yes the Titan is very expensive in Europe. I guess its best to forget as quickly as possible what you payd for it and just enjoy the performance. I hope you get pleased with it. As you mentioned noise, my old 5850 and 6850 sounded like a jet when they got loaded. This GTX i cant almost notice. Very good thing that too.

No, doesnt look like it matters alot in this particular benchtest. I have my doubts it matters even if the scenario is more "CPU intensive" which is guess means alot of battles going and lots of floating point calculations going on. But it looks as the GPU is doing alot of the work in the sim. GPU's nowadays aren't like they used to be :) For me OC more or less needs watercooling as my CPU is a 130W so there is money in that, and i knew it had to be easily adapted to new CPU's for it being worth it . It has included adapters for most current CPU's. Anyway for only DCS the gains look minimal above 4 GHz, but maybe that change with EDGE or multi core/threading.

Am not so much on a tight budget, but its more that i have too many interrests. Like Motorcycles (love my ZXR 750) and guitargadgets etc. Anyway good luck on your quest to a faster DCS :thumbup:

Yeah, hopefully EDGE will be a good thing performance wise. Anyway that FX 8350 you have is not that far behind some of the better ivy cpu's so it may very well give you solid boost if you upgrade you graphics card. My advise is if you can/will spend the money, buy above GTX-770 if on Nvidia. where i live the 780 cost the same as a Titan in the US so the Titan was just too much for me. But looking at single screen setups the performance in DCS is more or less the same for those cards. For you though, I seriously mean that your 7850 is way to low spec for that 8350. Also have you tried OC on that 8350?

As i can recall there was earlier a discussion and done research on spesific structures which hogs DCS cause of their complexity and/or the way they are made. Like a couple of structures in the middle of a town etc, which drags down the fps etc. and/or make fps unstable. Was there ever any conclusions on this or recorded a spesific list of those spesific EDM/blk files?

There are no guarantees, but i had the 5850 and your 7850 is stronger. GPu mem is far from all as GTX-580's with far less than 2 gb perform very well. As i mentioned before my W7 is stripped to the bone including a AERO free desktop and rock steady zero CPU usage when DCS is not running and to get to the point. After changing to the GTX-780 i've now got 3 times the fps. So i guess thats all we need to know or? Unless something else is not right it must then be that AMD you have. When looking at tests of the x8xx series they arent the best for sure GPU wise. Most all GTX cards are on paper alot more capable even down to 4x0 series. But if you are looking to upgrade do not buy a expensive GTX card before your sure you have capable CPU. If you later find that it is the AMD causing all, then it seems that that the money saved on a AMD platform isnt a smart way to go when gaming is what its gonna be used for. Seems ppl should at least go for the 8350 for gaming if choosing a AMD architecture.

I installed FC3 yesterday. Have had all versions installed earlier so i just fetched my old regvalues and installation went pretty well except error on image attached.(bug?), but a "retry" seemed to work

Sopranos was the single series i bought and saw all episodes of. Best series to date! RIP, James

What we so see here is that if you have a CPU running above approx 3.5 Ghz and you want to get alot better fps you should not only buy a better graphics card you should buy the best there is out there. This reminds me about all the talk about flightsims being so CPU intensive. To prove that we would maybe need a benchtest with alot more units but with low polycount and details or else the fps will be low doesnt matter which system. The way it looks in the tests DCS is more GPU than CPU hungry. An avg CPU should be enough.

Ok, i'm not really understanding all you say here, but what i noticed is that the angled line also affects let say the F2 view and funny thing is that it seems like its worse on the left screen too. I do as best i can with bezel too. You mention it appears sometimes...seems like it does all the time here though. I dont think i can use tripple screen cause of that, but i do mainly use tripple for iRacing and i guess my 3 gb mem is too little too in DCS. Wont be a big problem as i was thinking about getting a much bigger screen soon for DCS and the like. Have only 24" now. Anyway thanks for the help and i will check those links you proposed.

I'm gonna try and explain what i would like to change here and see if anyone understands. I've just started messing with 3 screen setup for DCS and here is the thing. In the pic marked "1" we have the default cockpit view which is as everyone knows, half panel and half window if i can put it like that. In this view i've put a red circle around the problem. The horizon is angled there. Now on the other pic marked "2" the line is straight in the same spot as i've shifted the view up a bit to more of a window view. This i guess is correct in a way since we in that view look horizontally straight ahead so therefore the horizon should be straight. Now i would like to have the horizon straight in the default view since that is the view i like to use, EVEN if its not kind of correct. Note that i've read a bit in PeteP's docs about similar stuff and my bezel's have been adjusted a little, but does anyone know if this can be changed in a easy way either by means of the lua files for cameras etc. or som other way?

Yeah, that beats me too, If i go to 4.1 GHz from 3.8 i go from 39 to 37 fps avg in the benchmark. Better get a real compwiz to explain that for us. Anyway i dont really care cause i have very good performance now compared to before. Got almost 3 times the fps now. Another thing though is that i'm back to 15 or so if i setup my 3 screens. I guess i dont really understand how this works in DCS. In iRacing which i use alot i get the same performance with 3 as i do with 1. Maybe its the ultra detailed units i have in the benchmark or DCS in general? iRacing do render each screen separate too.

You could also opt to buy a 8 gb set which is faster/better for the same money as a slower 16 gb set. Will pay off if you later are gonna overclock. Although in DCS ive run my mem from 1000 to 1600 MHz and there is absolutely no performance difference fps wise. Could be a bottleneck somewhere which i havent found out. 8 gb is far and away more than enough for DCS though for regular missions/campagins.

Rather strange that the 4gb version is cheaper. Are you sure the specs are the same. Be sure of that first, I would think the GTX-670 is the best bang for the bucks right now from Nvidia, but maybe the GTX-680 soon will drop in prize. Is GTX-780 to much money for you? I gotta say my GTX-780 is just phenomenal performance wise. If you are settled for a GTX-670 and the specs and brand are the same apart from mem size i guess you would go for the 4gb. That is if you dont have to wait too long for them to get it in stock.

mmaruda..i'm speechless...which i'm usually not, but this was a superb post, very well written! Apart from bugs which hamper the game, i 100% agree!

Thanks for the humor pics! I thought i didn't mention ARMA once in my reply though. This isnt about comparing those sims in that sense. I agree very much in what you say and we need both of those sims for variety Also the ED guys are superb developers, and i guess they need to get fast moving with new stuff since they are a relative small company, Maybe i make a too much out of it out of frustration, but i guess we'll just have to see how efficient the sim will be when EDGE arrives and how much have been fixed of old problems by then. Many of the posts about bugs aren't brand new and some bugs are fixed, maybe i've been unlucky in my missions, i dont know. As i mentioned i have gotten better hardware and i do think that the sim is fragile to processing power not only fps wise so i will redo a campaign and see how it turns out. Until then happy flying.

Hehe...maybe W8 isn't that good although W7 is, but a day Linux will take over the regular desktop market is so far away that it isnt even a topic, And at that time every one of us needs to be IT professionals. Another reason Linux is a no go is that the different Linux communities use more time to compete about developing unique distros than use their time to join forces and standardize more. For regular users which most of the world users are, they shouldn't need to customize or use special versions of many apps to fit into the OS. As long as i'm allowed to strip W7/8 to the bone of unnessesary crap, am happy, cause if you do its really working well. I use both of the other major OS's too, and as an allround platform neither is even close to Windows. The thing bugging me most with W7 though is the Visual C++ and .NET redistributables which seems like real mess. Also the lack of control the OS has over the registry regarding software installations and all the leftovers in there is a mess. A windows install is always doomed to get cluttered over time, but with careful regular cleanups its manageable. I've had my install for years and i've installed and unistalled thousends of apps, but its still fast and stable. Linux has great potential, but there are too many opinions in the communities so they never seem to produce solid standards. Thinking "Great to have all these distros to choose from and all the ways to do everthing" is more likely keep them at where they are for the moment in the marked and not at the top. The company which really mess things up for those who like to explore is the one which puts an "i" in front of everything. Their even worse than M$ to put a lid on things. If their not stopped soon i will get really worried.

I guess its difficult to explain my againsts in the sim to "buttonpickers" no offense, and i dont want to dwelve much more on this subject. Fact is that ED focus more on adding stuff than getting things real stable first. I just want DCS to develop into a real good combatsim, not only a studysim where you sit and do rampstarts all day because its fun to push buttons and your studying so damn much. I would like it to be a modern Falcon too in a way the way Falcon is today. That is achivable. Especially a solid muliplayer part, BEFORE they add more stuff. The engine needs to be able to cope with lots of units in a mission in a acceptable way. DCS is not a flightsim, FSX is a flightsim. DCS is a combat flightsim. Simple as that really. If the platform is rock stable then ED will surf on good income when they add new stuff cause ppl know the system works. I would have liked to buy more modules later if the systembase contained alot less bugs. Its not strange there are alot of interconnecting bugs when they dont fix existing ones before they add even more stuff. Dont ask me to refer to any spesific, cause there are threads all over to show that. If i buy the way its now i guess it will be on sale, and thats ED's own fault. Btw. so you've flown for a year or more and haven't seen a problem thats great! Strange its so many complaints about things out of order from others then and btw. i've been following ED since more or less day one so i know whats changed over the years. Also dont worry i play other "sims" much more than i do DCS. Here i have used most time to tweak which was needed to try and get some smooth gameplay though now i have gotten better hardware and things look more promising.

Thanks alot for the help!. Then i will install DCSW on the other comp and see how it goes.:thumbup:

Agree in most you write here, but lets review a bit what seems like the real challenge for a sim like ARMA and DCS. For ED its their outdated stoneage engine obviously, but thats just the beginning. I jumped into a campaign the other day just to check it out. I was in the Black Shark and the AI leader in the group was hoovering some distance away out of view, waiting for me to take off. Just by a coincidence i hit the F2 to check him out. I couldn't believe what i saw. The damn heli was going back and fourth like a scared to death piggybaby. Thats the first thing which meets my eye in the mission. It plain an simple looked like a joke. Forget any system anomalities on my comp. It just gives me an indication on how serious the sim's AI calculating routines do their job. It dont even share enough resources to make that heli act a little realistic. Its just a bare minimum AI loop for the heli.In a combat sim AI is the over the top priority, but its also the difficult part, but AI in DCS is so bad at least the visual part that i dont even want to talk about it. Am not a pro ARMA guy at all actually, but i know when i play something which "feels right". If some of the "kids" above think DCS is more advanced than ARMA their completely out there. AI and flight dynamics is what is complex. ED has gotten the flight part right and used alot of resources on that, but a DCS filled with millions of weapons has nothing to do with if the sim really works as a package. Its all data. Its alot of work for the developers ok, but its data data data. Same with avionics. ARMA has bullets with gravity on how they travel etc etc. ED's weapons dont even hit the targets many times cause of bugs and collision detection model problems. And what about general randomness in gameplay in DCS? Ok it doesn't have a dynamic campaign, but something is not right. Guys i have sticked to DCS and before that to Flanker series, but just for shorter periods, all cause of all the loose ends in this sim, but i think i see where this is going. Whats gonna happen is that ED is gonna add all sorts of new eyecandy to stay alive because most buy their stuff cause of this and they will be so busy with that that we will never see a sim which really works. Anyway i will stop this now as i guess this is getting out of EDGE spesific matters. Thats my opinion and i am entitled to have one right? :thumbup: