xXNightEagleXx

nope. i don't even know where it resides.

What did i have done wrong? It was working fine, then i reinstalled in another directory and now i see this....useless hud. I have trackir 5 Update: Solved, easy monitor configurator created this issue.

Well technically a scripted/triggered scenario is much lighter than a dynamic scenario, not because one is scripted and the other dynamic but because a scripted scenario relies on counted aircraft doing mission practically through player path, sometimes some objects popup somewhere "far" from player path but this happens due to a trigger so basically it is because the player destroyed a bunch of enemies, detaching them from the engine. A dynamic one usually is thought as a scenario where every objects have its own objective and task, the player might spot them and decide what to do but that's just a consequence of a mix. Saving state from one mission to another is just a consequence of a campaign. As you can see a dynamic campaign with DCS standards is very very very heavy, so extreme optimization is a MUST, because the game is already heavy with its scripted/triggered engine or else we must hope that the responsible for these performance drop is the actual engine itself and a new engine that require coding from start will lead to a well performance one.

Technicality Dynamic Campaigns is not a problem itself, old games did amazing jobs (and i'm not referring only to F4). The problem is that dynamics campaigns requires a lot of skill in optimization which seems much more than ED can provide. For optimization i'm not only referring to find better algorithms but also a whole engine with tricky low level tasks. I can't provide much information due to contracts but i can guarantee that most game do practically only "high level" optimization by improving algorithms cost, just a few do "low level" optimization by changing how the SO will treat each low level behavior (eg. paging). In conclusion, DC is not a nightmare unless you can't deal with it. We cannot take in consideration F4 DC issues (such bubbles) because those were what was necessary at that time for those computers. That said what you are saying are practically high level optimization, that helps to sustain a better FPS but you might find in situation where you have huge frame drops without a clear reason (speaking about programmer side). That's why some spends a lot of money on third parts Engine but as all engines it is generalized and it might not be enough for specifics games like DCS world where you have a lot of objects and you might calculate it passively or actively (only actively is a suicide), you need low level DB that must be fast and be sure that the SO will behave in the best way, for last but not least a lot of high level optimization in the rendering process and the AI behavior........so definitely not an easy task, specially for someone who is already struggling with at SCRIPTED/TRIGGERED CAMPAING

Ok, that's why. I need full screen on! However i'm using thrustmaster MFD so i need fullscreen off to use them, unless i can use others tools to export MFDs screens

How to set DCS world main screen resolution?

Peace :)

Luckily they are good in their business or else we would find ourselves without a promising company that invest on combat flight simulators. By the way i might have expressed myself wrong, i didn't mean that all modules should cost less. Some are just amazing that's it, not perfect but amazing at least potentially speaking. As i said in my first post AT THIS STAGE considering all those negatives reports. If they improve it they will make the big step according my requirements and then they could ask even 250 $ for the license, i will be there buying! When i brought FSX as example of optimization i never mentioned flight model optimization itself. Those time are gone! Now we need dynamic flight model which is what DCS offers(amazing flight model)...END OF DISCUSSION too much cons in FSX path. That said, FSX was an example of what optimization can do and if we look at DCS WORLD we'll see that it isn't properly optimized. The neck of the bottle is not in the flight model but in the rest of the world, including the graphic engine. The bad part is that the WORLD environment is not even that complex, i would have understood if we had this performance with a complex world as Falcon BMS (but let's be clear not that world because bms is outdated and can be clearly improved). All that we have is a limited combat war scenario that struggle even on high end pc. Do you really think that it is normal to flight at 60FPS when looking straight but once you turn it drops to 20-30? I don't think so. Again DCS WORLD (IN GENERAL) FLIGHT MODEL = AMAZING DCS WORLD (IN GENERAL) COMBAT WAR = VERY VERY LIMITED Surely they are improving but still does not worth 100$ once they make that jump i will just say SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY UPDATE : With DCS world not even complex i meant in confront to what i would have expected to today in 2013, which is something years ahead Falcon BMS core. UPDATE 2: I forgot that DCS world is free which is amazing and i thanks ED. Honestly on one hand i am disappointed because i didn't know that it was free, if i new i wouldn't have bought it. On the other hand i'm happy because probably i would have remained with a bad impression. Now i know that this series have a lot of potential, we just have to be patient have hope that they keep improving.

Lol, i hope you are quoting just because i wrote it and not because you really think that i find it is an arcade game or i will think that you just write things without even read. I made clear that the avionics are pretty realistic and i never ever had mentioned cockpit (although less functions means less plane and procedures realism which lean to a less realist avionics). We have quite valid flight model in FC3. Clickable cockpits bring all to the realism point. So we can clearly divide between 3 types of customers 1. those who prefers totally arcade game (WHICH IS NOT THE CASE OF NONE OF DCS PRODUCTS). All that matters is a simplified radar system, unrealistic flight structure limits (Usually you gonna see high joystick pulls with lost of speed but not immediate stalls), easy lock system and fire, fire, fire if possible about 10+ missiles. 2. Those who prefer high fidelity flight model (which seems your case). It doesn't need to have a high fidelity avionics which leads to learn all procedures. It just have to provide a high fidelity flight model that takes care of the limits structures (usually you gonna see more accurate joystick use to avoid stalls and get the best turning ratio). The war scenario must be acceptable, not realistic but if it let's you to use weapons properly similar to real life well it is enough. Probably with a preference to smaller missions. 3. those who prefer high fidelity combat simulator. It is just not a matter of flight models (which you can find in many simulators, some better implemented ) but also a matter of how to deal with some situations. Learn how to behave once inside enemy territories, when to engage and when to avoid due to many factors (fuel, weapons, priorities), stay focus once inside own territory, etc..... well just a real war scenario.

In fact i quoted myself! I was meaning simplified version for one reason or another in confront of others modules

In fact i said, Others and I have no right to say that "Arcade" games must stay out and ED must only works on full sim. No way! I support them to increase their customers base. I was only replying to the 100+ $ guy! Just too expensive for the final product if considerate it as a AIR COMBAT SIMULATORS. If we are talking about AVIONICS SIMULATORS then it is AMAZING (imagining it without those huge performances issues). Since i was looking for a AIR COMBAT SIMULATOR, I'm still glued to BMS because it just delivers a better overall simulation (without even considering DCS performance issues), just like CoD delivers a good WWII simulator.

Good so you should know that the algorithm course is about to teach you how to calculate algorithms cost, reproduce a desired behavior and more important how to improve it with similar result but a high cost reduction. Which i hardly find it DCS A10C does properly, and i say it comparing to what i have seen and did. By the way as i said a post above, it is not only a matter of performance but also COMBAT flight simulation which is more important to simulation since performance can be solved by wasting money on hardware instead a closed software does not allow improvements easily even if you have money to waste unless the software house do it. Another thing that you have to consider is that a third part software must increase the price due to 3 factors : - Personally i don't know if MS requires royalties payments, but if they do expect some price increase. - As a software engineering you should have studied operations research and economy (i have studied economy degree itself since i started the university as economy degree), so you should know that the price curve relies on the selling curve so since a third part software will never sell more than the base and maybe not even half (not considering piracy situations) then proportionally it must demand more money to sustain its business. ED do all buy itself and a good bundle might allow to sell everything for a high but still acceptable price. Now if they are overloading themselves with projects hard to sell or non attractive is just a sign of bad business. They should analyze what it is necessary and what will sell. As a teacher told me once it is pretty easier to develop software than sell it (oversize can happens easily). - Today everyone knows that FSX without addons is nothing, they know that addons are vital for those who seek realism as air breath. Some will just pay for no matter what and selling for less money will not mean high sells because simulation's customers are very limited if confronted to console's customers. Last 2 points can be tagged as pure business! We all have seen amazing programmers/companies getting broke when it's a matter of business.

For last i will just add that someone might be misunderstanding my words. I'm not saying that DCS A10C sucks. Under some points of view it almost has no rival, it is just amazing. It falls when you take in consideration AIR Units combat scenario (which requires a lot of changes, specially maps dimension) and performance. Solved one of these it would make a huge jump and considering today's rivals, DCS A10C would be close to the be the best. If it improves the combat scenario and make it properly to air units, well....Falcon BMS might become history! This is what i'm waiting for, a complete modern combat simulator like for example Cliffs of dover is for WW2 air units.

In fact i added in theory. But you have to consider something, FS allow third parts addons and we all know that 99,9% addons out there are from third part companies. As a programmer i can clearly tell you that a software that deals with external addons sooner or later someone will pass the limits and if you are talking about a game with a very distant view, a lot of objects (active and passive), a lot of dynamics calculation (in contrary to eg BF3), etc.... it happens easily. As a programmer i tell you that flight simulator is pretty optimized! Are you a programmer? have you experience with directX, opengl and moreover code optimization? Or at least a GUI using API interfaces? Let's be clear that i'm not defending FSX nor i'm a fanboy, in fact i would never suggest as a professional simulator if the main target is to train uncommon situations! UPDATE: Last time i've ran it i had all maximized, resolution 5736X1080, trackir and still very smooth, although was without addons just for a test.

Totally agree with you. I don't see why there should be only "simulators" out there. There are others people that enjoy much more FC and they deserve that product. At the same i can clearly say that DCS A10C provide only aircraft behavior and avionics (which is good for a flight simulator), but a COMBAT flight simulator it not a matter of flight and shoot but a matter of tactics, attitude, doctrine and experience on how to deal with a 300mn flight plan where 150 mn is inside enemy air space. This is the same difference between arma and bf3, it is not a matter of aim and shoot, but a matter of tactics, attitude, doctrine and experience! Having a poor war scenario for AIR UNITS makes it a good flight simulator but a bad combat simulator!

Just to be clearer by extending your example of FSX and combat flight simulators, it is possible to say something like that about DCS. As you said FSX it is not a combat simulator even with fighters addons because although the aircraft behavior are good the whole combat system are practically non existing thus leading to a non complete product, well it is almost the same for DCS. In dcs we have aircraft behavior (which also FSX provides), we have some realistic avionics but it ends up here. We don't have a properly COMBAT flight simulation SCENARIO, probably for you it is enough but it is not even close to realism, it just remind. DCS world is perfect for lands units, but it is too small for air units since a war scenario implies that some situations cannot be provided in a small scenario like this. For me DCS A10C, could be easily compared to ARMA with very detailed avionics and amazing aircraft behavior. That's all! Now reminding my words i would repeat if it was just a matter of that, it would be nice, but you have to put on the balance also the VERY poor performance and some lacks. All that together just does not justify anything above 40$. Each improvements raise that price limit by an amount! Would you find a FSX realistic if it only had 3 airports, with almost none ATC , no tower and no navigation just takeoff and land? Surely no, even with a high fidelity avionic! Obviously those are keys aspect fundamentals for a civilian flight simulator, for a combat flight simulator you aspect long flight plans where everything can happen (not due to trigger but just plans overlapping between your, enemies and lands units). Where you have to judge each thing that you do and do it the properly way not only for the whole time you are inside enemy space but also when you are inside your own air space! I don't find realistic when the whole enemy space reside in a bubble where inside that bubble you are in danger outside that bubble you can also fall in sleep. I could make much more example but i guess that it would be useless.

First of all you don't have to be aggressive or sarcastic. My comments were as a gamer but also as a programmer and as a programmer i can clearly say that it does not worth more than that. Most game are overprices? Surely but it doesn't me that because of that DCS prices are justified. Second I would pay even 1000 dollar for a valid product if the price are proportional to what it offers (under all point of view). Comparing ARMA and BF is just arrogant because you imply that people are stupid. You place those game in the same category as high fidelity combat flight simulator (if you do that kind of example obviously you do imply it ), i guess that smarter people doesn't. Almost the same for including FSX in your example, whoever who buy it as a combat simulator is just stupid, those addons are just addons and not a whole new product, FSX will still be a civilian simulators. Since you brought FSX as example, well the history has shown that although its price has always been high (except now but only because it went out of official development), it always had good sells (considering that simulators always had a limited amount of customers, the more simulator it is the lower customers it has). Moreover FSX has shown that a non 100% dynamic simulation does not mean bad final product, in fact it is appreciated from professionals. Some prefer X-plane series due to the dynamics simulation but at the same time they still agree that FSX is still a valid simulator. Why have i said that? Because FS series show a very valid engineering approach with code optimization but still realistic behavior. The only defect of a non 100% dynamic code is that it might not allow simulate a non ordinary situation, but at the same time 100% dynamic code might not allow it due to bugs or lack of parameters. Why does it matter? Well in theory the non dynamic provide almost the same result with much less computer power, obviously if the code is poor it will struggle the same way. DCS World shows a huge lack of optimization and the phrase "but it provides a dynamic and realistic behavior compared to eg. Falcon BMS" it is not enough. In conclusion, it is not a matter of a single lack in DCS but putting all together i see no more than 40$ per module. I would and i can pay much more for a valid product but it must be a valid product. Considering its age i would rather pay 200$ for falcon bms than A10C not because falcon bms is better in all points of view (which is not) but because those where it shines are those which provide a good final product even with +10 years of gap. In fact, i play mostly falcon bms although i really wish that someday dcs series improve enough to allow me to put falcon bms behind. I really believe that DCS might archive this target but something must change in many terms.

Sorry but at this stage none of the DCS worth more than 40 $. The price is a result of many aspect : - Publisher, without publisher a product must be lesser - Realism, realistic games are way more expensive for many reason - Features, obviously a game with less features are way cheaper (eg. it is pretty faster and cheaper to implement scripted missions than a whole dynamic engine) - Graphics, this topic is so complex because it is not only a matter of the final result but also how you get it (proprietary engine or external engine, both have its own cost and it is not obvious which one is more expensive) - PERFORMANCE, well it doesn't matter how candy eye the game is or how realistic the game is, as a programmer and as all my old teach said everything can be optimized and the result can be very close to a completely complex path. DCS IS NOT OPTIMIZED PROPERLY! NOT EVEN CLOSE! - Fun, this topic is really complex when it comes to simulators. Some have fun when playing realistic games others when playing arcade but very active games. I might be forgetting some point but by taking in considerations these I could say that for publisher and realism (for some modules) DCS is doing more than fine, as for the graphics which is very candy eye (maybe too much if not took in consideration COMBINED ARMS). Things start to get worse when it comes to features and more important PERFORMANCE. Simulation is not only provided by avionics but also from environment (it is not a real war scenario where you take off, fly 30 mn, attack, fly more 30 mn, attack, fly 20 mn and land....c'mon real flight plans take much more, so scripted mission in a small map just sucks for me). Performance? It isn't necessary too many words, we all have seen that it sucks. I guess that the team lack of an engineering approach, resulting in poor code optimization. Fun? It is up to each one because each has its own taste. In conclusion, i paid 40 $ for A10C, unfortunately i didn't know that DCS world was free thus to try it first, because for sure i wouldn't have bought this game although there are some amazing things in it. I just hope for big improvements but as a programmer who works for a very big company i had enough experience to realize that if the team lacks of some sort of approach then there isn't much to hope for, they might improve but hardly will be enough, unless the team make a complete U turn and maybe also hire someone with experience in code optimization

+1 and i add 7. More realistic missions. I hate the first a10c campaign mission. Do you really think that with enemies close to the airbase they would leave aircraft in the base...no way this isn't a capture the flag where if you conquer the base you can use all vehicles of that base. I hate situation where you take off, fly a 20mn and attack....so boring.......(yeah for me the more arcade the more boring). Worst is the trigger system, very boring and unrealistic, it should be a plus not the fundamentals. For last but not least, I will repeat till the end a good base is falcon 4 which has its defects, but an improved version would be the best, obviously it would mean a better map in terms of dimension and land area (you can pretend to generate real nav plan if the map is small and most of it is water).

1 screen or 3 screen?

Thanks! I tried this and honestly the gain was not that big. That said i found what was my performance killer......... I blame myself but when i picked the monitor layout i chose the 3 screen option believing that was just a string and technically with no difference between 1 screen and 3 screen. I don't remember where but, maybe the manual, yesterday i read about 3 screen option allowed each screen to be rendered separately (like multiview in rfactor 2). In my experience all games that uses that option sees a huge FPS drop for my 7950 (except iracing). Once i switched to 1 screen all massive drop has gone (as expected). The A10C standalone gives me about 40 FPS and the A10C world falls to 28 FPS but at least both are stable now. Finally i can enjoy this game . THANKS ALL FOR YOUR HELP.

By seeing your specs I'm curious how does the game perform on your pc?

My GPU has 3 gb so i don't think that the problem is the GPU. The only possible increase COULD be the CPU but in a bugged game it might really not improve that much. Thanks anyway.

Thanks again for your tip. I just tried and you are totally right. Not only i have higher FPS but also more stable FPS so there is not the disturbing drop. Now the game is playable. I guess i will stick with this version until things get better. By the way this only proves what i'm saying. This game is bugged as hell, and while they try to improve with patch they only ended up with a worst version for some.

The thing is simple....optimization. As a programmer i can tell you that there are so many levels in the architecture where the performance can be easily lost if the code is not properly. Some people reported that SSD help to increase performance, if it so then this is clearly one of those points. A game like this should not rely on direct data access on hd during game but instead use very effective cache techniques. Since i cannot see the code it might do it but not in a efficiency way. Anyway there are others issues. So in conclusion, it is hard to tell where they f^%$^$ up the engine but obviously it is an engine issue. The only thing that we can do it is to hope that the edge engine will be efficient because this one is not and there is no doubt about his. What is your spec? By the way i did a lot of test and i believe that an overall update should help FPS but when the engine is like this you have to be lucky to match the exactly game friendly configuration or else you might get low FPS even with a monster setup just like someone inside this forum.