eFirehawk

Hi everyone, I'm loving the module so far, props to Razbam. It was definitely worth the wait. What the is highest 'usually acceptable' weight for the aircraft for landing? Theoretically, if the jet takes off with maximum takeoff weight and gets called back to base right after takeoff, would it be realistic to force the jet to land with all that weight or would the pilots dump fuel in order to go back and land with less stress on the airframe and gear? A relevant question is also, what would be considered a 'stupidly high' weight that would not be reasolable for a sortie? Thanks

Hi everyone, After many years I'm back at playing DCS. The Strike Eagle's release ( or what I thought it was due to the number of YouTube videos of people flying it ) was what got me to come back. I'm trying to get some preferences back to how they were when I played DCS last time, right after EDGE's release. Back then I would edit the Server.lua in Saved Games\DCS World\Config and change a few parameters such as gEyePoint and shoulderSize. I tried to first copy the fresh Server.lua file from DCS World\Config into the Saved Games folder and edit it there. Changes did not take effect. I tried changing the file within DCS World's folder itself to again no effect. Then I changed the parameters in the A-10C_2 folder/View and the changes worked, albeit for just that module. What am I missing here? Any particular reason why DCS does not take into account my changes in either Saved Games or DCS folder itself? It would be my preference to get it to work there since the EyePoint and ShoulderSize can be global parameters and apply to all planes. In case I have to keep making changes for each plane manually in each module's folder, what would be the cons of doing so? ( assuming original files have proper backups ) Greetings

Same here... and it happened RIGHT WHEN the wife is out for the whole day... smh

Meanwhile I'm still here with my i7 930 at 4.1Ghz... :noexpression:

Quite a shame really. As this mod for me was an absolute game changer. The viewpoint moves felt much more natural. :(

Is there a video of anyone playing a mission of this DLC, uncut? Nothing on YouTube so far, but I'm interested, especially in the pacing and voice-overs :)

I'm in the same boat. I have an i7 930 @ 4.1Ghz. As far as DCSW 1.xx goes it's not worth it, however for other games the current-gen processors offer a good performance jump clock-per-clock compared to our now very old processors. If you decide to upgrade right now for other reasons it's worth it already. However... by waiting half a year more you'll be able to squeeze even more performance gain if you skip to the new Skylake architecture. And since nowadays the performance jump from gen to gen is not very significant like it was back in the old days I think it won't hurt to wait since our processors can still do a good job :) In my case I chose to wait for Skylake.

I have no idea really. But from my past experience with the Playstation 2 games I'd say that with a plane capable of Mach 2 you can get from 1 corner to the map to the other in about 5 mins. :) I understand that map size affects performance as well as a huge number of AIs and a single AFM in DCS, however, with modern day graphics engines LODs can be greatly optimized, whatever is far enough that you can't see can be replaced by simple placeholders and what you can see can switch to apropriate textures for the distance you are, not always some blurred in-betweens. If you start to think, DCS is not as complex for a computer to handle as other games that achieved great graphics with a lot of stuff going on. Take a look at GTA V for example, even in the previous gen consoles. Look at everything that happens simultaneously in a GTA city and the graphics it has :) Does a single AFM + avionics and a bunch of SFM AIs and other land units require all THAT much computing power? I've loaded my DCS with a swarm of planes and tanks ( chaos missions are unrealistic but cool ) and the FPS hits were nowhere as close to graphical options settings even when flying solo. Again, I believe this is a matter of budget and manpower, with modern day computers you could have DCS with graphics that would leave us with very little to nitpick, however expecting it from ED is unrealistic. :) To avoid misunderstandings I appreciate the screens and still love them. I believe certain things could be improved and are possible to do so ( and what we see is WIP as well, maybe that will improve ), but would require resources that are not available for ED. For what they are, what they are achieving is extraordinary :)

Sure. It simulates aircraft made in the 80s with something way stronger than nanotubes to withstand the G stress, superhuman pilots that can support 20G turns forever and airbrakes that spawn an invisible space rocket engine in front of the aircraft. But the graphics engine is relevant :D

Ace Combat: Assault Horizon is a good example. And it runs on consoles. :) You're right though, that still doesn't change the fact that our expectations for a small team like ED is way too high. What you see in the screenshot below had a massive budget.

Yeah I get what you mean, I feel the same way, the terrain seems to be soft and blurred. Even though I think the WIP images might not closely represent what will be released, I guess the blurry textures could simply be a limitation. LOD transitioning is a difficult thing to deal with in flight sims and EDGE will be better than the current engine for sure, but I doubt it will extremely well optimized ( ED is a small team ). To get rid of that land that looks like a vanilla ice cream, I think that several higher resolution textures would have to be loaded simultaneously. Nevada will have a lot of different textures, not the same ones tiled and blended everywhere like the current map. That though could cost on performance ( and dev time ). I believe we might see LOD mods that will at least help with this :) That's just what I'm guessing though, could be totally wrong :) Everything else looks great though. Lighting looks pretty cool, can't wait to fly above Vegas!

@ Nedum: I understand that ED's estimations ( and even 3rd parties ) became quite simply jokes, with them being missed consistently by a long shot. EDGE was 'just the last 10% left' last December and NTTR was 'almost ready' last year as well, and now the news are the same and I wouldn't be surprised if it takes half a year more to get anything substantial. :) However... in their case at least in my opinion I find it understandable and acceptable. They are a small team and they are creating: - New graphics engine - New maps ( that is an insane amount of work, believe me ) - DCS level planes - A digital world in which a lot of things have to work together It's only natural to get the estimations wrong and have lots and lots of unexpected crap to deal with. And besides, they are not charging us for any of the unreleased stuff. :) As much as I understand the frustration ( c'mon, we all got little kids inside of us wanting the new toy ), that kind of thing really shouldn't make us discontent as if they had an obligation to give us a finished release for something we did not purchase yet. Anyway, see you guys! I'll be back to Assetto Corsa with its bugged graphics engine, endless physics adjustments to be done and important unreleased stu.. oh, wait. No, no I'm not gonna write this again. :P All in all, even with the confusing tone of my post: Thanks Wags for the info and good luck!! Much appreciated :)

Well, to show what's upcoming really. That all this newsletter was for and I don't recall even reading that EDGE would just show up without a new map :) EDIT: Removed some info that I realized wasn't necessary right now.

Calm down guys. I'm on the edge of my seat right now as well, and I understand that EDGE is the leading edge thing right now, but it's better to manage your expectations otherwise you might lose the edge ( I just hope that Wags doesn't ). :P Maybe the map itself is 100% done and just waiting for EDGE to be release-ready in a few months? :huh: Uh-oh, inevitably I got anxious and found myself speculating... I guess I lost the edge. Can't wait for the news. :D

Stop being so optimistic :P :lol:

Are there/will there be more airfields than just those 3 close together? I have no idea what else is there in real life :doh:

Anytime between November 2014 and early March of 2099. :D

That guy was probably me. I don't have that processor, so I'm not sure if what I will say will be useful at all. I'm still using an 'ancient' i7 930. :megalol: It's a 4 year+ processor. It was 2.8Ghz out of the box. I overclocked it to 3.5 some time ago and noticed gains in DCS. I overclocked it once again to 4Ghz and noticed a bit more improvement as well. Not more than single digits with the MiG-21 though. I assume the gains made only by processor and not much by the videocard are particular to me. The processor isn't too bad at all, as I'm running Crysis 3 maxed out with it and other games that can get quite CPU intensive. However... since DCS uses only a single thread and being pretty inadequately optimized for today's standards, it ends up being too much for an old processor like mine. Clock per clock new generations are more than 30% faster than my Nehalem according to some articles, and in my case, to be honest, the game is very playable actually! Just not with very high visibility or anything extreme. The only thing that surprised me was the marginal gains with a GTX 980 whereas everything else skyrocketed compared to my now retired GTX 570, but the game is not running bad at all. I guess you'd have pretty good performance with a new i5 or i7, especially when overclocked.

I have an i7 930 @ 4Ghz. Since DCS is very CPU-intensive that could be the cause. Same thing with City Car Driving. Other games run just fine. My issue with Assetto Corsa is jittering of the scenario, nothing related to performance. Exactly what this guy has: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLxh_moctME

I have a GTX 980 with that driver as well. No big issues in DCS + MiG-21 apart from having only marginal performance gain compared to my previous GTX 570 ( I guess that's mostly a CPU bottleneck in my case though ). I'm having small issues in another game ( Assetto Corsa ) which I didn't have before, so maybe driver updates will solve a few problems. Other games are all running perfectly fine.

@ Corrigan: To be honest I have the cash laying around to get a 4790k and a new motherboard, ( was going to upgrade everything really ) but given the fact that only the graphics card itself enabled me to max everything out even with some iterations of DSR on most of the games I play, I'll just leave the the budget getting some interest and wait for Skylake, now with that HUGE jump in framerates and a minimum of 60 on everything, I really don't see why not keep the 930 and wait 1 year for Skylake. ( unless GTA IV or even EDGE ruins the day for my 930 ). The 570 was really showing its age, and I got a good free 5 year warrany for the 980 and I believe it will last a long while even in my next build. ( Oculus could kill it though, let's see ) @ EtherealIN: I think I used the wrong choice of words really, what I meant was poorly optimized ( or inadeqaute ), I'm sorry. I understand that the graphics card can't do anything if you have lots of AI and extremely elaborate stuff to be processed, however in case of City Car Driving it is indeed poor optimization ( GTA 4 has a lot more going on, way better graphics, is older, and being a crappy PC port it was never an example of good optimization and now runs flawlessly, while CCD runs like crap ) and as much as I agree that DCS is doing the best it can given its current limitations and has a lot of stuff to calculate, it really is a bit inadequate. No multi-thread support as you said, has the whole map loaded up all the time, among other things... For me that sounds very inadequate and is not well optimized. I understand why it is and its limitations, doesn't change the fact that it just is, though. :noexpression: I compared the frame-rates flying solo, no AI units, cockpit view.

I'd say it's a CPU bottleneck really. Happened to me this week. I retired my GTX 570 and got a GTX 980 Superclocked. Most of games shooted up from 30FPS average to 120FPS+ ( such as Assetto Corsa, Max Payne 3 and Crysis 2 ), while in DCS and City Car Driving ( another poorly coded game ) there was almost no difference at all. :noexpression: My processor is an i7 930 overclocked to 3.5Ghz and I got 12 gigs of DDR3 1600.

It hasn't. ED merely introduced a "look over the shoulder" feature, which helped, but it hasn't changed anything related to how the point of view should rotate when you are looking forward or to the sides. :) Without this mod, looking around the cockpit feels unnatural again, and if I want to adjust any of the A-10s controls which are more to the back, like the knobs on the lights panel for example, I have to kinda look backwards now, which feels weird, and is something that the mod fixed originally. :smartass: That mod is a unique thing really, if you've never used it you'd probably never think that something could be improved, but after you use it, it makes a huge difference, I can't describe really.

Indeed. I REALLY miss it though :( If I install it, it still works with the A-10C and the F-15, however many of the other planes ( including MIG-21 ) don't work right. When I have time I'll see if I can find an easy way to 'adapt' the other planes as well, check what was done exactly.

I can relate, had this impression as well. Also I don't ever get any cockpit shaking during high AoA :)